asked the President of the Board of Trade, What difficulties prevent the granting the Return ordered by Parliament on the 19th June 1879, relating to the names of the existing members of the Board of Trade, and the memorandum setting forth the order or charter under which members of the Board were originally appointed? Also, When he anticipates being able to lay upon the Table of the House a detailed statement showing how the Board of Trade have disposed of moneys received from the Admiralty on account of the Merchant Seamen's Greenwich Pension Fund?

Sir, the hon. Member put to me a similar Question on the 7th of January, and I am unable to add anything to the answer I then gave him, to the effect that the Order was dropped in consequence of the Dissolution. Of course it could be renewed; but I do not think that any public object would be served thereby, as all the information is already contained in books of reference at present in the Library of the House. As regards the second Question, I am informed that Papers will shortly be laid before Parliament showing the number of seamen to whom annuities have been granted and the amount paid to each annuitant, This will comprise al moneys received by the Board of Trade from the Admiralty.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been come to on the proposal of the Famine Commission regarding the establishment of an Agricultural Department, more particularly with reference to the improvement of the agriculture of India; and, whether, as advised by that Commission, an officer has been appointed to initiate the special department which should deal with Famine Administration, and consider and mature schemes of

"Emigration from those parts of India where the condition of the agricultural labourer has been brought to the lowest verge compatible with continued existence,"

to other localities the natural resources of which are said to need nothing but labour to convert them into sources of plenty?

Sir, the Question to which my right hon. Friend refers is the subject of a Correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office. That Correspondence is not yet complete. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ask the Question at a later period of the Session, when I hope to be able to give him a fuller answer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. G. A. H. Moore, of Moore Hall, county Mayo, has, since the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, evicted a number of tenants, and, amongst them, one named Stephen Loftus, of Ashbrook, Strard, Ballyvoy, Mayo, whose family numbers eleven, and the rent of whose holding was £8 15s., while the Poor Law Valuation is only £4 7s. 6d.; whether the holding has been in Loftus's possession and that of Ids forefathers for one hundred and ten years; whether he has been left by the eviction without any employment or means of living; and, whether he will consider the desirability of advising the insertion of such clauses in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as will protect this class of tenants?

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this Ques- tion. I have not been able to get all the particulars. The man referred to was a sub-tenant, and he was evicted for non-payment of rent. There appear to have been five tenants and four subtenants.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether Loftus was evicted by Mr. Moore, or by the tenant?

That I cannot tell.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the report of Mr. W. H. Higgin on the outrages committed by foreign upon English fishermen in the North Sea; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps with regard to obtaining a convention between England, France, Belgium, and Holland, which is so urgently required? Before a reply was given to his Question he begged the permission of the House to read the following telegram from Messrs. Capps, of Lowestoft:—

"The 'Warrior,' belonging to us, fishing last night, 30 miles off Lowestoft, had 15 nets and ropes cut away by a foreign trawler. Believe done with 'Belgian devil.'"

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have communicated with the Governments of France, Holland, and Belgium with a view of dealing with this matter; but they have not yet received a reply to their communications.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords, the Rev. Edward Denny Lynch, a landlord owning property in Tipperary, has evicted among other tenants a person named Thomas Slattery, from a farm at Milltown, near Tullamore, Fethard, Tipperary; whether it is a fact that the rent of the farm was sixty pounds, while the Poor Law valuation was thirty-five pounds; that the farm had been for thirty-six years in the occupation of the Slattery's; that Slattery has no other employment or means of living than that given him by his farm, and that his family are nine in number; and, whether, if these are facts, he will endeavour to have a Clause introduced into the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to prevent such evictions in the future?

Sir, I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the date of this eviction. This occurred on the 6th of June, 1879, before the existence of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I believe that the rent was £60, and the Poor Law valuation £40. It is true that Slattery had no other means of support—no employment, and that ho depended on the farm. He was admitted a caretaker on the 20th of August, 1880.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the Rev. Edward Denny has evicted a tenant named Dennis Dooley from his holding at Milltownmore, Tullamaine, Fethard, co. Tipperary, for arrears of rent; if the rent of said tenant was £95 and the valuation of his farm £47 per annum; and, if the farm was in possession of the family of the said tenant for a period of about seventy years?

Sir, I have no doubt the land owner was the gentleman described. The name of the tenant was, I think, Dennis Loomy, not Dooley. He also was evicted in June, 1879. I believe the Question is accurate in other particulars.

said, the last part of his Question had not been answered.

Sir, it is not customary to state, in answer to a Question of this kind, what steps it is intended to take with regard to a Bill before the House. I must remind the hon. Member that the Minister in charge of the Bill is the Prime Minister.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a Return issued to Members on Wednesday the 18th instant, "of all Exports and imports of Copper and Copper Ore, &c." for the year 1880; whether he has observed that Ireland is not credited with any exports whatever; whether he is aware that the "Wicklow Copper Mine Company," incorporated under the Act 26 Vic. c. 209, have for years carried on mining operations and exported ores from the port of Arklow; whether such exportations have now ceased altogether; and, if not, whether he can state what is the reason for omitting all mention of them from the Return in question?

Sir, as this Return is prepared by the Customs Department, I have to answer the Question on behalf of the Treasury. If the hon. Member will look again at the Return, he will see that it only professes to give the exports and imports from and into the United Kingdom. It does not profess to include removals coastwise, or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I have no knowledge whether or not there has been copper or copper ore sent from Arklow to England; but if there were it would not appear in this Return.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the far greater convenience of the public, and to the saving which would be effected to the State, he will consider, in conjunction with the Board of Inland Revenue, the expediency of using the machinery of the Post Office for the collection of assessed taxes?

Sir, the Question concerns the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury rather than the Post Office; but if either of these bodies have any representation to make to the Post Office on the subject I need not say it will be carefully considered.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board is aware that the order made by them, and transmitted to the Longford Board of Guardians on the 3rd February last, directing them to appoint a duly qualified veterinary inspector, as required by the Act of Parliament, has not been com- plied with; and, will the Local Government Board take steps to compel the Board of Guardians to comply with the Act of Parliament?

Sir, I find from inquiry that the order was made by the Local Government Board, and transmitted to the Board of Guardians. The present Inspector has been acting since 1878, and has been re-appointed from time to time. The Board of Guardians expressed full confidence in his efficiency, and stated that when last appointed there was no answer to the advertisement issued by them offering to accept the post on their terms, and they think it desirable that his services should be retained. There is an order under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, that if from any sufficient cause it is desirable to appoint a person, the Lord Lieutenant may authorize the local authority to appoint a person not having the qualification of Veterinary Inspector, and it appears there was no other course to adopt in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that the 58th Regiment, which behaved so gallantly and suffered so severely at the action of Laing's Nek, is about to be sent to the unhealthy island of Mauritius?

I think, Sir, that the House will agree with me in deprecating any interference by the House of Commons with the military authorities in the selection of particular regiments for particular duties. Three companies have to be detailed from the regiments in South Africa to form the garrison at Mauritius, and the selection which the general officer commanding has made is approved by his Royal Highness and by myself.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the provisions of Her Majesty's Warrant of 5th February 1880, allowing officers to count service given under the age of twenty as qualification for beneficial retirement, have, under that Warrant, retrospective application in the case of officers who had left the Army between the 13th of August 1877 and 5th February 1880, after completing twelve year' service, above the age of twenty, but have not such retrospective application in the case of officers who had left the Army between those dates, before completing twelve years' service above the age of twenty; whether, if this is the case, the distinction in this respect between the two classes of officers was intentionally made; and, if so, on what grounds, and whether he considers the ground for such distinction sufficient; and, whether he will take into consideration the propriety of extending the privilege of counting service given under the age of twenty as qualification for beneficial retirement to officers who left the Army between the 13th August 1877 and the 5th of February 1880, before completing twelve years' service above the age of twenty?

Sir, the Warrant of the 5th of February, 1880, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, undoubtedly has the effect expressed in his first Question; but, as I am not responsible for that Warrant, which was issued on the advice of my Predecessor, I cannot venture to say what intentions may have passed through his mind. I have, however, received representations urging relaxations of the Warrant in the sense of the hon. Member's third Question; but at this moment I cannot say whether or not they will be complied with. Questions of the retrospective effect of new regulations are among the most difficult I have to deal with.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that officers who have been promoted from the ranks will be most injuriously affected by the Royal Warrant intended to take effect on the 1st July next, as these officers seldom obtain promotion to the rank of commissioned officer until over thirty years of ago; and that, as many of them have only two or three years' service, they will be compelled to retire without a pension?

Sir, I have not lost sight of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and when the new Warrant appears he will see that both as to officers now serving who have been promoted from the ranks and also as to officers hereafter so promoted, full provision has been made, insuring them sufficient pensions.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will be able to make any statement with regard to the position of the telegraph clerks before the Whitsuntide Recess?

asked the Postmaster General, If his attention had been called to the opinion given, on the 19th instant, by Mr. Attorney General, defining the legal status of the telegraph clerks, and whether he would adopt and act upon it?

Sir, some days ago I submitted certain preliminary propositions to the Treasury on the position of the telegraph clerks. Those propositions are now being considered by the Treasury in connection with the Post Office; and I can say on behalf of the Treasury, and on behalf of the Post Office, that we are both most anxious to arrive at a decision as soon as possible. As soon as a decision is arrived at I shall make it known. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), I am sure the House will see that that is a matter with regard to which I ought to have Notice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Eager, Governor of the Jail of Limerick, in which several persons are at present confined under the provisions of the Coercion Act, is the same Mr. Eagar whose conduct was brought under the attention of the House of Commons on June 1, 1869, by the late Mr. George Henry Moore, and who on that occasion was stated by Mr. Moore to have harshly and cruelly treated Mr. W. H. O'Sullivan, while imprisoned in the said jail, detaining him for fourteen days before he was allowed to see a solicitor, twenty-eight days before he could write a letter, and one hundred and twenty days before he was allowed to see his wife and children, leaving the said Mr. O'Sullivan with insufficient clothing at night, compelling him to wash filthy basins, to drink from filthy vessels, and to walk round a ring in the prison yard in silence, Mr. O'Sullivan being a political prisoner never put on his trial either before or after his imprisonment; whether, in the course of the same Debate, Mr. Chichester Fortescue did not admit that Mr. O'Sullivan was treated "with an amount of severity which was beyond the necessity of the case;" whether the same Mr. Eager did not punish the slightest breach of the silent system by the political prisoners with bread and water for forty-eight hours; and, whether in view of these circumstances, it is in accordance with the present treatment of political prisoners to commit the charge of untried prisoners under the present Coercion Act to persons exposed to such charges?

in reply, said, that he had really answered the first Question already. Mr. Eager was now Governor of the Limerick gaol, and his conduct was brought under the attention of the House in 1869. But the hon. Member quoted a speech of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt bound to call attention to a few words that went before and after that quotation. Mr. Chichester Fortescue had said that it was

"Unnecessary for him to go fully into Mr. O'Sullivan's allegations, but, after careful inquiry, he had ascertained that there was a large amount of exaggeration in his representations. At the same time his apprehension was that there was an amount of severity beyond the necessity of the case."

Then Mr. Chichester Fortescue also made use of the words that it was

"Worthy of remark that neither Mr. O'Sullivan nor any other political prisoner made any complaints of treatment whilst in prison."

He (Mr. W. E. Forster) quoted those remarks, because the hon. Member had only given part of Mr. Chichester Fortescue's observations. He had no to attempt now to go into the case, which happened in 1869; but, having looked carefully into the matter, there was no doubt that the prison regulations of that time were such as to require considerable change, and changes had been made at the time of the passing of the Westmeath Act. He did not think that in the case alluded to any special blame attached to the Governor. But he wished to state with regard to the present position of affairs that the Governor was under the supervision of the Execu- tive Government, and that the regulations were very strict in the matter. There had been no complaint against anything that the Governor had done.

wished to know, Whether Mr. O'Sullivan had not written to the public Press challenging Mr. Chichester Fortescue to prove that there had been any exaggeration in the statement of his case; whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to statements in The Freeman's Journal as to the treatment of prisoners; and whether for 20 out of the 24 hours, prisoners were confined in a cell 12 feet by 6 feet?

in reply, said, he declined to go into a case which happened in 1869. With regard to what was going on at the present time, he had answered a similar Question a day or two ago. He had no complaints brought before him. He could not take notice of complaints appearing in newspapers without any responsible authority. The orders were that any complaints made in the usual manner would be thoroughly and immediately investigated.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of certain magistrates in Ireland to grant licence to carry arms to respectable persons on the ground that they had attended Land League meetings; and, if so, whether the Government approve of the action of such magistrates?

in reply, said, that he had practically answered that Question a few days ago. Under the Peace Preservation Act magistrates were bound to exercise a discretion in any case brought before them. He must decline to lay down any general rule on the subject. If any person felt aggrieved, he had the remedy of applying to the resident magistrate himself.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has concluded any arrangements for expediting the mails to and from Inverness and the North of Scotland, in consequence of the numerous representations made on the subject?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that no arrangements have yet been concluded; but the negotiations are now being completed.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can state when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Higher and Intermediate Education in Wales will be received?

Sir, I have communicated with the Commissioners on Education in Wales, and I am informed that the labour attending the collection and arrangement of the materials and statistics necessary for the preparation of the Report and the examination of the vast amount of supplementary information furnished to the Commissioners during the progress of their inquiry has proved far greater than could at first have been anticipated. The task of arranging these materials is now nearly completed, and the Commissioners hope to be able shortly to present their Report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the statement contained in a circular of the 12th May 1881 from Mr. Samuel Charles Umfreville, of Greenhithe, to the following effect:—That some years ago, in consequence of his having obtained a true bill from the grand jury against the proprietors of cement works, the people of the works assembled with bands and having banners representing himself and his solicitor in the agonies of death. That the result of these demonstrations was that his wife was killed by the blow of a stone received at her own gate. That the perpetrator was never discovered. That persons who had signed affidavits in favour of the claims of a poor widow to compensation, were visited by crowds and intimidated and prevented from giving evidence; if he can inform the House if the banners referred to were seized and destroyed by the police; and what steps, if any, were taken to apprehend persons reasonably suspected of intimidating and inciting to violence and murder; and, whether the perpetrators have been since brought to justice?

in reply, said, he believed the events referred to were stated to have happened about six years ago. It was not easy to obtain information about circumstances which took place so long back; but, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the facts stated in the first part of the Question were without foundation. No banners, therefore, were seized or destroyed, nor had there been apprehensions of persons reasonably suspected.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can undertake at the commencement of the Session of 1882 to submit the Standing Orders for the consideration of the House, with a view by their revision to economise the public time?

Sir, we have not yet made sufficient progress in the present Session to enable me to make a categorical declaration as to what we may or may not do at the outset of next Session. But I must say that, with that reservation, I am of opinion that the condition of the House with regard to its arrangements for conducting Business now constitutes a public question of the first magnitude, requiring the earliest attention as soon as the state of Business will permit.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the annual election of Poor Law Guardians for Cromae Ward, in the Borough of Belfast, has been conducted for the present year; if it be true, as disclosed in evidence before the magistrates at petty sessions, in Belfast, on the 13th May instant, that the policeman entrusted with the delivery and collection of voting papers at said election was guilty of grave neglect in the discharge of his duty, by failing to collect voting papers in the houses of several of the streets in which he had laid them down, and in other districts having called at the residence of the voters at ten or eleven o'clock at night, when many of them had retired to bed; if it be true that the policeman in company with Mr. James R. Christian, one of the succesful candidates, under their system of election, entered a public-house in the said ward, and partook of refreshments, and whilst thus regaling themselves, is it true that the parcel of collected voting papers then in the constable's possession were opened, examined, and altered by the said Mr. Christian, or one of his agents, who was also present; and, if any or all of these assumptions be accurate, will he take into consideration the form in which the last election for the Poor Law Guardians for Cromae was conducted?

Sir, the Vice President of the Local Government Board informs me that there appears to have been some irregularity in distribution in connection with the voting papers; but the Board do not think that they should exercise their powers under the 23rd section of the Act 67 Vict. c. 92. I requested a communication from the Inspector of Constabulary in Ireland with reference to the misconduct of the police-constable on the occasion. I have not yet received his Report, and therefore I cannot say whether it will be necessary for me to bring the matter under the notice of the Local Government Board or not. I perceive, from the newspaper report referred to, that the magistrates before whom the police constable was brought on the charge of neglect acquitted him.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the declaration of the poll at the late St. Ives election:—

"The result of the polling was in the first instance declared as follows:—Ross (Conservative) 517, Pendarves (Liberal) 395; majority 122. This result took both parties by surprise, and it was at once openly declared that some mistake had been made in the counting. So strong was the feeling in the matter that the returning officer directed another counting of the votes, and the correct numbers were then found to be:—

Ross	462
Pendarves	360
Majority	—102"

and, if, in his opinion, the existing machinery of the Ballot Act is sufficient?

in reply, said, he thought the Question ought to have been addressed to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on Education, because the defect seemed to have arisen through the violation of one of the elementary rules of arithmetic. This was a circumstance which could not always be guarded against; but he did not think it afforded evidence that the machinery of the Ballot Act was insufficient.

asked if the Attorney General was aware that at the last Election his Colleague and himself received from the electors of Mid Surrey 1,330 more votes than were recorded by the High Sheriff?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now give any further information as to the duties of the eight majors of an infantry regiment under the proposed territorial organisation, and especially whether they will pay companies?

Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that the captains promoted to be majors will continue to perform their present company duties, including payment of the men; but they will be mounted. No change will, as a rule, be made in the duties of existing majors until they are promoted.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will consider what measures can be adopted to render the Return of "Life Assurance Companies," as annually issued, more valuable, by avoiding to a greater extent discrepancies of dates in the Returns, visible in the Blue Book issued to Members on the 17th May instant, as follows:—(1.) In the "Annual Returns" (Schedules 1 to 4, sections 5 and 6), taking care, even if the issue be made later, that the majority of them may be (as stated in the heading) for the previous year, in place of being (as they are in fact) forty-eight for the previous year, and sixty-six (or the great majority) for the year before; (2.) In the case of the "Valuation and Statistical Returns" (Schedules 5 and 6, sections 7 and 8), that the compilations embrace more recent periods than those in the Blue Book referred to, varying, as they do, from 1872, and, in the case of twenty-seven Companies, not being later than 1876?

in reply, said, he was afraid that it would not be possible to make the changes suggested. The accounts of Life Assurance Companies were made up to different dates; and the Act gave a period of nine months during which the Return might be made to the Board of Trade. Moreover, some of the Companies made quinquennial Returns; and in others the period was as long as 10 years. It would, therefore, be impossible to have all the Returns made up to the same date, unless the publications were kept back so long as to be practically of little value.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the statements that have been publicly made that the Boers of the Transvaal are organising commandos to punish those native tribes which were loyal to the British Government in the last insurrection, and in particular against a chief named Montsuine; and, in the event of the Right honourable gentleman stating that Her Majesty's Government possess information of these facts, what steps it is intended to take to protect Montsuine and other natives from outrage?

Sir, we telegraphed on Saturday to Sir Hercules Robinson, and have received the following reply:—

"Yours yesterday received. Administrator, Pretoria, heliographed, 11th May, that a field cornet had arrived there preceding night from Potchefstroom district, who stated Boer commando, about 400, proceeded under orders from Kronje, on 8th, to attack Montsioa, between whom and Machabi, other Caffre chief, hostili- ties had been going on. Commission called on Boer leaders for explanation. They said their reports stated that Montsioa had attacked Machabi, and was threatening Lichtenberg, and that Boer commando was simply to defend homes. We at once sent an Imperial officer, Major Ernest Buller, with Piet Joubert, to Potchefstroom, to order Montsioa to keep quiet and commando to disperse. It was arranged that kronje should appear before the Commission to explain proceedings. Montsioa was to be told that Commission would deal with whole question of Keate Award."

Governor Sir Hercules Robinson further telegraphs from Newcastle, May 22—

"Major Buller reports from Potchefstroom that rumours as to Boer commando against Montsioa much exaggerated, and no forward movement made."

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information about the reported slaughtering of 70 Caffres?

The telegrams which I have read contain all the information that has reached me.

Will any information be forthcoming shortly about this matter? It is important that we should know the attitude of the Government in connection with these proceedings.

If the right hon. Gentleman gives Notice of any Question it will, of course, be carefully attended to.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he thinks it desirable to fill the houses of honourable Members, at the public expense, with bulky copies of Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills, which they never read, or to deliver to honourable Members on every occasion when a Bill is upon the Order paper for Committee, copies of the Amendments on such Bill, when such copies of Amendments are identically, word for word, the same as those previously delivered (e.g. Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Bill); and, whether, in the interests of the Public Exchequer, he does not think it desirable to alter the practice in these respects?

The delivery of Bills and Notices of Motion to hon. Members is made under the general direction of Mr. Speaker, assisted, when necessary, by the Printing Committee. As representative of the interests of the Exchequer, I should, of course, desire that all unnecessary expense should be avoided; but I do not think that it is for me to say what papers are or are not required for the convenience of Members. I have, however, your permission, Sir, to state that in your opinion the question whether Provisional Order Bills should not be treated as regards circulation in the same manner as Private Bills is one deserving of consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Lord Chancellor, after submitting to the Town Council of the Borough of Southampton the name of James Seward Pearce, the Sheriff of the town and county of Southampton, now declines to add his name to the Roll of Borough Magistrates; and whether the ground of objection is the opinion Mr. Pearce holds in relation to compulsory vaccination, and the fact of his having been fined for non-compliance with an order under the Act; and, whether the Government purpose to make this a disqualification in the case of all justices of the peace who hold similar views?

in reply, said, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Lord Chancellor stated that the grounds of his objection to Mr. Pearce did not relate to any opinion entertained by that gentleman, but to the fact that he had been twice convicted and fined by the borough magistrates for offences against the Vaccination Act. Of these facts the Lord Chancellor was unaware when he signified to the Town Council of Southampton that Mr. Pearce was a fit and proper person to be appointed a borough magistrate. The offences of which Mr. Pearce had been guilty were subsequently brought to the notice of the noble and learned Lord, who naturally came to the conclusion that a gentleman who had not himself recognized the duty of obeying the law was hardly a suitable person to add to the roll of borough magistrates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can recommend the discharge from prison of James William Thompson, sentenced at Ripon to three months' imprisonment for alleged burglary; and for whose release a memorial has been signed by nearly 300 respectable persons, supported by many affidavits of persons in a position to form an opinion, and who believe Thompson to be entirely innocent?

in reply, said, he had investigated this case very carefully, and the result of his deliberations was that an order for the discharge of the person referred to in the Question had been sent three days ago.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is contemplated to make a present of £12,000 to Sir Frederick Roberts for his services in Afghanistan; whether, if so, such moneys are to be furnished by the inhabitants of India, or those of the United Kingdom; and, whether this House will have an opportunity to express an opinion upon this present before any decision being finally taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter?

Sir, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has a Question upon the Paper on the same subject as that to which this Question refers. Considering the exceptional character of the noble Lord's Question, perhaps he would be good enough to read it out at full length.

said, he would wait until his Question, which was the 48th on the Paper, should be reached. Perhaps the noble Marquess would read it himself.

Then do I understand the noble Lord declines to read it?

Yes.

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I have to say that I stated some time ago, in moving a Vote of Thanks to the Army in Afghanistan, that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to confer a Baronetcy upon General Stewart and General Roberts, and that, in accordance with precedents, the Council of India had voted a sum of £1,000 a-year to each of them, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500 in commutation of a pension. These sums will be charged on the revenues of India, and have been voted by the authority of the Council of India. The sanction of Parliament to this grant is not necessary, and the matter will not be brought before this House unless my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton or some other Member thinks it necessary to call attention specifically to the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) puts a Question on the same subject, and as he declines to read it, I shall myself have to put the House to the trouble of listening to it. I am asked by the noble Lord—

"Whether it is a fact that Sir Garnet Wolseley received for his eminent services in Ashantee a grant of £25,000; Whether General Sir Frederick Roberts on his return from India was definitely informed by him that, in return for his equally eminent services in Afghanistan, he would receive a grant of £20,000; and whether Sir Frederick Roberts, on his return home from South Africa, was informed that the grant of £20,000 had been reduced by him to £12,000; and, if so, why the grant originally promised has not been made?"

In reply to these Questions I have to state that I believe that Sir Garnet Wolseley did receive £25,000. But that was a grant made by Parliament; while the sums which have been voted to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts were voted by the Council of India on my recommendation, strict Indian precedents being followed. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that Sir Frederick Roberts returned home from India in November, that I never had any communication whatever with him on the subject of a pension or grant of any kind until February 26, 1881, and that in informing him of the honour which Her Majesty's Government proposed to confer upon him I used these words—

"I propose to submit to the Council of India that a grant of £1,000 a-year for life be made to you."

A day or two afterwards I saw Sir Frederick Roberts, and I had some conversation with him, the exact terms of which I cannot, of course, vouch for. The general effect of it, however, was that he felt some natural hesitation about accepting an hereditary honour when the pension by which it was to be accompanied was limited to his own life and not continued to his son. In consequence of that conversation I wrote him a letter on March 1, from which I must read a short extract. I said—

"The precedents are so clearly in favour of limiting any grant from the revenues of India to one life that I should have considerable difficulty in inducing the Council to depart from the usual course in this instance, but there have been cases in which, where the original recipient has enjoyed a grant for only a short time, it has been renewed in favour of his successor. I cannot doubt in your case, if you should unfortunately not obtain the benefit of a pension for a considerable period, the circumstances would be favourably considered by the Secretary of State and the Council at the time, but I cannot give you any formal assurance which would bind my successors and the Council on this point. I think, however, the Council would be prepared to consider favourably any request you might make to commute the grant for a capital sum."

A short time after the receipt of that letter Sir Frederick Roberts left England for Natal, having first signified to me his grateful acceptance of the honour proposed to be conferred by Her Majesty, and his wish that the pension should be commuted for a capital sum. Some delay took place in the final settlement of the matter, in consequence of its being ascertained—what had not been previously brought to my knowledge—that owing to the provisions of an Act of Parliament it would not be possible for either Sir Donald Stewart or Sir Frederick Roberts to draw a pension of £1,000 a-year while they held the offices of Commander-in-Chief in India or Madras. They finally answered, accepting a pension of £1,000 a-year when they could legally receive it, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500, which was in both cases in excess of the actuarial value of a pension of £1,000 a-year. I think this statement will show that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that I ever assured Sir Frederick Roberts that he would receive a sum of £20,000, or any sum other than that which I have mentioned. And now, having made this statement, I think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord upon what grounds, other titan those which are contained in the calumnious and lying gossip which ap- pears in certain newspapers published in this Metropolis, he has founded the Question put to me containing imputations of so injurious a character? I will also ask whether, before putting his Question on the Paper, he had taken the trouble of satisfying himself by those means which were open to him—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What means?]—by communication with Sir Frederick Roberts or otherwise, to ascertain whether there was the slightest foundation for the statements which he has brought under the notice of the House?

I have put this Question on information which came to my knowledge. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I did not consult Sir Frederick Roberts, because I regret to say that I have not yet had the honour of making the acquaintance of that illustrious General.

May I ask the noble Lord whether he had any foundation whatever for putting the Question, except a paragraph in a newspaper called Vanity Fair?

I am not in the habit, nor shall I hope over to be in the habit, of putting Questions to Ministers founded on statements which may appear in Vanity Fair.

I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether, having referred to certain actuarial calculations, he is prepared, in accordance with the Rules of the House, to lay them on the Table?

I would also ask, whether it was not in accordance with the general rule, in giving a pension of £1,000 for distinguished services, to grant it for two lives?

No, Sir. The precedents have been carefully examined, and there is no instance of the original grant having been made for more than one life, although in several cases the grant had subsequently been continued to the successors. In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have to state that I have no actuarial calculations to lay on the Table. The statement I made was founded on the information given me by the financial authorities at the India Office, and I have no doubt whatever as to its accuracy.

The noble Marquess said there were actuarial calculations; and I would ask you, Sir, whether, having referred to those calculations, he is not bound, by the Order of the House, to lay them on the Table?

What I believe I said was that the sum of £12,000 was larger than the actuarial value.

There must be some Report, Sir, on which the noble Marquess acted, and I ask whether the noble Marquess is not bound to lay it on the Table?

I do not understand that the noble Marquess has quoted from any specific document.

I wish to ask the noble Marquess, whether he is aware that his private secretary said anything to General Roberts on the subject?

It is absolutely impossible that anything of the sort can have taken place. The letter I read was copied by my private secretary, who was perfectly aware of the intentions of the Government, and he could have made no such statement as the Question of the hon. Gentleman implies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has observed that the following gravamen was adopted in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last, as an articulus cleri:—

"That it is understood that a relaxation of the rules governing the admission of Representatives in the Lower House of Parliament is proposed, and that for certain reasons this House has the deepest interest in deprecating any such relaxation at the present time;"

whether he has further observed that, during the discussion upon the said gravamen, Archdeacon Palmer asked if the Lower House of Convocation would not be acting impertinently to deal with anything connected with the action of the Houses of Parliament, and if it was not coming near a violation of privileges; whether the Lower House of Convocation did not only come near a violation of privileges, but was actually guilty of a violation of privileges in dealing with anything connected with the action of this House of Parliament; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps to convey to the clerical dignitaries and deacons forming the Lower House of Convocation the serious danger to that House of such conduct; and, whether he will relieve the anxieties of Members of this House and of electors of the United Kingdom by explaining what are the effects (if any), spiritual or temporal, of the adoption of the gravamen already referred to as an articulus cleri by the Lower House of Convocation?

Sir, my hon. Friend asks me whether I will relieve the anxiety of the Members of this House by explaining what is likely to be the effect, spiritual or temporal, of a gravamen adopted in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last as an articulus cleri. My hon. Friend has, I am afraid, been a little more alarmed than he need be by these ecclesiastical terms, due probably to the fact that he has not a very intimate acquaintance with Convocation or the individuals who compose it, for I observe in the last paragraph but one he requests me to convey to the "clerical dignitaries and deacons"—[Mr. LABOUCIIIRE: That is a mistake. "Deacons" should be "divines."]—I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that he need have no anxiety in the matter, and that the gravamen is not likely to prejudice him or any other Member of the House. I observe that the Lower House of Convocation express an opinion somewhat adverse to the admission of clergymen into the House of Commons, mid as that opinion agrees with that which has been pronounced by the House itself, I do not think we can complain of Convocation confirming our decision. Under these circumstances, having relieved my hon. Friend's anxieties, I hope that he will not expect that I should proceed any further in this matter.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received a representation from the Metropolitan District Asylums Board as to the great necessity for immediate legislation to define, and, if requisite, enlarge the powers of the Board and the local authorities of the Metropolis to enable them to discharge the duties imposed upon them under the Act of 1867, in making provision of adequate hospital accommodation for smallpox patients; and, if he will state what course he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir, I have received a representation from the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District as to the alleged necessity for legislation to define and enlarge the powers of the managers and the local authorities. Independently of and prior to this the subject had much engaged theat tention of the Board. We are now in communication with the managers for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the amendments of the law which appear to them to be required. When we have received the reply of the managers, we shall be in a better position to determine what steps it may be expedient to take; but at the present moment it would be premature to express au opinion on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the murderers of Captain Elliott have as yet been apprehended; and if so, before what tribunal, civil or military, in or out of Her Majesty's dominions, they will be tried?

Sir, we telegraphed on Saturday, and have received the following reply from Sir Hercules Robinson:—

"Yours 21st. Persons accused of murdering Elliott have not been apprehended. Case is in hands of Attorney General, Transvaal, who will act with all expedition possible. Boer leaders promise co-operation. President Brand has taken steps to bring to trial persons accused of murder of Barber, which was committed within Free State."

I mentioned on Friday that the persons accused of murdering Captain Elliott would be tried by the High Court of the Transvaal under the existing law.

Considering that this murder took place four months ago, under circumstances of peculiar treachery and cowardice, I should like to know whether any communication has passed between the Government and the leading Boers asking for an explanation why greater despatch has not been used in the arrest of these malefactors; and whether the Government are prepared to remove this trial from the Transvaal to the Cape or Natal in order that there might be a proper administration of justice?

I cannot answer the first Question off-hand. As to the second Question, the Commission has made the decision that the murderers are to be tried by the existing High Court of the Transvaal.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any communications have been made to the Chambers of Agriculture with respect to the duties proposed to be levied on agricultural produce under the new Treaty with France?

in reply, said, communications had been made by the Foreign Office to the Chambers of Commerce; but he was not aware whether any had been made to the Chambers of Agriculture. The matter should receive his attention.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in accordance with the Resolution unanimously adopted on a recent occasion by the House, he will move the insertion of a Clause in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill abolishing the right of distress for rent in all tenancies to which that measure applies?

I am not desirous to see the practice established of putting Questions such as this on matters relating to Bills which happen to be before the House. Notice of two Amendments has already been given in connection with this subject, and as the matter is one which has many branches and considerations bearing on it, I would rather that it was reserved until the Committee stage.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Protest addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Russia, relative to the expulsion of Mr. Lewisohn, a British subject; the text of the Russian Law bearing on the question; and of the notice stated to have appeared in the "Gazette" warning Jewish subjects of the Queen generally of the existence of prohibitory Laws in Russia as to their residence in that Country? He also wished to ask the hon. Baronet, whether he has seen a description by an eyewitness of recent outrages in Kieff, and a translation of a Russian account of these outrages, from which it appeared that thousands of men, women, and children had been left without the means of subsistence; that many of them were killed; and that the perpetrators of these outrages were under the special protection of the civil and military authorities? If so, he wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abstain from making any representations to Russia on the subject until they received an invitation from some other Power to do so?

Sir, I informed the House a few days since that, with the exception of at Odessa, Her Majesty is not represented at any of the towns where these riots have occurred. We have telegraphed to Odessa for full information, and we have received a telegram from the Consul General there. We hear that the riots at Odessa have come nearly to an end. They had ended entirely on Friday, but on Saturday there was some slight disturbance. No persons were killed at Odessa, or apparently dangerously wounded; but a large number of windows were broken and property taken away. There appears to have been 1,000 arrests made at Odessa by the Russian Government, and between 600 and 700 of the rioters are now in prison. It is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House the laws and regulations affecting the residence of Jews in Russia, and as soon as Her Majesty's Government are in possession of an authenticated copy of these documents they will consider whether any steps can be taken to obtain a modification of the laws in question. Lord Dufferin had more than one personal interview with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and addressed formal notes to him on the subject on the 27th of January and 19th of February last. The Gazette notice referred to appeared in The London Gazette of August 7, 1860.

asked whether Her Majesty's Government would follow the example of their Predecessors in the case of the Bulgarian outrages, and depute a Special Commissioner to make inquiries in Russia?

The hon. Member must give Notice of that Question.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has seen a statement made at a meeting of London telegraph clerks on Saturday last, "that some of them had worked twenty-one consecutive hours;" whether the statement is true; and, if so, what rate of overtime is paid for such exceptionally severe labour; and, how far is liability to such excessive hours prevalent at other large offices?

Sir, in the inquiries I have been lately making into the position of the telegraphists, I have seen reason to direct particular attention to the question of overtime. Although the length of the ordinary day's work is eight hours, it is often arranged that the 16 hours worked in two days should be divided into a short day's work of three hours, succeeded by one of 13 hours, and after working 13 hours, the telegraphists not no frequently volunteer to work overtime. It has occasionally happened that a telegraphist has been on duty 21 hours. I am sure that such an amount of continuous duty must be alike injurious to the telegraphist and to the interest of the Public Service. In the proposals I am about to make with regard to the future position of the telegraphists, the question of overtime will be dealt with in such a way as will, I hope, prevent such excessive employment in future.

asked the Ender Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have or will come to a clear understanding with France as to the future position of British subjects in Tunis; whether their rights and privileges, as established under the Convention of 1875, are to be respected and maintained; and, whether France will assume the right and control the action of the Tunisian Government in respect of the renewal, revision, or denunciation of conventions now existing between Tunis and this Country, even if to the detriment of British subjects?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government consider that the position of British subjects in Tunis is established by the Convention of 1875 between this country and the Regency, and the hon. Member will find in the Papers already distributed that Her Majesty's Government have explicitly stated to the French Government their views with regard to the rights of British subjects under existing Treaties. I may point out to the hon. Member that Article 40 of the above-mentioned Convention specially provides that, although at the expiration of seven years from its conclusion, either of the high contracting Powers shall have the right to call upon the other to enter upon a revision of the same, yet until such revision shall have been accomplished by common consent, and a new Convention concluded and put into operation, the present Convention is to remain in full force and effect. With regard to the hon. Member's second Question, I can add nothing to what is stated in Lord Granville's Note to M. Challemel Lacour of the 20th instant., which will be found in "Tunis," No. 3, page 10.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that an Order has been issued for the compulsory slaughter at the ports of landing of all cattle from Spain and Portugal; and, if true, whether he will state what is the reason for the issue of this Order?

Sir, I regret to say it is true that the Privy Council have been compelled to withdraw the exemption from slaughter at the port of landing which has hitherto been extended to Spanish and Portuguese cattle. The grounds on which we have revoked this exemption are the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in the North of Spain, in consequence of which the French Government have prohibited the importation of Spanish cattle into France; and the prevalence of foot-and-mouth, disease both in the North and South of Spain. We have not taken this step until after the fullest inquiry, and the most careful investigation on the spot, not only by our own Consuls, but by an experienced English veterinary surgeon. Having satisfied ourselves of the prevalence of disease in Spain, that country ceased to come within the conditions of the Act of 1878, under which alone foreign animals can be exempted from slaughter. The absence of any regulations in Portugal which would prevent the transit of Spanish animals, made it necessary to take the same course with regard to Portugal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the names of the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the Commercial Treaty with France; and, whether it is intended to take the evidence of experts from various parts of the Country during the sittings of the Commission?

Sir, the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the Commercial Treaty with France will probably consist of myself, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, K.C.M.G., C.B., Secretary and Controller-General of the National Debt Office, Mr. C. M. Kennedy, C.B., Head of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Crowe, Her Majesty's Consul-General at Düsseldorf, and Commercial Attaché at Berlin and Vienna. Every opportunity will be afforded to manufacturers and the representatives of various industries in this country to afford information to the Commissioners on points connected with the proposed tariff before any arrangement is entered into.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the honourable Member for Tipperary has returned from the infirmary in Kilmainham Prison to an ordinary cell, in consequence of the fact that the authorities of the prison put other persons to occupy and sleep in the room at first allotted to Mr. Dillon solely, and that under these circumstances he could not procure needful sleep; and, whether, in view of the delicacy of Mr. Dillon's constitution and the precarious state of his health, the Government will give him for his sole occupation a room in a suitable portion of the prison? He also wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, owing to the fact that there is but one cell provided in Kilmainham Prison for interviews between persons detained there and visitors, and that only one visitor is admitted to the prison at one time, it is impossible for more than twenty-four of the prisoners to receive visits on any day within the specified hours; and, whether, as the number of persons now detained in Kilmainham is much larger than the number capable of receiving visits under the present system, and as visitors are put to the inconvenience of long delays, and persons detained are deprived of the exercise of the right to receive a daily visit, a right ostensibly secured to them by the rules, the Government will take steps by increasing the number of visiting cells or otherwise, to secure that each person entitled to a daily visit shall be actually in a position to receive it?

Sir, I am informed that the reason why Mr. Dillon wished to be taken back to his cell is not that stated by the hon. Member. There are three visiting cells at Kilmainham, and it is not the fact that one visitor only is admitted at a time. Fifty or 60 visits may take place daily.

Will a room be set apart for Mr. Dillon's use?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me sufficient Notice I will inform him of the position of affairs in that respect.

Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many hours on an average the hon. Member for Tipperary is compelled to remain in his cell alone?

I wish to point out to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has already given Notice of the Question of which the right hon. Gentleman now requires further Notice.

I can give no answer to that Question until I know what representations Mr. Dillon himself has made to the directors of the prison, and what their reply has been upon the subject. The Government will give every reasonable attention to such representations as Mr. Dillon himself may make, but they must be representations made by him.

I think there is more in this case than seems to be imagined. I think, Sir, it is absolutely necessary that we should be satisfied upon this point—that the hon. Member who is now in prison in Kilmainham shall not suffer more inconvenience or greater hardship than if he had been in prison in this House for contempt of the Orders of this House. The hon. Member has a right to be here under ordinary circumstances. He should be here taking part in the debates in this House; but we know that he is in prison, not because there is any charge against him, but because he is suspected. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the House an assurance that the hon. Member shall not be subjected to greater hardship than if he had been a prisoner in this House for a contempt of its Orders?

Sir, I think I have already given an answer which applies to one part of the Question of the hon. Member. Mr. Dillon will certainly be subjected to no cruelty, and, as I have said, every attention will be paid to any representations he himself may make to the prison authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state the reasons why York has been preferred to Berwick on Tweed as the head quarters of the King's Own Borderers, a Regiment essentially Scotch in its privileges, history, and origin?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the 25th Regiment has been localized at York since the year 1873; but that we have endeavoured to see whether some arrangement might not be made more in harmony with the traditions of the regiment, whose title is the Borderers, by moving them to Berwick. But this would have necessitated arrangements as to the affiliated Militia battalions which are practically impossible, and also would have raised difficulties as to barracks. With great reluctance, there- fore, I have decided that it will be best to leave matters as they are.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the scheme for the Hulme Trust has left the Education Department; and when it is probable that it will become Law?

Sir, the schemes for the Hulme Trust were sent some time ago to the Charity Commissioners for the purpose of having certain alterations introduced, which, it is hoped, may prove satisfactory to the various parties interested. The amended schemes have now been returned, and approved by the Education Department, and unless further objections are made, there is no reason why they should not become law in about two months.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether field officers retired from the Auxiliary Forces with permission to retain their rank, are eligible fur the honour of the Companionship of the Bath about to be bestowed on a limited number of the field officers of those forces; and, whether that honour is to be confined to field officers in active service?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the selection of officers of the Auxiliary Forces for honorary distinctions is made as a general rule from officers in active command of regiments; but those who have retired from the command and have been appointed honorary colonels of their regiments, are not considered absolutely ineligible for those distinctions.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was a fact that since the issue of the Circular, which was published in the "Freeman's Journal" on Saturday, the arrests of persons "reasonably suspected" by the police had not more than doubled in number?

wished to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which he gave him Notice earlier in the evening—namely, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Freeman's Journal" of Saturday, which has been published in several London journals of this morning, purporting to be the text of a Circular alleged to have been issued by the Inspector General of the Irish Constabulary, regretting that the police have been unable, in a great majority of instances, either to give grounds of "reasonable suspicion" of the perpetrators of the outrages, or of those who instigated them? He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether such a Circular has been issued; whether the "Freeman" correctly reproduced it; and, if so, whether it was issued with the knowledge and sanction of the Irish Executive?

also asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question of which he had given private Notice.

I understand the Question put by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to be the same as that put by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). I can state that the confidential Circular which I have seen in The Freeman's Journal of yesterday is, so far as I have been able to compare it, authentic, and has been issued with the knowledge and approval of the Executive Government, and, I may State, of myself. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), I shall be ready tomorrow to give the reasons why that Circular was issued.

With reference to that observation, I wish to know whether it is understood that there is to be a Morning Sitting tomorrow?

Yes, Sir.

wished to ask whether the following portion of the Circular had the full approval of the Chief Secretary when it was issued:—

"This document is not to leave the hands of the County Inspector, and must be kept under lock and key, and any orders to insure its being carried out must be communicated verbally to the sub-inspectors, head, or other constables as emanating from the County Inspectors themselves."

He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government gave instructions that deliberate misrepresentations should be made? [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member is passing beyond the limits of a Question.

If it will be necessary for me, in face of such a grave scandal, I will move the adjournment of the House. I do not wish to do so; but I wish to say unless the Chief Secretary gives explanations, and unless the explanations—

The hon. Member is now using language menacing the House.

If I am in fault, it was not my intention to be so; and I hope, under the circumstances, I shall be excused. The Question I have to ask the Chief Secretary is, Whether this Circular was issued with his full knowledge and sanction; and if it was intended that a misrepresentation should be conveyed by the County Inspectors to the sub-inspectors, head, and other constables, as emanating from themselves?

The hon. Member has not concluded with a Motion, and has, therefore, been guilty of an irregularity.

I said that unless the Question was answered, I would move the adjournment of the House.

Sir, I wish to say that I understood the Question of the last hon. Member to refer to the Circular itself. I believe that it is exactly and fully authentic. I approved of it; and I will, at the proper time, give my reasons for it. As to the paragraph which has been read, I shall be prepared to-morrow to state everything I know in regard to it. I cannot, at the present moment, say more than that; but I will give a full explanation tomorrow.

Sir, to put myself in Order, I will conclude with a Motion. I must express my regret that a Minister of the Crown has not, at the earliest moment, availed himself of the opportunity of repudiating any knowledge of the Circular. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether it was his in- tention to persevere with the Clause in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Railway Carriages?

Sir, it is not a clause in the Revenue Bill; but I wish to make a short statement on the subject, and also on another point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. This proposal, of allowing strong liquors to be retailed in Pullman cars, was viewed by the Railway Companies who made the application, and by the Board of Inland Revenue, as simply a matter of administration. They were not at all prepared to expect that it would be regarded as a proposal of a revolutionary character. To dispose of their proposal would occupy several hours of the time of the House, and it is not my wish, since it is comparatively unimportant in relation to other matters, to ask the House to devote several hours to it. The proposal has been killed by the menaces to which it has been exposed. With regard to those who have opposed it, I should be glad if they would supply the Board of Inland Revenue with any suggestions they may have, so that they may be considered if the proposal should appear in a future year. I have also to state that, in fulfilment of the conditional pledge which I gave on Friday, it is my intention to ask the House to meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow, for the purpose of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and any kindred topic.

Charles Stamp is coming home in the Dana, which started from Sydney on the 5th of March, to call, perhaps, at New Zealand and at the Falkland Islands on the way. The vessel will not have arrived before July. On his arrival in England I will see that his case is at once attended to. according to my promise to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, Whether the garrison besieged in a castle in the county of Limerick was still holding out against the large military force which had been sent against it; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause a map to be prepared and placed in the Library, which would enable hon. Members to follow the course of the military operations in that part of the country?

rose, pursuant to Notice, to move—

"That the annual consideration of the measures imposing taxation should be accompanied by a Ministerial Statement of Local Taxation and Finance, so as to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing as a whole the requisitions made on the Nation for local as well as Imperial purposes."

He said, that he had hoped that such a statement as was indicated in the terms of his Notice would have been made on the subject of Local Finance. The question of local expenditure, local receipts, and local indebtedness was really one of national importance when they came to consider the growing figures which it involved, and he thought they ought to have the matter placed before them in as clear and comprehensive a manner as was done yearly in the case of Imperial Taxation and Expenditure. The Returns relating to Local Finance were extremely difficult to analyse, and rather difficult to understand, while the time at which the country received them was not a period when they were likely to command the attention they merited. In 1873 he had himself introduced a Bill into that House to require all local authorities to make a return of their accounts at a stated time; and, further, to provide that a responsible Minister—he thought the President of the Local Government Board—should produce as early in the Session of Parliament as practicable a succinct abstract statement of those accounts. That Bill had in it what he deemed a very useful clause—namely, one providing for an official audit of all the public accounts of local authorities. That proposal met with a most strenuous opposition from the boroughs, and when the Bill came from Committee as amended, that clause was struck out. The Bill reached the stage of the Report; but it excited dissatisfaction among those who administered the affairs of local authorities, and it failed to pass. At the end of that Bill there was a tabular statement, of no great length, setting out the form in which the accounts of local authorities could be rendered in a way which those who ran might read and understand. In 1875 the subject of Local Finance was felt to be of such moment that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House upon it early in the Session in introducing the Public Works Loans Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) then said that the attention of Parliament itself and that of the various local bodies who administered Local Finance ought to be drawn to that subject, and, above all, to the contraction of debts. He quoted from an able pamphlet written by the then hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), who said—

"That while the attention of the Nation is annually concentrated on the total amount, and on the items of Imperial Taxation, the particulars of Local Finance are known only to a few statisticians. The vast amounts expended and the extent of the loans contracted by these local bodies could not otherwise have escaped notice."

He also remarked that the Government wished to provide some system by which the attention of the Government might be directed to the progress of local income, expenditure, and indebtedness, at a reasonable time. Now, it was on the reasonable time that he desired to in-insist; and the reasonable time, he ventured to submit, was as near as might be to the time when the Statement as to Imperial Finance was laid before the country, so that a comparison might be made between those two kinds of Finance, and that, while they might be congratulating themselves on reductions in the one, they might not overlook the enormous progressive increase in the other. The two subjects were not entirely disconnected. It was obvious that what was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in remissions of taxation did not, of necessity, diminish the need of expenditure or make the expenditure less. What he meant was this—it might be thought right at some not very distant day to reduce the grant from the Imperial Exchequer for, say, Education; and it was obvious that the loss caused by any withdrawal would have to be made by a demand on the public pocket in the form of a rate. In the year 1876, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was then President of the Local Government Board, made a statement on the subject in Committee of Supply; but it was then too late to serve the desired purpose. The following year, much earlier in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman made another statement on a Resolution as to Public Works, which immediately excited the attention of some of the leading Members of the House, and in particular of the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who made use of a very remarkable term, and, speaking out of the fulness of his heart, characterized the local authorities, and justified their existence, as "machines for spending money," though he qualified that function by limiting it to spending "wisely." It was as the mouthpiece of a great spending authority that that right hon. Gentleman came to the Government for loans at a low rate of interest, and as the representative of a town that had already borrowed £5,000,000, and wished to increase its loan. For himself, he wished to cast no doubt on the probably remunerative nature of that loan; but it was proverbially true that money come by lightly would also go lightly. The question of local debt was one of such magnitude that an early annual statement ought to be made on the subject, to mark and call attention to its importance. In 1878 there was another early and comprehensive statement made by the then President of the Local Government Board; but that good practice was not continued in the following year, and it totally disappeared, in a satisfactory form, in 1880. That was an exceptional year, on account of the General Election; but hon. Members interested in the subject were then reminded by the President of the Local Government Board that they would be able to get what they wanted from the Local Taxation Returns. Those Returns, however, did not supply the necessary particulars, or, at any rate, did not supply them in a convenient form. They were defective, and, in some particulars, inaccurate and misleading. They were so voluminous as to confuse and baffle all but experts, and even an expert would have to search through 200 pages in order to arrive at facts which might easily have been stated in four folios. He asked the House to consider some of the items of this expenditure. Comparing the accounts of the year 1874, as presented in a tabulated Return for which he had himself moved, with those of 1879, which were the latest he had the material for computing, he found that during that period the expenditure in connection with education had increased from £1,200,000 to £3,354,000; the expense of police, in spite of a Government subvention, had risen from £2,630,000 to £3,035,000, and was still increasing. As to the loans themselves—and it was there, after all, that the danger really lay—they would some day or other have to be met by rates, and were therefore a specially important branch of the question. The total of the loans had risen between June, 1874, and Lady Day, 1879, from £84,000,000 to £128,500,000. The whole National Debt was something under £720,000,000, and would have to be paid off not more imperatively and necessarily than these local loans. Again, the duration of local loans, the periods for which money was borrowed, had to be considered by the House. One great municipal body had borrowed £1,000,000 in perpetuity, as though the prosperity of the town it represented—in which, by the way, murmurs of reciprocity had lately been heard—would last for ever. Long terms, such as 50, 60, or 100 years, were not uncommon; and he had known an important Metropolitan authority borrow money for 60 years in order to effect improvements that could not by any possibility last for half that length of time. He might mention, by way of illustration, that he had in his mind a case in which a number of boilers that had already been repaired had been purchased by money borrowed for the term of 60 years. The effect of refusing or withholding such a statement as he asked for would be to check all reforms in the right direction, to leave reformers with a sense of having blindly to pay more every year than they did the year before, and to excite in their minds a grumbling spirit, without the information essential to an intelligent comprehension of the points towards which reforms should be directed. An idea was still widely prevalent that if you could get an object carried out by means of the rates, you would get it done for nothing; that everybody benefited, and that nobody lost. The prevalence of this idea had a most demoralizing effect. He awaited with much interest the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman would make on this subject, and hoped he would not say that the matter must be postponed until the great question of local government had been settled. In his belief, the accounts could be worked out and presented to Parliament without waiting for the settlement of that very important question. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.

said, he sincerely sympathized with, and cordially supported, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He had on former occasions called the attention of the House and the country to this important subject, and had endeavoured to persuade the House that it was absolutely necessary that an annual Local Budget should be presented to Parliament, and that they should have an annual abstract of Receipts and Expenditure for all money levied from the ratepayers for the different purposes of the different local authorities. His hon. Friend in 1872 had aided and assisted in that object, and he ventured to say that if the proposal and policy were good, then the arguments in favour of it now were much stronger. He ventured on that occasion to draw a distinction between Imperial and Local Taxation, and he said that whilst every expenditure with reference to Imperial Taxation was scanned within that House with the greatest caution, and with great scrupulousness, yet in the question of local Taxation they were indifferent and apathetic to the whole subject. The accounts of the one were clear and ex- plicit; but the accounts of Local Taxation, on the contrary, were obscure and complicated, and almost unintelligible; whereas every item of our Imperial Taxation was under Parliamentary administration, and under the supervision of the Government, with reference to Local Taxation we were comparatively indifferent—he might say supremely apathetic—in respect of the mode and means by which these vast sums extracted from the ratepayers were expended. He had strongly urged that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for Imperial Taxation, the President of the Local Government Board should be made equally responsible for Local Taxation Expenditure. His hon. Friend had told the House of the Bill he had introduced in the year 1873, and which, had it passed, would have been a boon to the country. He suggested that there should be an Annual Budget of Local Taxation, and that that Budget should be made up at one period of the year. His hon. Friend had then been fortunate in one respect; he then got the assistance of a Member of the Government, the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); he carried that Bill through Committee, but, like other private Members' Bills, it did not advance any further. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in 1875, announced in the House that he advocated the principle and proposal in his hon. Friend's Bill, and he then initiated and established a Local Taxation Budget; and for the years 1876–7–8 they had an Annual Budget which was most interesting to that House and to the country. For the next two years it was omitted. But, as he had said before, if it was needful and necessary 10 years ago to have an Annual Statement of Local Taxation, it was far more important that they should have it now, for the rate of local expenditure and local indebtedness was alarmingly on the increase. It would scarcely be credited that 10 years ago local burdens were less than now. Notwithstanding that the late Government had given upwards of £2,000,000 in remissions, the burdens had increased by the imposition of now taxes—education, highway, and sanitary rates—so that positively all the boons granted by the late Government had been absorbed by new taxation for new objects. How was it on reference to their local indebtedness? They were actually increasing their local indebtedness at the rate of £10,000,000 per annum, and at this present moment he thought it would be found that our local indebtedness was £150,000,000, and that was considerably more than the rateable value of the property of the United Kingdom at this present moment. They had been endeavouring of late years very much to decrease the National Debt; yet, at the same time, they had been creating another kind of National Debt, far more rapidly, and at a much greater rate, than they were diminishing the old one. They had been creating a now debt in their local indebtedness. That debt was really amounting, at this moment, to almost the National Debt of many important States. He was one of those who thought that the mode and the means by which they had allowed money to be borrowed by their local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners was radically wrong. We were thus giving undue facilities for borrowing money. He thought it had been an inducement to those local authorities to spend more money, and to spend that money more extravagantly than they otherwise would. He also thought that the mode and means which they had given them of spreading the repayment over such a very lengthened period was also a temptation to borrow money. It was hardly right in them that they should be drawing bills upon posterity for almost every conceivable object, throwing undue responsibilities upon them, and expecting posterity by-and-bye to pay them. It was not improbable that posterity might have many wants and requirements of their own; just as much as we had in the present generation; and he did not think that they would be particularly well pleased to find that we had mortgaged their securities so heavily and so severely as we had already done. We had no right to lighten our burdens and responsibilities by transferring so large a proportion of them to posterity. The system of Government Loans, except under very exceptional circumstances, was bad. Money was particularly plentiful and cheap at the present time, and if the security was good there was no difficulty in any local authority going into the open market and getting as much money as they required. In 1875 the late Government passed a Local Loans Act, and he would like to know why that had been so little utilized? Was it that the Public Works' Loan Commissioners were advancing their money on cheaper terms than it could be got in the open market, or were less particular as to securities? No doubt a certain amount of debt must be contracted by local authorities to carry out the various social and sanitary improvements which the Legislature was continually imposing exceptionally on the owners and occupiers of real property; but if local authorities went into the open market they would be more careful than when, as at present, they could run up large accounts with the Commissioners. It was not to be expected that local authorities should find money for the improvements that were forced upon them out of current revenue; but still Government ought to be much more cautious in sanctioning these debts. Greater care and more stringent regulations should he exercised, and their repayment should not be spread over so lengthened a period. In many instances there was an entire absence of any efficient and independent system of audit with reference to the application of these vast sums. All the accounts of the local authorities should be subjected to the same audit as that of Poor Law authorities and school boards, and be regularly published every year. He seconded the Motion, as ho was perfectly satisfied, if attention was called to our Local Taxation and our local indebtedness by an Annual Budget Statement from a responsible Member of the Government, we should better realize our responsibilities, and be a deal more careful and cautious in incurring them.

said, he could not help thinking that it was not necessary to argue the Motion. They were all agreed that the whole subject of Local Expenditure should annually be brought before the attention of Parliament; and the only question was how that could be best accomplished. His work in this matter had been the humble one of collecting information; and in the course of his inquiries it appeared to him that the only chance of our local government being efficient, and our Local Taxation being moderate, was to have the whole subject placed on such a footing that the ratepayers should know what they were spending, and for what purpose the money was spent. To do that they must begin at the beginning, and not at the end—they must begin in the localities themselves. He thought they ought to have in every locality, in place of the present chaotic system, one local and spending authority. When that was accomplished they could then know for what they were being taxed and what they were paying. How was it possible to know that at present? In the district in which he lived, within a radius of a few miles, there were 35 taxing and spending authorities. He defied any man in that area to say where one must look for a check upon abuse or mismanagement. His proposal was not only desirable, but it was practicable. In speaking a few years ago with the present Lord Reay, then a Member of the Dutch Government, that gentleman said that Holland was perfectly satisfied with its local government. He (Mr. Rathbone) then said that that was the only country which he ever knew was satisfied with its local government, and he wished Lord Reay would undertake to get a statement of how they managed there to content the people with the local government. That statement had been obtained; and really the whole success lay in the principle which he had mentioned. The Dutch, he believed, originally derived their system of local government from this country; but, instead of letting it grow up, they took care to put it upon a regular system, and their system was the having one primary local government doing all the work for the district. The local authority brought in a Local Budget on the 30th September every year. The Budget lay on the Table until the following 1st January. It was sent up to what we should call our County Boards, and also to the Central Government; and if either of those bodies found that anything had been done which trenched upon their management, or was contrary to the powers and the duties of the local board, they had the right to object; but if no objection was made, the Budget became law on the 18th of January every year. It would be apparent to the House that if we had such a system in this country there would be no difficulty in the way of the President of the Local Government Board annually laying before the country a statement of Local Administration, Taxation, and Finance. It would be also evident that this Budget coming once a year before the locality in general debate, which brought everything that was interesting to any portion of the ratepayers before them, would meet with general attention and criticism. The consequence in Holland was that enormous powers had been given to the local authority. The primary local authority in Holland could levy any tax which was not levied by the Central Government; but yet those large powers were kept in check, and the local authorities there were economical and efficient.

thought there could be no doubt that the Resolution, if acted upon, would have a very material effect in reducing the powers of local bodies in reference to borrowing money. It was a great mistake that the House did not lay down in broad principles that each generation for local purposes should pay its own debts, and that no borrowing powers should be given to local authorities extending over a period of more than 30 years. Anyone who had experience of local authorities knew that they preferred to borrow at 4 per cent if they could throw the loan over 50 years, rather than borrow at 3½ per cent if the loan had to be paid off in 30 years. The question always was—"Over how many years can we throw this debt, and how little can we pay year by year?" Unfortunately, the interests of owners and occupiers were at variance in that respect. The latter wore only anxious to borrow as much money as possible, and enter upon as large an outlay as they could, because it brought them immediate benefit. Owners naturally took a different view. He hoped, therefore, that Parliament would lay down the principle that each generation should pay the cost of its own fancies, instead of throwing its debts over 50, 60, or 100 years. He would also say a word as to the unfair incidence of burdens according as property was freehold or leasehold. At present, if there was a number of leasehold houses on one side of a street, and a number of freehold on the other, the one paid 3 per cent Probate Duty, and the other nothing, or next to nothing. It was a perfect scandal, and could be supported by neither rhyme nor reason. There should be no such distinction. Property should be divided into rateable and non-rateable, and the Probate Duty should be levied at different rates accordingly. Of course, the manner in which it was dealt with in the present Bill could only be regarded as fragmentary, and he hoped at a future time the subject would be grasped in a more general manner.

Sir, I think there is great force in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman from the other side of the House with respect to the question of Probate Duty. There is no doubt whatever that that is a subject which must be taken into very serious consideration by Parliament. This much I said on a recent occasion, and I also pointed out that until the House had determined what it would endeavour to give to the Statute Law and other matters, it was not possible to legislate upon the subject of both duties. I pass from that, because I think it is understood this debate should have for its main object to deal with the subject raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). With the spirit and aim of his speech I entirely sympathize, as I do with the speeches made since the hon. Gentleman sat down. I am very glad we are not placed in conflict with the terms of the Resolution; because, although some little objection might be taken on the score of ambiguity, I should be sorry to seem to be in opposition to him. This question is so large and complex that it is difficult to give a full view of it except in lengthened debate; and, therefore, I must beg the indulgence of the House if I do not at present take a full view of it. I have already expressed my thorough sympathy with the speech made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has spoken most properly of the presentation of ac- counts of Local Expenditure, as one of the first objects to which we should look, and an object which may be prosecuted without making it dependent altogether upon the settlement of other questions, however important and however difficult. I entirely agree with him in that matter; but I would at the same time point out that we must not expect, I am afraid, to do all that is to be done in this respect at a single stroke. In the first place, some progress has been made, and, of course, it is the duty and the aim of the Local Government Board, under whatever Government, to keep this subject still in view, and lay the foundation of a good system of local account, with the view of enabling Parliament to obtain a clear knowledge, and, if necessary, sufficient control over Local Expenditure. It is right to point out that in this matter we are dealing not only with England, but with Scotland and Ireland as well, and that, as regards the presentation of accounts for those countries—and Scotland in particular—we are, I believe, less advanced than with regard to England. The subject must and ought to be prosecuted for the three countries, because unless you do so you cannot either consider duly the relation between Local and Imperial Expenditure, or obtain that aggregate view which the hon. Member is most desirous to obtain of the total Expenditure of the country, whether Imperial or local. The Resolution of the hon. Member states—

"That the annual consideration of the measures imposing taxation should be accompanied by a Ministerial Statement of Local Taxation and Finance, so as to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing, as a whole, the requisitions made on the nation for local as well as Imperial purposes."

I am sure that the hon. Member does not mean that the Local and Imperial Budget should be comprised in a speech embracing both subjects, because they are in the Department of two Ministers; and, in the second place, everyone knows, especially in the case of the larger and complex Budgets, it could have no effect except to confuse, if subjects so wide and diversified were combined. What I take to be the general object of the Motion is that there should be a Ministerial Statement on the subject in the course of the Session, and that it should be as closely following in point of time the Financial Statement as possible. We are indebted to my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, took notice of the rapid growth of Local Taxation and Local Loans, and laid down officially in this House the proposition that this Annual Statement ought to be made. This deserves very serious consideration; because, unquestionably, the subject of Local Loans is formidable from two points of view—first of all as indicating a vast increase in the scale of local expenditure and the dangerous tendencies to enlarge and increase it; and, secondly, as constituting a new drain upon the credit of the nation, which threatens to become serious, and which under given circumstances of time, for great Imperial purposes, may be a great public evil. There is, therefore, not only a local, but also a central interest to the nation and the Exchequer in the due presentation of this subject. With regard to the loans likely to be required from the Exchequer for public purposes, that has become a regular part of our system. But there is some difficulty in laying down the proposition that the statement shall always be presented at the same period of the Session as the Financial Statement, because it may happen—and it may happen this year—that the amount which may be required in the course of the year depends very essentially upon legislation that is actually under consideration of the House, and which the House may not be able to dispose of until a more advanced period of the Session. However, this Statement, however desirable, is only a part of the question, because it does not include loans obtained by local authorities from sources other than Imperial, and I am very glad the local authorities should borrow on their own credit. I am quite certain that that will confer a much stronger sense of responsibility, and secure a much closer attention than would be the case under the slippery and perilous idea that they could go to a central source to borrow and draw upon the nation. I believe the doctrine laid down to be thoroughly sound, and I hope it will receive assent from all quarters. I need not say that it is the intention of the President of the Local Government Board to make a Statement of the kind to which the hon. Member alluded, and at as early a period as he can. The hon. Member knows the exceedingly abnormal circumstances of the present Session, and he knows under what difficulties the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), in the time of the late Government, laboured with regard to the fulfilment of their intentions in this respect. The hon. Member said that he hoped I would not say that this was a matter which must await the settlement of the great question of local government. I shall not say that. I do not think it is necessary that all progress in this important business should be postponed until the question of local government has been settled. At the same time, having said that I fully believe that great good will arise from an endeavour to improve the system of local accounts and accelerate the presentation of local accounts, and bring their presentation to a convenient period of the year—while believing that great good will arise from that, and also from the simple fact of an authentic official Statement in this House and a discussion by the House upon it—I am bound to say that I do not think it would be possible for us to cope with all the difficulties of the case without taking into consideration the serious difficulty we stand in as to the general despatch of our Business. Let us take the Indian Financial Statement. That is a question of a very formidable nature indeed, loss directly relating to our own pockets; but it is a great Imperial question, and may have some possible relation to the Expenditure of the country. It was the full desire that that Statement should be made from year to year, at a period of the Session when it would be in their power to secure for it full attention; but notwithstanding that, under all Governments alike, it has been found impossible to draw the attention of the House until the year is exhausted. Sir, I feel convinced of this—we shall make no effectual provision for the satisfactory general discharge of our public duties until we recognize these two facts—fundamental facts—first of all, that we are in a great arrear of Public Business; and, secondly, that the system under which we live involves us almost daily in the very large waste of Parliamentary time. Under these circumstances, the enormous arrears of Business, and the enormous waste of time make a most formidable combination. submit to the judgment of the House an idea which may lead to something useful. We have a very valuable Committee sitting annually upon Public Accounts, and the effect of that Committee is to speak with great authority upon a difficult and intricate subject, which would not command much general interest in Parliament if it were made the subject of debate, and yet which it is of very great importance to examine. I am by no means sure that it is not worthy the consideration of the Gentlemen who are interested in local expenditure whether we might not be able to effect something useful by establishing a Committee of weight and authority which should have for its duty the regular review of Local Expenditure and Accounts, and the presentation to the House from time to time of the results of their employment. I do not venture to give on that subject any positive opinion; but I think it a hopeful matter to prosecute, and one worth examination. As regards the general question of Local Expenditure, it is, perhaps, of such magnitude that we cannot satisfactorily dispose of it now. I hope, however, we are approaching the time when these matters will no longer be dealt with as questions of rival interest between the Local and Imperial Exchequers. As long as they are so dealt with, in my opinion, we shall do nothing but mischief. There is, undoubtedly, a fatal tendency in the system of what are called "Grants in Aid" both to relax the principles of economy in the country and to increase the country's aggregate expenditure. What we have to do is to strive honestly and impartially to keep down the aggregate total expenditure of the country. Whether it be local expenditure or Imperial, that is the interest, and that is the duty of Parliament. Next to keeping down the total expenditure, our duty is to see that the taxation by which it is to be met is freely and fairly apportioned; and in apportioning taxation what we have to do is to make a double examination—first of all of the way in which the taxation falls as between property and labour; and, secondly, of the way in which it falls as between real property and personal property. These two questions are totally distinct one from the other, as to the allocation between the two kinds of property; but as long as these questions are debated simply as questions of rivalry between the local and the Central Ex- chequer, we lose sight entirely of that. I only say that I do not believe those great questions can be satisfactorily disposed of until the question of local government has been thoroughly dealt with. The questions of improving the local accounts, and the Parliamentary supervision and moral influence to be brought to bear on the local expenditure, I hope, will go forth quite independently of the settlement of these greater questions, desirable as that settlement may in itself be. I think we all must feel that those who, like the hon. Member who proposed the Motion, and who spoke in this House in the interests of general economy and thrift in Local Expenditure, are really rendering a valuable and important service to the State.

said, he must congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) on the encouragement he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had it in contemplation to continue the practice of making an Annual Statement to the House on subjects such as they now had before them. By the Local Loans Act, the Local Taxation Returns Act, and the Auditing Act—three Acts passed by the late Government—the foundation had been laid for a useful series of measures on the questions under consideration. He deprecated many of the remarks that had been made as to the tendency of local authorities generally to get into debt; but the best way at present to check the tendency would be by paying careful attention to the Private Bill legislation. It was by no means the case that all the local authorities were running a race to get into debt. Of £120,000,000, by far the greater part had been raised by half-a-dozen great towns, in whose case there was no cause for alarm, as their rateable value was quite sufficient to meet any pressure. The House and the country were very much indebted to his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) for the earnestness and ability with which he pressed forward the principles of the Local Loans Act; and he hoped his right hon. Friend opposite, when he came to make his Annual Statement, would make it under more favourable circumstances than had fallen to his own lot when at the head of the Local Government Board. The suggestion that a strong Committee, having power to review these questions, should be appointed, was an important one; and his hope was that such a Committee, when formed, would have more attention paid to it than the Committee on Public Accounts, which received less recognition in the House and the country than its merits deserved.

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution ought to be satisfied with the Prime Minister's speech, which he thought would strengthen the hands of those local authorities who desired to economize.

said, he hoped that in future, as the persons who paid the rates and taxes were, for the most part, the same, the two Budgets would be laid before the House as nearly as possible at the same period of the Session. It was a very rudimentary condition of finance which omitted from calculation the money required for the Public Services, because that money was derived from special burdens on a special class of property. When, for instance, £1,500,000 was paid for national education out of the rates, that sum should be stated, together with the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded for national education out of the taxes. So with the expenditure on the administration of justice, and all these other heads of Local Expenditure, which were partly defrayed by the Imperial, partly by the Local Exchequer. Otherwise the public were but partially informed of their liabilities. No proposal could be more disastrous than to relegate Local Taxation to a Grand Committee. For Local Taxation reformers desired that some Minister of first rank should be held personally responsible for burdens imposed on the ratepayers through the agency of the Government. They did not care for the irresponsibility of a Committee. The local expenses, of which complaint was made, were almost entirely due to the interference of the Imperial Government. In Shropshire they were now paying for police, highways, and other purposes, £40,000 a-year more than was paid in 1870. It was the same in every other county. Too much had been made in that debate of debts of local authorities for purely local purposes, such as towns' improvements. That source of expenditure, though deserving of the closest attention, was of a different character and origin to the expenditure for purely national purposes. It was to the latter department they wished to direct attention. The speech of the Prime Minister meant delay and procrastination, and, therefore, was not satisfactory to him.

said, that, speaking from his own experience, he must characterize the charge of extravagance which had been brought against the local authorities in dealing with subventions as not being well founded. The enormous amount of Local Loans of which they sometimes heard had, for the most part, been incurred for sanitary improvements under the direction of the Local Government Board. It was true that local self-government tended to develop great diversity of views among local authorities; but, on the whole, it was much to be preferred to centralization.

who had given Notice of his intention to move—

"That Customs Duties should be replaced upon such Foreign importations as come into unfair competition with the industries of Great Britain and Ireland,"

said, that he intended, after introducing the subject, to defer the Motion until Mr. Ecroyd, the new Member for Preston, elected in the place of the late Mr. Hermon, had taken his seat. His conviction was that the victory achieved by Mr. Ecroyd was due to his support of such views as those which were set forth in the Resolution, as well as to the disgust which the country felt at the policy of a Government who talked of retrenchment, and had asked for £85,000,000 to carry on the government of the country, being the largest sum ever asked for by any Government, and, while always preaching peace, had troubles on hand in every quarter of the globe excepting Australia and America. He wished to take that opportunity of adverting to the practice which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had resorted to of writing letters. The right hon. Gentleman had written letters that were certainly not polite letters, letters certainly that a statesman scarcely ought to have written, and letters which he (Mr. Mac Iver) much regretted, because he was not insensible to the respect which was due to a Gentleman with grey hairs who had spent a long life, however mistakenly, in the service of his country. At one time the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Reciprocity agitation as only fit for fools and simpletons. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had even called those who took up this question a set of lunatics. In his own case, the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to call him something which made him out to be a liar. Then, again, at a meeting at Birmingham, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was good enough to describe him—at least, he thought the reference was to him—as a wretch. Such language did him no harm, and if it pleased the right hon. Gentleman to continue such language, it could only recoil upon himself. The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman used language which they must regret was in reference to the late Mr. Hermon, whose speech lie finally wound up by describing as "confused nonsense." Mr. Hermon rather felt those words; and it was his intention, had he lived, to have seconded the Motion which stood on the Paper for this evening. After Mr. Hermon's death he had written to Mr. Ecroyd, expressing his readiness to place the Motion in that Gentleman's hand in the event of his return for Preston; but he had received a reply stating that Mr. Ecroyd would not be able to take his seat that night in consequence of being called upon to address a meeting at Bradford at the invitation of Mr. Shepherd, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and on a requisition signed by 10,000 working men of Bradford. As he saw the junior Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) in his place, he would take the opportunity of putting to him the following questions, which had been suggested by a correspondent:—

"If there is no distress in Bradford, how comes it that the poor rate is now 3s., whereas recently it was only 2s.? Is it correct that your own firm has one mill standing idle, and the other working only four days a week?"

He might remark that the speech of Lord Beaconsfield, in reply to Lord Bateman, had been most unfairly quoted in reference to views such as were held by Mr. Ecroyd and himself. Lord Beaconsfield's words were not directed against proposals such as those of his (Mr. Mac Iver's) Resolution. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was a humble follower of Mr. Ecroyd, and was prepared to give his adherence to everything that Gentleman had written on the subject of Free Trade versus Protection. He wished the House to understand that he had stood by his guns, and that he deferred that Motion in order that it might at a later day have full justice done it by Mr. Ecroyd. He might say, however, that he had letters from Birmingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Manchester, and other towns—to name which would occupy too much time—in support of the views he entertained. This reminded him of what had once been said to him by Mr. Hardcastle, who, he regretted to say, was no longer a Member of the House. Mr. Hardcastle had said to him, after he had made a speech in the House on this subject—"First people begin by calling you a fool; next they begin to say there is something in your argument; and the third step is success." He thought he saw success before them at no very distant period. The House would remember that on many occasions he had addressed Questions to the Government with reference to our commercial relations with foreign countries; but the answers had been of a very vague nature, without any information. All that could be ascertained was that the Government were giving the matter their consideration or making representations. With regard to the surtaxe d' entrepôt and the shipping bounties, he thought he had some reason to complain of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Under Secretary did not know anything whatever of the subject, or, if he did, he had no business to answer as he did. The French, by means of their bounty system, were rapidly acquiring a useful Navy. They offered a premium that amounted to 12 per cent per annum upon all ships constructed in France; and even if the vessel was constructed in England or elsewhere, and was of French ownership, they still gave, for the sake of getting control of the property, what was practically a handsome dividend. That was all managed, as everybody knew by the Foreign Office, and the arrangement was in direct violation of the Most Favoured Nation Clause, or else it showed that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was worthless. He should be very glad if the Under Secretary could show that he was right and he (Mr. Mac Iver) was wrong; but, unfortunately, he knew he was not wrong. The French Government could not get rid of the bounty system for at least 10 years, and he should like to know what reply the Government would get from France in answer to their representations. With regard to the surtaxe d' entrepôt, England happened to be in the geographical position that a clause which nominally affected all other nations only affected her. England was, or ought to be, the depôt for supplying France with foreign importations. That was formerly a very useful and important trade; but it had been practically put a stop to by the tax upon indirect importation. If the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would press home the question as he ought to do, in justice to our shipowners, merchants, and brokers, and insist that importations of goods for foreign countries through England should be taxed the same as if they had been directly imported from foreign countries, there might still be a chance of his succeeding. There was a suspicious look in a good many of our Free Trade negotiations. He could not help thinking that some of the growing willingness of France to negotiate with England arose from one of three causes, or, perhaps, to a combination of them all. Firstly, they saw that there was a growing dissatisfaction among all classes of the community of England, and that it was by no means as certain as Frenchmen used to think that they would be allowed to continue to plunder us as they pleased. He thought, in the second place, that France wanted to conciliate public opinion in this country upon the Tunis Question. They must feel that there was a very wide difference between the friendly suggestions of Lord Salisbury and what they had actually done; and they could not help feeling that if a Conservative Government had been in power there would have been strong remonstrance against the unprovoked attack on a portion of the Ottoman Empire. A third reason was that, in common with the rest of the world, France could not be blind to the blunder of Her Majesty's Government, and to the probability that could not be far distant when Her Majesty's present Advisers would be out of Office. The only hope as regarded securing better commercial arrangements with France was that something like a business-like tone should be introduced into the negotiations now pending. He asked the House to remember that the exports from England to France of raw materials from 1863 to 1879 amounted in value to 60,000,000f., while the imports of raw materials during the same period from France to England did not amount to one-third of that stated value. Our exports to France of articles of luxury were a mere trifle, while our imports from France of like goods amounted to 5,274,000f.; while of manufactures generally, our exports to France, as compared with our imports from France, were as 37,000,000f. in value to 72,000,000f. He had only, in conclusion, to say that the proposal he had placed on the Paper was based upon principles advocated by Adam Smith and strongly supported by John Stuart Mill. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, said—

"The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures in their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours. There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods."

And the following remarks were made by John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Political Economy:—

"A country cannot be expected to renounce the power of taxing foreigners unless foreigners will in return practice towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its commodities is to impose corresponding revenue duties on theirs, only it must take care that those duties be not so high as to exceed all that remains of the advantage of the trade, and put an end to importation altogether, causing an article to be produced at home or imported from another and dearer market."

The authors of these opinions were not Protectionists—the Protectionist theory of the old times had passed away, but not more completely than the theories of Free Trade. He thought the time had arrived when the country should reconsider its fiscal system in the light of present circumstances. The time had come when we should decide as businesslike men to adapt ourselves to our present position, by practising Free Trade as far as it was possible, and Protection as far as it was necessary.

said, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had not made to him his meaning particularly clear, and he thought others were in the same condition of mind with himself as to what the hon. Gentleman really meant. The hon. Member referred, in the course of his speech, to the triumph of his opinions as illustrated by the return of Mr. Ecroyd for Preston. He had the advantage lately of reading the arguments of Mr. Ecroyd, and he must say that they convoyed to him no more concise impression of what was intended by the present movement in regard to Protection or Reciprocity than the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken to-night. He believed Mr. Ecroyd wished to impose duties upon the food supply of the people of this country; and if that was the idea which the hon. Gentleman wished to place upon his banner to-night, and which he very wrongly attributed to the Tory Party as being adopted generally by them, he would find very little support in the country; and none whatever from thinking Members in the House. The hon. Gentleman said a great deal as to the French Treaty. He told them several times that this country was being persistently robbed by France; but he (Mr. Slagg) wished to ask whether it was robbery to buy a thing from France at a cheaper price than we could make it for ourselves? It seemed to him that was not robbery, but a distinct advantage. Because the French were too short-sighted in regard to political economy to buy from us on the cheapest possible terms, it did not seem to him at all to mend matters that we should refuse to buy from them as cheaply as we possibly could do. The hon. Gentleman had further said a great deal on the subject of the bargaining process that had taken place in our negotiations with France, and particularly with regard to the Treaty of 1860, and he seemed to think there was something very wrong in that proceeding. He (Mr. Slagg) was not one of those who advocated the bargaining process in relation to commercial negotiations. He thought it was very much to be deplored, and it was only on the ground of the absolute necessity of presenting some concession to France by way of duties in order to induce her to make similar concessions to us that Mr. Cobden entertained the idea. Mr. Cobden did not look upon it, he was perfectly sure, in the light of making a concession to the disadvantage of England, for it was his intention not only to concede those duties to France, but simultaneously to concede them to all the world. At the close of the last Session the Prime Minister introduced into his Budget scheme a further concession on the Wine Duties in order to facilitate negotiations with the French in reference to further concession on their part. He was not sorry that that proposal fell through, because the fact that we had now nothing to offer France which she considered valuable as a concession really placed the subject on the true and pure basis of trade between the two countries. The bargaining process, he was happy to find, had now gone by altogether, so that the Treaty could never be reproached in the future with being accompanied by some process which was thought, in a measure at least, antagonistic to pure Free Trade principle. The hon. Gentleman again had said that we should be prepared to impose duties in our present negotiations with France. He (Mr. Slagg) entirely disagreed with that proposition. He thought it could not be shown that such a process would be of the slightest advantage. On the other hand, if it were possible to lower duties in the forthcoming negotiations, he should be very glad to do so, and the only retaliation which we could possibly make in the present situation was not in the direction of increasing duties further, but in the direction of lowering them. For instance, he thought it would be possible for us to make concessions in regard to the Wine Duties of Spain and Portugal, and thus to place those countries on a much more favourable footing than they occupy at the present moment. Such a step as that might possibly stimulate France to a better frame of mind in regard to her treatment of us. But the fact was really this—that the French did not any longer value a reduction of their Wine Duties. Having suffered from three or four bad harvests, they did not now produce as much wine as they could consume in their own country. He thought they had given up the idea altogether of providing this country with a lower class of light clarets, and we could dismiss altogether the notion that the French valued such concessions. The argument of the hon. Member was not new with regard to suffering industries and robbing the population of this country. It was heard whenever any particular industry was in a condition of temporary depression; and economists, such as the hon. Member for Birkenhead, seemed to have no other resource in their mind for the amelioration of a suffering industry than to rush to some form of taxation. Who paid the duties that were to be imposed? The hon. Gentleman did not go into that question. If he could assure him that the exporter paid the duties on their arrival on this side, he (Mr. Slagg) would go with him heartily; for he could not imagine a more delightful thing than to force the foreign exporter to pay the taxes in one's own country; but if such a thing were possible it would have been found out long ago. Not only England, but every other country, would have been in the game. They knew, however, as a matter of fact, that the consumer pays every farthing of the tax. He often noticed that the professors of Protection or Reciprocity stopped short at one very important point. They did not state upon what they were going to impose their duties. His task would have been very much easier to-night if the hon. Gentleman had told him precisely the method in which he intended to apply those duties; but the hon. Gentleman left that entirely to the imagination of his hearers, and certainly Reciprocitarian imaginations were very active indeed in the absence of facts and arguments. Would the hon. Gentleman impose a tax upon cotton? He, as a Lancashire Representative, would strongly resent any idea of that sort. He knew perfectly well it would handicap them in every market in the world, and they would then have to compete in third markets with their neighbours, the French, who were now nearly abreast of them in that industry. Would the hon. Gentleman put a tax upon iron? The loom-makers, so far as his own district was concerned, would certainly not stand that. They had a keen competition already with other countries. They supplied machinery for the whole of the world, and it would be out of the question to impose a tax upon this material. It seemed almost a waste of time to ask if his hon. Friend would impose a duty upon corn? They knew the agricultural industry of this country was suffering very seriously indeed from foreign competition; but in what respect would a protective duty help it? Could it be shown that it would have the slightest effect in lessening the burdens on agriculture? What was becoming more and more apparent every day was that agriculture required freedom of land, free sale, and easy transfer. There was a peculiar danger, a peculiar impropriety, in pushing those retrograde notions forward at present. They were on the eve of negotiating a Treaty with the French, and if they allowed them to think it was the opinion of a large number of English economists that it was a good thing for us to impose duties on articles we import, we had no excuse to ask them to remit duties. To make such a proposition at the present time, he thought, would work serious mischief. Again, as to robbery, he did not assume that the trade was done between one country and another without profit. Merchants did not go on importing for a series of years without making something out of it. What had been the result of their commercial relations with France? In 1859 their exports to that country were £4,000,000 and their imports £16,000,000. They had increased since then, and their total trade with France was now over £53,000,000. Surely that was a very great advantage to everyone who had dealt in the articles concerned. But there was another point on which he might dwell for a moment, and it consisted in the very great importance of trade in the political relations of the two countries. In the old days of Lord Palmerston everyone would remember that their political relations with France were of the most suspicious character. He was sure that he was not wrong in attributing to the Treaty, in a very great measure, the friendly and sensible tone which had since sprung up, and anything which threatened to destroy that Treaty was to him (Mr. Slagg) a great political as well as a commercial mistake. In relation to what they were about to do with France, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that they should allow no Treaty to be made which was worse than the Treaty now existing. The present Treaty had largely increased their commercial intercourse and developed good relations between the two countries. To that extent it was a success, and he maintained it would be wrong for this country to put its name to a Treaty which should be in the slightest degree worse than the present Treaty. They were led to suppose last year, in the correspondence between M. Léon Say and Lord Granville, that the new Treaty would be based on an amelioration of the existing Treaty; and he thought that all commercial bodies would support him in saying that they should decline, in the interests of Free Trade, to negotiate unless they actually secured some improvement on the old tariff. The hon. Member said that Mr. Ecroyd would soon be among them, and that he would give them his views. He hoped he would. He should like to have a discussion on the whole question of Free Trade. It seemed very sad to have to make the statement; but there were evidences, which could not be ignored, that these retrograde doctrines were taking hold in some quarters of the community. He believed they came entirely from those interests which had suffered a temporary depression from foreign competition. When competition assailed them through exports from foreign countries a most wholesome stimulus was really applied to their industries. Improvements were introduced, economies were practised in every direction; and, as a thorough Free Trader, he welcomed imports of all descriptions as being a benefit to the consumer, and also as being an excellent stimulus to the manufacturer. When it was found that by no process of ingenuity or economy could he compete with the foreigner it was time for him to declare that the industry in question was no longer fitted for the country, and betake himself to some other more profitable and congenial occupation of his capital.

who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the desirability of placing a duty upon the import of foreign barley and malt,"

said, he was quite aware that in the present composition of the House of Commons his views on this question would receive no large amount of support; but, as sure as the sun would rise tomorrow, so sure would this subject be brought prominently forward during the next very few years. The artizans had now found out the fallacies which were imposed upon them by Cobden and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) 30 years ago; and they were beginning to ask what was the use of having a cheap loaf when they had no money to buy it with? The supporters of the system of Free Trade contended when it was adopted that all the other nations of the world would follow our example; but America and France and Germany were too astute to take that course, and the consequence was that there was not an industry in the country which was not being undermined by foreign competition. He ventured to say that the negotiations which were pending for a new Treaty with France would entirely break down, because we had nothing to offer in return for concessions. The majority of the people of this country were and ought to be producers, and there could be no doubt that it was in the interests of the producers to prevent foreign competition. There was hardly a trade in England that was not suffering from foreign competition. The other day he observed from a paragraph in The Standard that at a meeting in Birmingham with reference to the proving of firearms, it was stated that, whereas 10 years ago 36 per cent more gun barrels were proved there than at Liège, that state of things lead been re-reversed, Belgium now proving as many more than England; whilst, moreover, we had been importing fowling-pieces, and paying away to foreigners money which, by having the article made at home, we ought to keep in our own pockets. At the present time our imports exceeded the value of our exports by £60,000,000 per annum, a state of things that evidently could not continue. A Return published in 1878 showed that 14,000,000 cwt. of barley was annually imported into this country. Now, he did not ask for a foreign import duty on wheat, not wishing to tax the food of the people, but he would rather tax their drink, in which object he thought he might claim the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) was, unfortunately, not in his place; but he wished to call attention to a letter written by him on April 15 of the present year to the effect that the home trade was bad mainly or entirely because the harvest had been bad for the last few years. Of course, if there had been good harvests trade would have suffered less; but foreign competition was so strong that British agriculture would have suffered a good deal in any case. It no longer paid to grow wheat, and the fanner's only chance was to get a fair price for his barley. In introducing the Bill before the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer had congratulated the brewers on the low price of barley. [Mr. GLADSTONE: On the high price.] But the farmers were unable to get a high price for it this winter, and the right hon. Gentleman must have been exceptionally lucky if he had himself been able to do so. The accounts from the agricultural districts were very distressing, and it seemed probable that of the £400,000,000 which, according to Mr. Caird, the tenants had invested in the soil, at least half was lost. In order to preserve to the farmers their last resource, he suggested that an import duty of 5s. a quarter should be put on foreign barley and malt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in the letter he had just quoted, had expressed his opinion that the chief reason against a return to Protection was that we should have to confess to Protectionists abroad that we ourselves had been wrong and they right, and that Protection would be henceforth the justified policy of all nations. It might be doubted, however, whether it was worth while utterly to destroy the trade of the country in order to save the political credit of the right hon. Gentleman and his Party. If we had hitherto been wrong, we ought to put our pride in our pocket, and, fol- lowing the example of other nations, levy an import duty on foreign produce.

said, that if the Forms of the House had permitted, he intended to have proposed—

"That no alteration of the Probate, Legacy, or Succession Duties can be satisfactory that does not at the same time provide for the imposition of the same duties upon freeholds as those imposed upon leaseholds."

The changes made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been just or equitable, although, now, useful alterations were proposed. Neither the late nor the present Government had taken upon themselves to look into this subject thoroughly, and to consider the enormous amount of freehold that was, at present, exempt from Probate Duty. He brought the subject before the House, not because he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be expected to make an alteration in the Budget now, but to impress on the House that the country was not satisfied with the present arrangement. He hoped the duties would be placed on a fair, equal, and just foundation.

pointed out that, although the subjects of the speeches delivered that evening were of very great interest, yet they were entirely incongruous the one with the other, and the only feature they possessed in common was that no practical issue or decision could result from them. He appealed to those other hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper to forego them, and allow the House to go into Committee. It was of very considerable importance that the Government should be allowed to proceed with the practical proposals which were in the Tax Bill of the year. He did not say there was anything unreasonable in discussing any of those matters; but the House would see that the Government were greatly strained and pressed; and, as the time was now at hand when the change in the Probate Duty was appointed to take place, great inconvenience would arise, both in regard to that matter, and also in regard to the Income Tax, if there should be any longer delay in proceeding with the Bill. It would likewise be undesirable to be compelled to postpone the Irish Land Bill in consequence of the necessity of passing this measure. He therefore ventured to express the hope that after the discussion that had arisen the Government might be permitted to have the Motion put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

said, he could not allow this clause to be passed without entering a protest against the continued imposition of the exorbitant duty upon tea, which he considered to be one of the prime necessaries of life. The tax at present stood at 6d. in the pound, and the sum levied amounted, he believed, to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling. He protested against the tax because he believed it to be an unequal and unjust tax, which pressed most heavily upon the working classes of this country. He would ask the Committee to consider what the tax was. It was a tax producing nearly £4,000,000 upon an article the annual value of which, when imported into this country, did not amount to £12,000,000. It was practically, therefore, a tax of from 30 to 40 per cent upon a prime necessary of life. He understood that one of the great principles which had been introduced into the fiscal arrangements of the country was that no taxes should be levied on actual necessities, but, as far as possible, should be confined to luxuries. He maintained that all Customs duties were paid ultimately by the consumer, and this tax—a tax amounting to between 30 and 40 per cent upon the cost of the article—was paid principally by the working classes of the country. He knew that it was too late to raise the question except by way of protest; but he certainly did protest against the luxuries of the most luxurious age of the most luxurious country in Europe passing practically untaxed, while one of the necessaries which entered largely into the consumption of the working classes was taxed to the extent tea was. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would next year be able either to see his way to a reduction of the National Expenditure, which he (Mr. H. Fowler) considered to be excessive and altogether unnecessary, to such an extent as to enable him to dispense with this imposition, or that he would grapple with the question; and if it was still necessary to raise £4,000,000 a-year in the shape of Customs duties, the sum would not be raised upon one of the prime necessities of life.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the reason why this imposition appears in its present form. Instead of the Tea Duty being enacted as a permanent duty it is put in the form of an annual Vote, so that Parliament may be able to maintain a control over it. That is the sole reason why it comes before us to-night. With regard to the duty of 6d. in the pound upon tea, I agree very much in what has been said by my hon. Friend. There is only one word which I object to—namely, the observation of my hon. Friend that this duty has remained unnoticed. That is certainly not the case. When I came into Parliament the average duty upon tea was 4s. a pound. It was then reduced to 2s. per pound, and now it has gradually got down to 6d., which I am sure my hon. Friend will not deny is a much more satisfactory state of things than when the duty stood at 4s. per pound. With respect to the question of economy, my hon. Friend seems to think that it is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine what shall be the nature and scale of the Expenditure of the country. I wish it were in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine the scale of the Expenditure of the country, I might then hope to give some satisfaction to my hon. Friend. But there are other things to be taken into consideration! which stand in the way, and reduce within very narrow limits indeed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his able and efficient coadjutor the Secretary of the Treasury can do.

remarked, that it was very easy for hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House to make vague general protestations of their desire to secure economy in the National Expenditure. He should like to put the zeal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to a practical test. In a short time, perhaps in the course of a month or two, the Irish Land Bill would have passed through Committee, and the House would go into Committee of Supply. When that event arrived, he would invite the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to attend in his place and point out to the Committee how the expenditure could be reduced, not by £3,000,000, but even by £1,000,000. If the hon. Member would point out to the Committee of Supply how it was possible to reduce the expenditure, either in the present or in future years, by the sum of only £1,000,000 sterling, he would render a great deal more service to his country and to his constituents than by making these vague, general, and meaningless harangues.

said, there was one word to which he must take exception in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H.Fowler)—namely, the part in which his hon. Friend described tea as a necessary of life. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that tea would be more correctly described as one of the luxuries in which the masses of the people indulged. There were, however, a great number of the luxuries of the rich untaxed while the tea of the poor was taxed, and he hoped the time would soon arrive when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be able to get rid of this tax, and give to the country a free breakfast table.

said, he would move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. He thought it was unwise to tax either tea, cocoa, or coffee; and he should like to know to what extent these and other dutiable articles were produced by our own Colonies? He was of opinion that we committed a great injustice in placing heavy taxes upon the produce of our Colonies, in addition to which we indicated to those Colonies that we were not sincere in our dealings with them. He failed to see, while the country professed to maintain Free Trade principles, why we should impose duties in England, either upon tea from our Indian settlements, or upon coffee from the Colonies, no matter whether they were regarded as necessaries of life or as luxuries. When the Government proposed to tax the produce of the Colonies they did a great deal towards indicating to the rest of the world that the present occupants of the Treasury Bench were not sincere in their endeavour to promote the cause of Free Trade. How could we hold ourselves up as the pioneers of Free Trade when we taxed the produce of our own Colonies? How could we reasonably go to foreign countries and ask them to reduce their tariffs in our favour on our home productions, when we set them the very bad example of placing a heavy tax upon our own Colonial produce? Upon these grounds he would appeal, not to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but to another hon. Member who sat on the Liberal side of the House (Mr. Macfarlane), to show that he had the courage of his convictions, and join with him (Mr. Mac Iver) in moving the rejection of this clause. He did not anticipate that his appeal would have much success, because, unfortunately, Liberal professions and Liberal principles were widely different from Liberal practice and Liberal politics; and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who composed Her Majesty's Government were not always ready, when in the possession of power, to carry out the policy they had indicated to their constituents when out of Office. He thought he was fully justified in moving the rejection of the clause upon two grounds—first, that the duty pressed heavily upon the people of this country; and, secondly, because, so long as we continued to impose it, we afforded a proof to other countries that we were not sincere in the professions we made in regard to Free Trade.

It is not necessary that the hon. Member should move the rejection of the clause. It will be quite sufficient to negative it.

wished to say a word in reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. Member had been kind enough to address a lecture to him (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as, indeed, he was often in the habit of doing to young Members of that House. He was quite ready to answer the challenge of the hon. and learned Member, and he would tell him how not only £1,000,000, but £3,000,000 of annual expenditure, might have been saved. It was caused entirely by the warlike expenditure of the last Administration.

moved, in page 2, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the words "not exceeding." He did not believe that the insertion of these words would have any practical effect upon the Bill; but he thought they would make the meaning of the clause more clear to all those who were interested in the operations affected by it. If the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.

said, the hon. Member admitted that the insertion of these words would not affect the meaning of the Bill. He (Mr. Gladstone) would therefore much rather adhere to the language of the clause, which had been drawn up in the most convenient form.

moved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "six shillings and sixpence," and insert "eight shillings." Without wishing to detain the Committee for any length of time, he thought it was desirable he should show why the proposed duty of 6s. 6d. should not be accepted. It might, perhaps, appear to hon. Members who had not carefully examined the subject that this was a trifling and unimportant alteration, and an increase of taxation; but it was not so in reality, and the object of his Amendment was to provide that the duty on foreign beer should remain as it was at present. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his second Budget, he used these words—

"The Malt Tax is a well understood farmers' grievance, and the circumstances of the present time have made Her Majesty's Government consider it their special duty to examine, as well as they could, the position of the cultivators of this country in relation to the law of the country. We have exposed them to perfectly unrestricted competition, and the effect of that competition has, undoubtedly, become more severe during the last two or three years."

Having admitted the grievance, and having pointed out the difficulties in which the cultivators of the soil were placed, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remove that grievance by substituting for the duty on malt a duty on beer, and making the latter duty some 15 per cent more than the Malt Duty was originally. The duty on malt was 21s. 8d., and it was proposed to substitute a Beer Duty of 25s. How that increase of taxation was to benefit the farmer, or how the right hon. Gentleman could suppose that it would be to his advantage, he (Mr. Hicks) was at a loss to conceive. But whatever the position of the cultivators of this country was last year, at the present moment their position was undoubtedly worse. They had had a series of bad harvests, and the price of barley had gone down. Yet, in the face of these facts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward now and asked the House to reduce the duty on foreign beer. He (Mr. Hicks) appealed to the Committee to reject the proposal in justice to the cultivator of the soil, in the interest of those who were desirous of brewing real beer for the consumers of this country, and also in view of the present financial position of the country. It was now something like 35 years ago that they started on a voyage in search of Free Trade. Since that time, it was true that they had had free imports into the country; but he had not yet been able to discover anything approaching to Free Trade. The more they had opened their ports the more foreign countries had opposed them. Their free imports were met with hostile tariffs. The more they preached Free Trade the more foreign countries laughed at them, and not only set up tariffs against them, but also imposed bounties on their own produce in order that it might be able to compete with ours. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward and asked the Committee to reduce the duty on foreign beer. At the present moment the duty on foreign beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees was 8s. a barrel, and he was informed that that was really a very low duty. It was now proposed to reduce the duty from 8s. to 6s. 6d. per barrel on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,057 degrees. This meant a reduction of 18 per cent with a still further reduction, which would ultimately reach about 45 per cent upon beer of a less specific gravity. It was further proposed to make this re- duction at a moment when there was no country in Europe that would admit English beer into its ports or towns at a less duty than 8s. per barrel. In France the duty was 7s. 6d. per barrel with a municipal tax of 6d.; in Germany the duty was 8s., and in Portugal the duty amounted to no less than 120 per cent upon the value. And yet, in the face of the present depressed condition of the agriculture and trade of the country, we were asked to reduce the duty on foreign beer. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he had no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject this proposal. He proposed to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out 6s. 6d. and insert 8s., which was the present duty. He was informed by the Clerk at the Table that he was perfectly in Order in making this proposition, seeing that the Amendment did not involve any increase of duty; but if there was any doubt about the matter he would move the omission of the clause.

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I have to point out that it is contrary to the Rules of the House, in a technical sense. The Rules provide that no proposal shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown for the increase of taxation, and the proposal of the hon. Member undoubtedly does involve an increase of duty, because the present duty, as he has truly said, is 8s.; but then it is 8s. on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees, and he proposes that it shall be 8s. on beer up to 1,057 degrees, so that at this rate there would be an increase of duty on beer above a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees.

believed that he was strictly in Order in proposing the Amendment, the object of which was to retain the present duty of 8s. per barrel not only upon beer of a specific gravity of 1,065 degrees, but upon all other descriptions of beer of a less specific gravity.

The clause reads "The worts of which before fermentation shall be of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,065 degrees."

Not exceeding.

Yes; but to fix the duty at 8s. upon beer up to a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees would be in effect to increase the tax.

The hon. Gentleman will be quite in Order in objecting to the reduction of a tax; but it is not in his power, as a private Member, to propose any increase of taxation. Therefore it is not competent for him to move the Amendment.

Can I move the omission of the clause altogether?

begged to move that the last six lines of the clause be omitted.

The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) applied to line 17, and it is not competent for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) to go back further than that line.

said, he would propose, then, that line 17 be struck out of the clause. He believed he should be quite in Order in moving that Amendment. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire had not given to Her Majesty's Government the credit due to them for their consistency. It was only appropriate that a Government which proposed to tax our own Colonies should, in the next clause, propose to reduce the taxation upon the beer of foreign countries. He thought the Government deserved such credit or discredit as might be due to them for the consistency with which they were acting in the matter.

hoped that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not persist with the Amendment. At the same time, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should have given some fuller and clearer explanation of the reason why this reduction was proposed, and why, when there was so small an amount of difference in the specific gravity, he should propose a reduction of duty on foreign beer. The Committee knew perfectly well that it was a change which was against the British farmer and the British producer; and it was upon that ground he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give them some more explicit reason than he had yet stated why he thought it wise and right at this particular time, when there was depression all over the country, especially in the agricultural interest, that favour should be shown to the foreigners. At the same time, whatever the reason might be, he hoped his hon. Friend would not move the rejection of the clause. He could not help thinking that it would be absurd to persist with the Amendment, because he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must have good reasons for making the proposition.

I think the effect of the Amendment would he that foreign beer, imported in worts before fermentation, of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,057 degrees, would pay a duty of 6s. 6d., while foreign beer with a greater specific gravity would pay nothing at all. As that would be the result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I may fairly appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and other hon. Members near him not to support it. What I am doing now is simply following the uniform practice upon all occasions when we have had to deal with Excise duties upon commodities imported into this country. The Excise duties remain for the moment unchanged, or only partially changed, so as to leave in them a good deal that is of a protective character. I have proceeded on the principle that, as we cannot propose the repeal of these duties, it is desirable to ascertain and fix an exact equivalent as far as we can. Then comes the question as to the amount of disadvantage, if any, at which the British manufacturer stands in consequence of the Excise restrictions. The home manufacturer pays a duty of 6s. 3d., and we place an additional duty of 3d. upon the foreign manufacturer, in order to counteract any disadvantage at which the British manufacturer may be placed. I believe that the difference which is imposed, as I have said, in consequence of the Excise restrictions is an ample addition. I do not say that it is an extravagant addition; but it is an ample addition to cover the small additional charge imposed on the home manufacturer.

said, he was prepared at once to accept, in absolute indifference, and with entire good humour, the sneer of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did so for this reason—that he thought there was not a Gentleman on the other side of the House, or on any side of the House, who would not understand perfectly well that the object of the Amendment he had submitted was that the proposal of the Government to reduce the duty on foreign beer should not be allowed to take effect. If there was anything technically wrong in the form in which he had put the Amendment, he did not think it formed any ground why he should be laughed at, or spoken of with ridicule and scorn. He believed there were many people throughout the country who would be of opinion that, even if he were wrong technically, he was perfectly right in raising his voice in objection to the proposal of the Government to reduce the taxation upon foreign beer. He failed to see what advantage the British farmer was to obtain from the abolition of the Malt Tax. What the Prime Minister was asked for last year was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with something else to safeguard the interests of the farmers; but what the right hon. Gentleman had given them was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with increased foreign competition. There were many persons in the country who thought that in the change thus brought about the right hon. Gentleman had done an ill service to the agricultural interest of the country, and so far the views which they held had not been fairly represented. He believed that very few hon. Members even upon the other side of the House agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was just, right, or reasonable to cheapen the materials for the brewer. The Malt Tax enabled those only to brew who could afford to use good barley; but now any kind of inferior barley could be malted as well as rice and maize, and, in addition, beer might be made out of sugar and a variety of other things. All these changes would benefit the foreigner, and would prejudicially affect the interests of the British agriculturist. He could not believe that this state of things would be long permitted; and, if he was wrong in the technical form in which he had moved the Amendment, he asked permission to place it in a form that would be verbally accurate, and he did not think it would be wanting in support.

Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?

No, Sir, I do not.

complained that any alteration of the kind now proposed should be made at all. Whenever a change of the kind was proposed, the reason for it should be clearly stated. But, whether that were so or not, it did seem rather hard that when hon. Gentlemen brought Amendments forward they should be subjected to jeers and laughter, and told that there was some mystery about the matter which defied amendment. In the first place, directly the hon. Member for Birkenhead proposed one Amendment, he was fold by the Chairman that he was too late, as the Committee had already got past the point where the Amendment came in; and when he submitted another he was told that it could not be accepted, because it was wrong in technical form. Personally, he believed there was part of this clause which even the Premier himself did not understand—namely, the meaning of the word "mum." They had already been told by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not understand what "mum" was; and why, therefore, should he have included it in the present Bill?

I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion; but as far as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is moving to omit the last words of the clause. My hon. Friend, at this moment, is endeavouring to make an Amendment to the clause, when, in point of fact, what he means to do is to vote against the clause as a whole. As I understand my hon. Friend he means to object to the alteration of the Customs' duty on beer. [Mr. MAC IVER: On foreign beer.] On foreign beer; and, therefore, if my hon. Friend looks at it in that way he must see that what he must do, in order to give effect to his wish, is, by-and-bye, when the clause is put as a whole, to vote against it as a whole. If he resists it as a whole then the duties will be left as they are; and that is a more regular and intelligible course to take than to amend the clause by striking out these words, which would have the curious effect pointed out by the Prime Minister. It is perfectly consistent with the views expressed by my hon. Friend that he should object to the clause as a whole. I do not know whether I should be in Order in taking this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister if he will be kind enough to tell us what, according to the experience of the last few weeks, has been the progress of the Beer Duty? If I remember rightly, in the speech which he made, I think, upon this day seven weeks, I understood that his calculation upon the exchange of the Beer Duty for the Malt Tax had resulted, in the last financial year, in a disappointment of about £670,000. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the Beer Duty, as I understood from the speech of my right hon. Friend, was estimated in the last year to yield £3,690,000. It actually yielded £3,485,000, showing a deficiency of £205,000; while, on the other hand, the malt drawback, estimated at £950,000, cost no less than £1,319,000. Therefore it has cost £674,000 more than was estimated last year. Of course, one cannot judge merely by the result of 10 months or so; and there are, no doubt, reasons which would account for the Beer Duty not bringing in as much as was expected from it. But I wish to ask whether, during the seven weeks since the statement was made, the progress of the Beer Duty has been such as to confirm the anticipations of the Prime Minister? Or, to put it otherwise, does the right hon. Gentleman adhere still, in its entirety, to the Estimate which he gave in the Budget speech, as to the probable progress of the duty? I am not putting the question captiously, but will be glad to be informed what has been the result for the period which has elapsed since the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) seemed still to be troubled about the word "mum." But the word is very easily explained, and its particular application to the present state of things easily understood. A solution has been given to the House by a high authority which explains why the word is particularly applicable now, and why it has practically gone out of use for so many years. "Mum" was a kind of beer made without barley. It used to be made of wheat, ground beans, oatmeal, and a great many other things; and, as the English people were in the habit for many years of drinking beer made from malt and hops, the word has fallen into disuse. We have, however, changed all that, and now drink beer made from maize, rice, and oatmeal—or exactly the mate- rials from which "mum" was made; and it is important that the word should again take its place in our tariff.

Sir, I have listened with interest to the ingenious explanation which my right hon. Friend has given. It is perfectly true that people are at liberty to make beer of maize and rice; but we always call it "beer." The word "mum" is retained partly out of pious reverence for the wisdom of our ancestors, and partly for fear that if we omitted it some ingenious man should establish a demonstration against us which might result in a law suit. With regard to the state of the Beer Duties, when I demurred to the statement that our Estimates were disappointed to the extent of £670,000, or thereabouts, all I intended to convey was that it would lead to nothing but confusion to mix up two matters which have no connection with each other—namely, the excess in the drawback and the deficiency in the Beer Duty. The question that has been put with regard to the Beer Duty of the present year I can answer plainly, if not satisfactorily. We are in possession of the figures relating to the first month only of the present year, and, according to them, there has been a falling short of the Estimates to the extent of about 6 per cent. I have very great confidence in the opinions of persons more practically acquainted than myself with this subject, and I believe that they hesitate to form their judgment at present as to how far the deficiency in the Beer Duty for that month is ascribable to any special cause. Probably, before the close of the Session we shall be enabled to judge better; but there is not the least disposition at present to recede from the relative amount of the Estimate.

said, if the terms of his Amendment were technically wrong he preferred to withdraw it.

asked if the drawback referred to in this clause applied to stores shipped for the use of sailors on board ship?

It is not connected with ship's stores; it is drawback on beer imported and then exported.

said, if that was the case, it clearly applied to beer taken as ship's stores for the use of sailors; and, that being so, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse him of desiring class legislation, when he came to ask for allowance for agricultural labourers.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the grounds upon which he moved the omission of this clause. The right hon. Gentleman, among other reasons given for putting the clause into the Bill, said that it would lead to a considerable importation of silver plate from abroad; and he especially alluded to the great talents which Her Majesty's subjects in India possessed for the manufacture of silver. He had, of course, been much interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he could say from his own knowledge that these Indian workers in metals were both skilful and cheap in their work. Therefore, he had reason at the time to hope that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to a very large increase in the trade of manufactured silver between India and this country. But, so far as ho could now gather, a deputation from the trade in this country had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and placed before him reasons which had induced him to omit this clause from the Bill. This omission, he confessed, he regarded with some jealousy, for, as the matter originally stood, he had looked forward with hope to some good resulting from the abolition of the duty on silver. He could perfectly well understand that those engaged in the trade in this country were anxious that the duty should be retained, because, as the law at present stood, they enjoyed a complete monopoly. At his request, the Secretary to the Treasury had stated to him the conditions upon which plate could be imported from abroad; and it seemed to him that the system in operation was absolutely prohibitory of the importation of foreign manufactured silver. It was true that silver articles manufactured in India could be imported on payment of the duty. But it was also true that the goods in question must be taken to the Tower to be stamped, and he was correct in saying that the system was entirely prohibitory. No doubt, a good many articles in silver entered the country from India that were not afterwards stamped; but he fancied the explanation of that fact was that the difficulties of the process were so great that the practice of getting the stamp was not resorted to; but these small pieces were smuggled. It appeared to him that the persons engaged in the trade who had approached the right hon. Gentleman were in the enjoyment of protection of the largest and strongest description; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would state to the Committee, before they agreed to his Motion, the grounds upon which he moved the omission of the clause.

said, this question, like all others relating to duty, was extremely difficult and complicated. But the difficulties attendant upon the drawback were far greater, relatively to the subject, than any he had been acquainted with, because it was expected that drawback should be paid on goods that had long passed out of the Government possession. He had entertained considerable doubts as to the validity of the claim for drawback, and especially for full drawback. The clause, however, did not provide for any drawback at all. The Government had only proposed to substitute a very gradual method of reduction of duty, and the representations which had induced him to think he should not persevere with the clause were not so much connected with the trade as with the interest of the workmen employed in it. There was a temporary diminution in the purchasing power of the people, which affected in a very considerable degree the production of plate; and he owned that he shrank from applying to that trade a measure which, for a series of five or six years, would have had a more or less paralyzing effect upon it. It had therefore been decided to allow the matter to stand over, feeling that he could not be responsible for the difficulty likely to be created by a peculiar proposal made at a peculiar time.

pointed out that if the proposed method of dealing with the duties on silver plate was not definitely abandoned the paralysis alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was likely to afflict the silver trade at the approach of each Budget. The right hon. Gentleman, when he gave Notice that the clause would not be proceeded with, led the House to understand that he did not altogether give up the idea of dealing with silver plate in the manlier at first proposed. The result of that communication was that this process of gradual extinction of the duty was held over all manufacturers of plate in terrorem, and that it was impossible for them to conduct their operations in the same way as they would do if they supposed that their trade would be dealt with in the same way as other trades under similar circumstances—that was to say, that the drawback would be allowed if the duty were taken off. On the approach of the Budget Statement all manufacture would probably cease, because those engaged in the trade would not care to go on with their manufacture under the anticipation that the process now postponed might be applied. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would be allowed to understand that the measure was not merely postponed but abandoned.

said, it would be contrary to usage to give a pledge that under no circumstances would the question be re-opened.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not speak positively with regard to the question of duty on plate, because it was a very serious matter for the constituency which he had the honour to represent, and which was very largely interested in the trade, that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be kept hanging over their heads. It would, he thought, be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of doing away with the duty once for all, for the matter was a very small one, and interfered much with the trade, which afforded occupation to a number of poor men. He had a strong sympathy with his constituents under these circumstances, for there was great com- petition in these days, and the trade of watch and clock making was leaving them altogether. Hon. Members should not treat this subject with levity. It was very easy to tell men to be contented, and buy in the cheapest market; but they answered—"We have nothing to buy with." It was a sad thing for those who were dependent upon the trade for their daily bread to be kept in suspense; and, for the reasons he had urged, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, having once made the proposal, would carry it into effect by altogether abolishing the duty on silver plate.

wished to say a few words on this subject, because he had been a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the question of hall-marking. He believed he was the only one who had recorded his vote in favour of the retention of the duty, and he did so because all those who gave evidence before the Committee were of opinion that there was no necessity for its abolition. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had spoken of the great stimulus that the removal of the duty would give to the Indian trade in manufactured silver. If that result would follow, he should, for that reason alone, wish the duty to be abolished; but, having carefully gone into the facts, he was unable to see that the change would be attended with one iota of benefit to the Indian manufacturer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had alluded to the falling off in the trade amongst his constituency; but he pointed out that that was due simply to American competition. American gilt and silver work came into this country free of duty, while there was evidence that our work was very heavily taxed on reaching America. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way to this foolish idea of Free Trade, but retain the duty on silver plate, which was supported by everyone connected with the trade, and which he did not believe was in any way connected with the falling off of trade in this country.

said, the position was in no way mended by what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The trade was at present paralyzed by the want of knowledge as to what would be done in the future. As a final settle- ment of the question, he ventured to suggest that, in conformity with the principles of Free Trade, the duty on silver plate should be absolutely abolished, so far as concerned the production of this country and the Colonies; but that it should remain upon the silver plate of foreign countries, drawback being allowed on exportation. This arrangement was one which was, at any rate, not likely to be disturbed by hon. Members sitting on that of the House. It was most desirable that the question should be finally settled, and he pressed that view of the case strongly upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, pointed out that the two chief commodities of trade in the West Indies were sugar and rum. As was well known, the West India trade had been already injured by the foreign sugar bounties; a fact which, he believed, the Prime Minister had admitted to the deputation which waited upon him recently in connection with that subject. He ventured to say that if the additional 2d. per gallon was to be charged upon rum the West India Colonies would be still further injured. It would do a very considerable amount of injury to the Jamaica planters. It was said that a countervailing duty could not be placed upon sugar, because it was contrary to the "Most Favoured Nation" Clause. That might be so; but he felt that, in the present case, if, as the arrangement with regard to Spirit Duties proposed, an extra 2d. per gallon wore charged upon rum, while, at the same time, 1d. was taken off French brandy, the French nation would again be benefited, as it was in the case of the sugar bounties. One of the reasons foe the proposal to increase the duty on rum was that it was regarded as a manufactured spirit; but he held that it was not so, in the sense in which the term was applied to gin. It was made entirely from molasses, and was coloured with its own natural spirit. Whisky now paid 10s. per gallon, and 2d. per gallon under the Excise regulations; gin, as a manufactured spirit, paid 10s. a gallon, and 4d. a gallon under the Excise regulations. But if the Bill became law, whisky and gin would remain under the duties respectively of 10s. 2d. and 10s. 4d., while ruin would be placed in the same position as gin, and pay a duty of 10s. 4d. per gallon, and the reduction of ld. on brandy would make the duty on that spirit 10s. 4d. instead of 10s. 5d. per gallon. He contended that rum was not a manufactured spirit, and that it ought not to be placed in the same category as those which were. In conclusion, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the question of increasing the duty on rum, with a view to helping the West India Colonies, which had suffered so much already from the system of foreign sugar bounties.

Sir, I am truly sorry I cannot accede to the proposal of the hon. Member who has just sat down; but the tariff which now exists does not draw any distinction, in point of duty, between the British Colonies and foreign countries producing rum. One and the same rate is charged—namely, 10s. 2d. if the rum comes from the country of its production; 10s. 5d. if it comes not from the country of its production. I cannot, therefore, be expected to agree to the setting up of any distinctive and differential duty on behalf of the Colonies. The hon. Member says that gin is a manufactured article and that rum is not. Now, it is quite true that gin, which is the great English spirit and that with which rum chiefly competes, goes through a double process—first, the process of distillation, secondly, a process of rectification. I may, however, compare rum, not only with gin, but with other spirits. Brandy, for instance, does not undergo the double process of distillation and rectification. It is a more valuable article than rum. But I will take another article imported into this country, which is not of the same value, but of much less value than rum—namely, the potato spirit which comes in from Germany. Rum is also a manufactured article. The truth is, I entirely sympathize with the producers of this article, in the Colonies especially, because they have enjoyed a factitious advantage. They are to be sympathized with, when that factitious advantage is withdrawn. This advantage has been enjoyed by the Colonies for some years past—since the distinction between British and foreign rum has been abolished—not on the ground that rum is entitled to a protection, but on the ground that Sykes's hydrometer, which was used by the Department, does not enable them to ascertain, precisely, the amount of alcohol in a gallon of rum. It is the new process—the process of distillation which is substituted for that of Sykes's hydrometer—which enables us to ascertain the exact amount of alcohol, which will leave us no ground for apology, in point of consistency, if we were to exclude this one special duty on rum coming from the British Colonies. I am, therefore, afraid I must adhere to the proposal as it stands.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, for he thought the proposal was a very fair and just one. He, however, wished to point out a great inconvenience suffered by the trade. Rums and brandies, and all these foreign spirits, might come in at a greater strength than they ought to come in at, and might pay a less duty than they ought to pay. But he desired to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a great inconvenience that traders were put to. At present it took them two or three days to get their goods out of the hands of the Government officials, and the result was that they experienced great difficulty in transacting their business. They ought to get the goods tested in a day at the most; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that greater facilities should be allowed to the trade in this matter than they at present enjoyed.

said, that, owing to the hum of conversation around him, he had not been able clearly to follow the observations of the hon. Member opposite; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not ask for a differential duty, but only complained of disadvantages which would be experienced under the Bill. Mr. Walpole, in 1878, had reported that, as compared with foreign spirits, the British distiller was at a disadvan- tage of 1¾d. But the present Bill proposed to impose a difference of 4d., more than half of which was, therefore, clearly a Protection duty. No doubt if they compared rum with rectified spirits that would disappear, because the rectification of spirits was equivalent to 2d.; but what the West Indian Colonies said was that the spirit they produced was a plain, and not a rectified spirit, and that by treating it as the Government proposed to treat it now they would be placing it at an unfair disadvantage. The question was one of great difficulty, no doubt, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his most careful attention. He was quite sure, and he thought the West Indian Colonies could feel assured, that Her Majesty's Government would consider their representations most carefully, with every wish to do justice in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would not think it necessary, under the circumstances, to divide the Committee, but would rest satisfied with the assurance that the Government would consider the matter, which was one of the greatest moment to the West Indian Colonies, which they all knew were suffering very severely, in other respects, at the present time.

would only say, in support of the appeal made by the hon. Baronet, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said anything as to a comparison of the duty on rum and whisky. Rum was equally a plain spirit with whisky. Rum when it came in had to pay 10s. 4d., whilst whisky had to pay 10s. 2d. The produce of our Colonies—rum, which was an important part of the produce of our Colonies—would be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with whisky, though not, perhaps, as compared with brandy.

said, that the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had not explained why rum should pay a less duty than other spirits. They had heard a great deal lately about giving fair play to the home producer; but he thought the home producer would have fair ground of complaint if foreign spirits paid less duty than the articles of home manufacture. It would be impossible to place a distinctive duty on rectified and unrectified spirits, for if that were done the home producer would be placed at a great disadvantage. As to what had fallen from an hon. Member with regard to the inconvenience to the trade in testing spirits in the warehouse, that difficulty was being removed. In future all spirits would be tested at once, on importation. The amount of spirit would be at once found out, and no delay would occur.

hoped the observations of the noble Lord would not be allowed to pass without comment. Gin was the only spirit which was rectified and compounded. It had to be compounded to make it suitable to the English taste. It had been clearly pointed out, in the official Papers, that the cost of the excisable restriction amounted to 1¾d., which, added to the lOs., would make l0s. 1¾d., or, say, 10s. 2d. But, beyond this, gin had to go through a process to make it suitable to the English palate; and that process, it had been computed, made another 2d. per gallon, which, altogether, made 10s. 4d. But there was no other spirit—neither whisky, rum, nor brandy—which had to be compounded. All those spirits went into consumption as they were imported. With regard to whisky, the restriction amounted to 2d.; therefore, in calculating the amount of duty on whisky it should be put down at 10s. 2d. The duty on rum was 10s. 4d., whilst that on whisky was only l0s. 2d. Rum was a plain spirit as well as whisky, and brandy, also, for the matter of that—although he was more concerned about articles of British production—was placed at a great disadvantage.

said, that brandy was no more a rectified spirit than rum. Gin was the chief competitor with rum, and gin was a rectified spirit. As to whisky, though it did not undergo such an expense in comparing it with rum, yet there was a considerable indirect expense. It was plain that if there was any force in the argument for reducing the duty on rum, it ought to be reduced on brandy and other spirits.

said, he knew many people who were very much interested in the West Indies. In Jamaica, a vast quantity of estates had been thrown out of cultivation lately; and as to Demerara, there were many merchants and traders there who were only just able to carry on business. They had been carrying on their busi- ness and cultivating their estates almost at a dead loss; and he felt convinced that if this Bill passed in its present form they would be rendered still more incompetent to compete with the foreigner. All he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) and his friends could do was to express their regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not help them in this matter.

said, that in the course of the debate ho had heard the traders of the West Indies spoken of as foreigners. He did not consider them such, but looked on them as he looked upon all the Members of that House, as British subjects. It was very hard on these traders that they should be treated in the manner proposed by the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) seemed to have some strange antipathy to the West Indies, for he was always doing what he could to injure them. The noble Lord had gone out there some time ago, and, although he (Mr. Thornhill) could not say what happened there, since he had come back he had always done what he could to disparage and to hurt the place. If things went on as they were now for very long he was afraid that the West Indies would go to the wall altogether.

Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Amendment?

Yes, Sir, I withdraw it.

in rising to move the omission of the words "or otherwise," said, the clause hung very much on the one they had just been discussing, the question arising as to the increase there would be on the Rum Duty owing to the new method of measuring the quantity of spirit. A very heavy sum was involved. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said £180,000 a-year; but he (Captain Aylmer) was inclined to think that the change would produce nearer £300,000 or £400,000. The difference between Sykes's hydrometer and measuring the spirit by distillation was certainly 1½ per cent, and that would raise the estimate by a very large sum. He honestly believed that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of getting £180,000, would secure £400,000. He did not grudge the Government this amount; but he found that there was very considerable dissatisfaction felt with the wording of the clause. Spirits used to be tested by Sykes's hydrometer. That method was to be replaced by distillation; but where that did not suit the officers of Customs, resort might be hail to other means. He did not think that the trade of the country should be left to such an uncertain state of things. The method of testing should be either by Sykes's hydrometer or by distillation; but there should be no "or otherwise" in the clause, to leave it open to the discretion of the Customs officers to experimentalize if they felt inclined. The words "or otherwise" were extremely vague, and were very much objected to by importers of spirits into this country.

said, that, so far as the meaning of the clause was concerned, the words in question were not of the slightest importance. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment, because the effect of it, if passed, would be that if any new and improved method of testing spirits were discovered they would be unable to avail themselves of it. The object in view was merely to make an accurate examination or test. As to the sanguine estimate of the hon. and gallant Member of the result of the new method of testing spirit, he must decline to accept it. He would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that when estimates came from private Members which turned out to be extravagant nothing more was heard of them; but such was not the case when a Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged in extravagant speculation. The spirit which would be affected by the new method of testing was brandy more titan rum. There had been a great deal of concealed strength introduced in brandy owing to our defective method of testing, going as high as 13 and 14 per cent, instead of the modest 4 per cent allowed. Instead of this being, in the main, a tax upon Colonial produce, he believed it would be a tax upon the article brandy.

did not think the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had been answered. His argument was that the importer should have the article he imported tested by law, and that it should not be left to the discretion of any official as to the kind of test which should be applied. The Government wished to substitute distillation for Sykes's hydrometer; but the clause would leave it open. No doubt, in most cases, officers of the Customs acted in a fair and honest manner; still, it would not be satisfactory to importers to be left in the hands of these officers, knowing that at any moment a new kind of test might be tried.

said, he did not understand the reason advanced for the Amendment. The clause gave the Government officials every power to ascertain the amount of spirit to be taxed, and, surely, nothing should be done to weaken that power.