asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is in possession of any information, confirmatory or otherwise, in regard to the following statements which appeared some time ago in the "Ironmonger" newspaper:—

"Provincial Trail, Reports, Birmingham.—Arms and Ammunition.—The troubled state of Ireland has given rise to an active inquiry for weapons for defensive purposes as well as for some which, it is feared, are intended for aggressive use. Several orders for guns and pistols for landlords' defence organisations have been placed hero during the last month or two, and a large quantity of bulldog and other revolvers, both for Government and private use, have been despatched to Ireland since the commencement of the Land League agitation. * * * Orders of another character for old military rifles for Inland have also been plentiful lately, and it is calculated over 5,000 Snider Enfolds, which wore sold by the Government a few years ago as 'old stores,' at an average of 3s. or 4s. a piece, have been bought up since Christmas by supposed agents of the Irish land agitation at from three to four times their former cost. Stocks of old guns have tints been relieved, but at considerable risk to the peace of the Country. * * * In anticipation of the outbreak in the Transvaal, high class sporting rifles were in good request last autumn for Natal and Delagoa Bay, where the Westley-Richards Company did a large business. With the Orange Free State, also, business in high class guns has been very brisk of late, and throughout Cape Colony weapons of every kind have been in good request of late, on account of the Basuto War and the disturbed state of the neighbouring tribes on the eastern seaboard:"

and, if these statements are true, whether Her Majesty's Government cannot discourage the sale of old stores for such purposes, as well as the exportation of arms and ammunition known to be intended for use against ourselves?

, in reply, said, that the statements which the hon. Member had extracted from The Ironmonger newspaper appeared to be somewhat indefinite in their character. He did not think they justified the Question which the hon. Member had founded on them. He had no special information on the subject to which those statements related; but he was strongly of opinion that no British manufacturers of arms were exporting arms and ammunition known to be intended for use against ourselves. As regards the sale of military arms from the Government stores, the hon. Member asked a Question which had been twice replied to in the House. He could only repeat that in the time of the late Government 200,000 old Enfield rifles were sold at an average price of 1s. 6d. apiece. He was not aware whether any of those arms had found their way to Ireland; but if the hon. Member was under any apprehension on the subject, he might be relieved to know, on the authority of the noble Lord who represented the late Government in that matter, that all those arms were unserviceable, and some of them were dangerous to the persons using them. He had only to add that during the time of the present Government these sales had been entirely discontinued. No arms whatever had been sold by the present Government under these circumstances.

remarked that his Question referred to the time of the present Government.

No arms whatever have been sold by the present Government.

As the right hon. Gentleman has referred with emphasis to the action of the late Government, may I ask whether it is not the case that the sale of arms was begun by the former Liberal Government and stopped by the late Conservative Government?

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me a Question which is not within my knowledge. Probably it would be better to address it to the Secretary of State for War.

asked whether it was legal for a Government official to sell dangerous weapons to the public; and, if not, whether it was the intention of the Government to institute a prosecution against the official of the late Government responsible for such sale?

requested the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of his Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, in a recent case of the abuse of a child of nine years of age, the police permitted the offender to escape from England without endeavouring to bring him to justice; whether he will cause inquiries to be made why no prosecution was instituted by the police authorities; and, whether he will give instructions that in future the police shall take the necessary steps to prevent such a failure of justice; or, if the police have no jurisdiction in such cases, whether he will state who is the proper person to undertake prosecutions in matters of this kind?

This matter is now under investigation. I have not got the facts properly before me, and it would be premature for me to express an opinion on them.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can state the number of hours of exercise or intercourse allowed to political prisoners in Kilmainham, Galway, Naas, and Limerick Gaols, And if there is any difference in the periods allowed, and the reason?

Six hours is daily allowed in exercise and association. There is no difference in that respect in any of the gaols.

asked the Postmaster General, If the statement in a local paper is correct that, owing to the unsafe and dilapidated condition of the front of the Post Office at Kidderminster, letters can be removed from the letter-box by passers by; and, whether he will take immediate steps to remedy the complaint?

, in reply, said, so far as he had been able to ascertain, the only probable cause of insecurity was that the box might have become obstructed through persons attempting to post in it parcels too large to pass properly, instead of handing them over the counter. There was nothing, he was informed, in the condition of the front of the office to cause insecurity. The building, however, was an incommodious one, and steps were being taken to provide a new post office.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any orders have been given to the Commander in Chief in the Mediterranean within the last month or six weeks or so, for the dispersion of the vessels ordinarily composing the Mediterranean Fleet?

Sir Beauchamp Seymour, the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, wrote on the 17th of March to ask that the large ships under his command might have a mouth's independent cruise, preparatory to the long cruise of the whole Squadron which takes place during the summer. The Board replied to this, which, I am told by those who know, is a very workmanlike proposal, by a letter which ran thus—

"With reference to your letter of the 17th inst., I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that, they approve of the large ships of your squadron being detached for a month's independent cruise provided you are in telegraphic communication with them at the ports to which each ship will proceed. My Lords consider the ports of Villafranca, Barcelona, and Port Mahon are too far from Malta, and should not now be visited."

The iron-clads accordingly cruised about well within call in case of need, as was proved directly the Monarch was wanted; and the Squadron has now rejoined Sir Beauchamp Seymour's flag at Malta, and is waiting orders to sail on its summer cruise.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to complaints made by various gentlemen who obtained access to the platform at Exeter Hall on Friday last, on the occasion of a meeting at which the chair was taken by Earl Percy, M.P. and who were provided with tickets by the Committee that organised the meeting, but who were forcibly removed from the platform by a body of the Metropolitan Police; and, whether the Police were justified in taking this course of action?

in answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that, in the interests of public meetings and of free discussion in this country, it is the duty of the police to see that the people who call public meetings should be protected and supported in the holding of the meeting tranquilly, and not be interrupted or interfered with by those who wish to create disorder. The report of this meeting made to me by the police is that a great deal of disorder prevailed on the occasion; that a large number of persons overpowered the official managers who called the meeting, forced their way, took possession of the platform, and created great confusion. The police were requested by the managers to assist in clearing the platform, and I have a positive assurance that no more force was used than was absolutely necessary. The meeting then tranquilly proceeded. The police performed a difficult duty with moderation and good temper.

asked Mr. Attorney General, What steps have been taken to carry into effect the charitable dispositions made by the will of the late Mr. Mitchell in favour of the poor of the city of London; and, whether he can state in what manner such fund will be disposed of?

, in reply, said, a scheme had been prepared, under which the application of the fund would be intrusted to 15 Trustees, nine of whom would be nominated by the City Corporation, the Governors of Christ's Hospital, and the School Board of London. He had allocated the bequest in the proportion of one-third to the physical wants of the poor, the remaining two-thirds to be devoted to educational purposes. The bequest would ultimately amount, he believed, to between £3,000 and £4,000 per annum.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether Clauses for providing for the free use by the public of the East and West India Ferry Roads, in the parish of Poplar, had not been inserted in the Metropolitan Bridges and Ferry Roads Bill, and subsequently struck out after such Bill was committed, but before it had been considered by the Committee; if such Clauses were struck out, the reason for so doing; if it is not the fact that the East and West India Ferry Roads are the only roads in the Metropolis on which toll is levied; and, whether the Metropolitan Board of Works propose to take further action to relieve the public from such tolls, and extinguish the ferry rights created by the Act 52 Geo. 3, and dissolve the Poplar and Greenwich Ferry Company?

, in reply, said, that the Metropolitan Bridges and Ferry Roads Bill did contain the clauses in question, and that they were struck out. This course was taken under advice, in consequence of the opposition of the Poplar and Greenwich Ferry Company, with the details of which he would not take up the time of the House. He was unable to inform his hon. Friend whether the East and West India Ferry Roads were the only roads in the Metropolis on which toll was levied, or whether the Metropolitan Board proposed to take further action in the matter; but he was sure that their best attention would be given to any representation which might be made to them on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War. Whether his attention has been called to an attempt to murder committed by three soldiers on Sunday morning, May 16th, near Portobello, Dublin; whether the military authorities have made any effort to discover the guilty parties; and, if so, what efforts; and, whether he will order a list of men belonging to the detachment of the Army Service Corps, stationed in Portobello, who were absent from barracks between twelve o'clock on Saturday night and six o'clock on Sunday morning to be furnished to the police, in order to facilitate the discovery of the authors of the attempted murder?

I have read the papers in this case, and I find that on the 15th of May a man named M'Call, and a woman, came to Portobello Barracks and stated that the former had been thrown into the Canal by some men of the Army Service Corps. Inquiries were made, and next morning all the men of the Array Service Corps at Portobello who had been on leave the previous night were paraded for identification by M'Call; but he failed to identify the culprits. The military authorities have used every endeavour, and given every facility to the police, to discover the culprits, but without success.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. C. Gardner, Henry Thynne, Rodolphus Harvey, David Harrell, policemen and chiefs of the detective force, and H. A. Blake, sub-inspector of the police, all of Belfast, have been appointed judges or stipendiary magistrates in Ireland; and if such appointments are not calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of the Law; and, if he will place upon the Table of the House, the certificates recommending them to the office of resident magistrates?

It is true that these gentlemen were each at the head of the Belfast branch of the detective force for some time during their services as Constabulary officers, and that they have been appointed stipendiary magistrates. They are most efficient magistrates, performing their duties in a very satisfactory manner, and their appoint. ments are in no way calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of the law. I do not know to what certificates the hon. Member refers. There are no such things.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, in view of the fact that Captain Elliott's murderers must have formed part of a detachment which was appointed to escort prisoners over the frontier, any satisfactory explanation has been yet received from the Boer leaders of the delay in the apprehension of the persons concerned?

We are informed by Sir Hercules Robinson that the explanation of the Boer leaders as follows:—They say that during the war their hands were so full that they had no time to think of anything else, and that their promise to co-operate was made on the 21st of March, after which date the government was out of their hands, and they had no power to arrest. They have given the names of the persons believed to be implicated, and say they are willing to assist the officers of justice in arresting these persons when a warrant of apprehension is issued.

Can the right hon. Gentleman mention the names?

I do not know them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the ensuing negotiations with France for the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty, the representatives of Great Britain will be instructed to insist on the insertion of some provision to prevent the spirit and intention of one Treaties being broken by the giving a bounties, referred to by Lord Granville in a despatch to Mr. Adams, dated July 30th, 1880, as follows:—

"It is a fair matter of representation that such bounties are contrary to the spirit and intention of those Treaties, and will, in another way, produce the very effect which their stipulations with reference to useful duties are intended to prevent. This view of the case will be borne in mind in any commercial negotiations with France which may be conducted in London;"

and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of entering into negotiations with other Foreign Powers with a view of making such alterations in existing Treaties as will bring the letter of those Treaties in accord with their spirit and intention?

The question of the sugar bounties is dealt with by the Board of Trade; but the Foreign Office have undertaken to bring before the French Commissioners, in the course of the ensuing Commercial negotiations, the complaints respecting the effect of the bounties granted in France to sugar and shipping. Her Majesty's Government cannot tie their hands by undertaking to make the conclusion of any Commercial Treaty dependent upon the acceptance of a foreign Government of their views upon any given point.

gave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply, he would call the attention of the House to the despatch of Lord Granville to Mr. Adams.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in cases where no consular officers are stationed at the districts in Russia reputed to have risen against the Jewish population, Her Majesty's Government will follow the precedent created by the mission of Mr. Baring into Bulgaria, and despatch a special agent to examine and report into the alleged outrages?

No, Sir. A deputation, representing various Jewish bodies, which waited on Lord Granville on Tuesday, pointed out that no analogy existed between the cases which the hon. Member compares.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Militia Battalions are to become the 3rd and 4th Battalions of Regular Regiments after the 1st of July; and, whether those which have not hitherto had a permanent Adjutant will then be supplied with one?

In reply to the noble and gallant Lord, I have to state that, practically, Militia Regiments will be treated, as a general rule, as 3rd and 4th Battalions of Territorial Regiments from the 1st of July. Technically, however, formalities have to be observed, which will defer for a short time this affiliation being completed. It is not yet finally settled in which cases the two Adjutants will be allowed; but this will be decided before next year's training.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If, in the case of Colonels who are retired compulsorily or voluntarily under the new Warrant, and who will be entitled to retire as Major Generals, he will permit them to retain the designation of Colonel should any of them express a preference for retiring with that grade?

Yes, Sir; by all means.

asked the Postmaster General, If his attention has 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 will adopt that opinion and act upon it?

, in reply, said, that anyone who had heard or read the answer of his hon. and learned Friend on this subject would come to the conclusion that he had not defined the legal status of the telegraph clerks, and he had certainly not been asked to do so.

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 police man entrusted with the delivery and collection of voting papers at said elec- tion 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 successful 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 those assumptions be accurate, will he take into consideration the form in which the last election for the Poor Law Guardians for Cromae was conducted?

Since my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland replied to a previous Question on this subject, we have received a Report in reference to it from the Inspector General of Constabulary. It appears that certain allegations having been made against the sub-constable affecting his conduct in the distribution and collection of the Poor Law voting papers in the Cromae Ward, the Inspector General directed that charges of neglect in the performance of this duty should be framed against him and brought before the magistrates, under 6 Will. IV. c. 13, s. 19, for adjudication. These charges were fully investigated by the magistrates on the 13th instant, and after a careful and protracted inquiry they acquitted the sub-constable. It was not proved that he partook of refreshments from the candidate, Mr. Christian, in a public-house; and there was no charge or even suggestion before the magistrates that the voting papers wore in any way tampered or interfered with. This imputation has now been made for the first time in the Question of the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend has already stated that the Local Government Board do not think that the case is one for the exercise of their powers of inquiry under the 23rd section of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 92; and it appears to me that the Report of the Constabulary authorities does not disclose any new facts requiring further investigation.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, When he will move for the appointment of a joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, as promised in another place, to inquire into the Report of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office; and, whether ho can inform the House of the scope and particular points to be referred to such Committee for decision?

I hope to be able to move in a few days for the appointment of the Committee referred to by my hon. Friend. The general object of the inquiry which. I should propose would be the existing arrangements for the printing, distribution, and sale of Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, and Papers printed at the public expense for the information of Parliament, and for the storage of Parliamentary Papers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to inquire if any of the Government officials of the Arsenal at Woolwich have been using their influence with the employés in the Arsenal to induce them to sign a Petition against one of the duly elected Members for the borough of Northampton taking his seat in this House; whether, in violation of regulations, a labourer was sent round amongst these employés during working hours by certain of the officials to obtain signatures for such a Petition; and, whether, if he finds that this was the case, he will take measures to punish the officials guilty of this conduct?

said, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question he should like to ask another, although he had not given Notice. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman considered that workmen employed in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich were, in consequence of such employment, precluded from expressing any opinion on the ad- vance of atheistic, obscene, and disloyal opinion in the country?

As to the last Question, I should have Notice of it, because it requires a very careful answer. It involves a distinction between what the workmen may do on duty and off duty. If he excuses me for saying it, my hon. Friend had time to give me Notice of this Question. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, I have to state that I have ascertained that an officer of the Store Department in Woolwich Arsenal obtained signatures there to a Petition against the alteration of the law on the subject of Parliamentary Oaths, and employed an office messenger for the purpose. I also find that a labourer in the Royal Laboratory brought a Petition to the same effect into the Department, but not at the request of any officer. I have taken care that the persons who have committed these irregularities are made aware of my disapproval of their conduct.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that one or more surgeons employed in the compulsory examination of prostitutes under the Contagious Diseases Acts have been made justices of the peace, in order that they may carry out the Acts in a twofold capacity, administering and executing the Law; whether he will state by what Minister such gentlemen were recommended to Her Majesty for appointment; whether he approves of such a confusion of duties; and, whether the individuals in question should not be called upon to make their choice once for all to act either as magistrates or as surgeons?

, in reply, said, that he had made inquiries on the subject, and had not been able to discover that any such appointments had been made.

said, he believed the appointments were made by Earl Cairns, the ex-Lord Chancellor.

asked the President of the Local Government Board. Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that an absolute diversity of opinion exists at this moment amongst our highest medical authorities in regard to certain lymph still used, Sir Thomas Watson declaring that the lymph which has been largely used at Brighton and elsewhere for the last forty years is variolous, and such as "must have spread about a vast amount of mitigated smallpox;" while Dr. Carpenter asserts that—

"No vaccinator could be charged with propagating smallpox even though it were put beyond doubt that his vaccine lymph had been remotely derived from a smallpox pustule;"

and, whether he does not think it would be safer to discontinue the practice of vaccination altogether until at least our highest medical authorities can agree upon the not unimportant point as to whether the lymph employed is a protection against smallpox, or whether it may not be simply an agent for the diffusion of smallpox?

I believe that Sir Thomas Watson did use the words quoted in a letter to The British Medical Journal for January 17, 1880. In a subsequent letter, however, to that journal, on February 28, 1880, he says, referring to an important paper by Mr. Ceely, of which he had no previous knowledge—

"A careful study of it has convinced me that I have been in error respecting the mutual relations between small-pox and cow-pox. I hasten, as in duty and honour bound, to acknowledge my mistake, and to apologize to the gentleman upon whose measures upon this subject I have commented."

I cannot admit that there is any substantial difference among the highest medical authorities upon the point as to whether the lymph employed is a protection against small-pox, or whether it may not be simply an agent for the diffusion of small-pox, as the great bulk of the Profession are agreed that the lymph employed in vaccination is, if successfully inserted into the human subject, a protection against small-pox, and not a means to its diffusion. At the same time, if all measures for preventing or curing disease in regard to which a difference among doctors may be found are to be postponed until they all agree, not only would vaccination, but medical treatment altogether, have to be suspended indefinitely.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state the grounds, actuarial or other, on which a sum of £12,500 was given to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts, in commutation of an annuity of £1,000 a-year respectively awarded to these two officers, it being the fact, as stated in recognised works of reference, that Sir Donald Stewart is about eight years older than Sir Frederick Roberts?

Sir, I did not state that the sum of £12,500 had been given to Sir Frederick Roberts and Sir Donald Stewart as the exact commutation of the pension of £1,000 a-year granted to them. What I stated, I believe, was that legal difficulties having arisen with regard to these officers' pensions of £1,000'a-year, pending their tenure of commands in India, it was decided to make an alternative offer to them, and that they had been finally offered either £1,000 a-year at the expiration of their term of service, or a lump sum, which I said was in both cases in excess of what the actuarial value of £1,000 a-year, if now calculated, would have been. When pensions from the India Office are commuted the interest is calculated at 5 per cent, and at that rate of interest the actuarial equivalent of the pension of £1,000 a-year to a person of Sir Frederick Roberts' age would have been £11,892. At 4 per cent it would have been £13,153. It was considered, on the whole, desirable to offer these officers a lump sum intermediate between the value on these two calculations. Of course I am perfectly aware that Sir Donald Stewart, being older than Sir Frederick Roberts, the sum he received is more largely in excess of the commuted value of the pension than that received by Sir Frederick Roberts.

Perhaps the noble Lord will inform the House what was the actuarial value of the pension of Sir Donald Stewart?

I cannot now say.

asked the Right honourable Baronet, the senior Member for the University of Oxford, Whether the members of the governing body of Westminster School, present at the meeting of May 2nd (when the house of the late Sub-dean of Westminster, secured to the School by 31 and 32 Vic. c. 118, s. 20, and others vacant, was not claimed, and another house of far less dimensions, and of far less convenience for the purposes of the School, was accepted in exchange, the prospects of obtaining the latter house being contingent on the death or resignation of the occupier), were more than a moiety of the governing body; whether the members of the governing body received notice that business of the highest importance to the welfare and efficiency of the School was to come under the consideration of the governing body; whether the governing body has powers under 31 and 32 Vic. c. 118, to exchange premises secured to the School for other premises, or any premises except those provided under sub-section 13; whether the hour at which the meetings of the governing body are summoned is not fixed at a time at which it is notoriously impossible for the Right honourable the Chairman of Ways and Means to attend to the business of the School; whether there are not four Deans and two Canons of Westminster in the governing body; and, whether it is not the duty of a member of the governing body to consider the interest of the School, whose affairs he is appointed to administer, beyond everything else?

rose to a point of Order arising out of the Question of the hon. Member. Sir Erskine May, in his Parliamentary Practice, had laid it down that Questions might be put to Ministers of the Crown on matters of Public Business, or to private Members having charge of a Bill or Motion on the Paper of the House, or to persons occupying certain high positions. Under the latter head Questions were asked of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of Members serving on Parliamentary Commissions, or even on temporary Commissions, of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or the Trustees of the British Museum. But he would ask whether the privilege of asking Questions in that House might be exercised in respect of Members who happened to be Members of the Governing Body of a school on a subject relating to the action of the Governing Body of that school? It appeared to him that if this practice was to be introduced, it would involve a dangerous extension of the right of asking Questions, and would justify Questions being addressed to any hon. Member who happened to be a Member of any public body whatever—of a Board of Guardians, or a Railway Board, or any other body acting under the authority of an Act of Parliament—with regard to matters connected with their different Boards or Companies.

The right hon. Baronet has, no doubt, quite correctly stated the Rule of the House that no Question shall be put to any Member of the House, other than a Minister of the Crown, unless that Question relates to some Bill or Motion that happens to be before the House. At the same time, when the Question now under discussion appeared on the Notice Paper of the House, I considered whether it was proper that the Question should be put; and it certainly did appear to me—seeing that it related to the proceedings of the Governing Body of an important public school, established by Act of Parliament—that it would not be proper for me to interpose between the hon. Member proposing to put that Question and the House.

In reply to this long series of Questions, mixed up with suggestions, I beg to state that, although in deference to what has fallen from the Speaker I answer the Questions put to me, I wish it to be understood that I am neither the Chairman nor a very active member of the Governing Body of Westminster School. The matters to which the series of Questions refer were discussed at two meetings of the Governing Body, duly convened, with proper notice, on March 31 and May 2. On the former day 11, on the latter 7—out of 14 in number—of the existing Governing Body were present. The Resolutions on each occasion were unanimously carried. The Governing Body resolved to take the necessary steps to acquire the late sub-Dean's house, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and promised to take into favourable consideration any proposal in the nature of an exchange. Such proposal having been afterwards received, the Governing Body accepted an offer of another house, in their opinion adequate and convenient, with the prospect of immediate possession, and upon the understanding that an adequate space of ground would, if practicable, be provided for a fives court. The Governing Body were advised by counsel that they had the right, with consent of the Charity Commissioners, to effect such change. I know nothing of the hour fixed for the meetings. It is usually 4 o'clock, and has been found convenient for Members of both Houses of Parliament and for Judges and members of the Bar. The noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor), before he held Office, was a most constant attendant. Now, the hon. Member for Southwark is, we know, an accurate scholar, yet the next part of his Question is very difficult to understand. He asks me whether there are not four Deans and two Canons of Westminster in the Governing Body? The proper construction of that is that there are four Deans of Westminster. Well, there are not four Deans of Westminster; but the Dean and two Canons of Westminster and the Dean of Christ Church are members of the Governing Body ex officio. The Master of the Temple, who is also Dean of Llandaff, and Dr. Church, who is Dean of St. Paul's, have been elected members. In my opinion, it is the duty of a member of the Governing Body to consider the interests of the school beyond everything else. I can only speak for myself, without any authority to represent others. If the hon. Member for Southwark wishes to exhaust that portion of the subject, he must interrogate the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair) and the other members of the Governing Body. With the majority of them, including all the four Deans, the hon. Member for Southwark is in closer political sympathy than I am.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have reliable information as to what is passing in Bulgaria; whether the meagreness of the news in the public prints indicates that the Prince has possession of the telegraph; and, whether he can state yet what course Her Majesty's Government have adopted in the matter?

Her Majesty's Government are beginning to receive detailed information as to what is passing in Bulgaria; and, judging from the telegrams which appear in the newspapers and those received by Her Majesty's Government, no hindrance is being put in the way of communication by telegraph. Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to pronounce any opinion upon the circumstances.

Is the British Agent in Bulgaria still maintaining communications with the Prince?

So far as I know, yes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of instructions previously issued, the Turkish troops were not allowed to interfere with the brigands who carried off Mr. Suter, lest in so doing they should injure an Englishman; whether the Turkish Government is nevertheless held responsible for the occurrence; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have again adopted the plan of compounding with the brigands, paying them large sums and guaranteeing their security, as was done on a former occasion, and so giving them the utmost possible temptation to capture as many Englishmen as possible?

Her Majesty's Government considered it their duty to take such steps as were in their power to save the life of Mr. Suter. Her Majesty's Consul General at Salonica was accordingly authorized to pay the ransom demanded by the brigands, if they could not be induced to accept a smaller sum; and the Turkish Government were informed that they would be held responsible for the amount, and for an indemnity to Mr. Suter's widow in the event of his being killed by the brigands. Mr. Blunt considered it necessary, to insure Mr. Suter's safety, that the brigands should not be pursued by troops as long as he was in their hands, and the Turkish authorities were requested to give orders to that effect. A telegram has been received stating that Mr. Suter has been liberated; but that Mr. Blunt was obliged to pay the whole ransom demanded. We are not aware that the security of the brigands has been in any way guaranteed. A notice has been issued warning British subjects that Her Majesty's Government will not in future be responsible in similar cases.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any record a conversation by Lord Salisbury with reference to the occupation of Tripoli by Italy, as compensation for the entry of France into Tunis?

I can quite understand the curiosity of my hon. Friend on this subject, and I am sure he will understand my reticence. All the information that Her Majesty's Government are in a position to supply is contained in the Papers which have been laid upon the Table of the House, and I am unwilling to be drawn, in replying to my hon. Friend's Question, into a discussion upon the subject.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the Rivers Conservancy Bill has after reference to a Committee passed the House of Lords, and has in this House been carried on the Second Reading by a large majority, the Government will take immediate steps for the nomination of the Select Committee to which the Bill has been referred, so that its provisions may be duly considered with a view to legislation in the present Session?

Considering that the Bill in question is substantially one for giving facilities to those localities which may desire to obtain legislation suitable to their necessities, and that the importance of such a measure has been recognized not only by the present, but by the preceding Government, Her Majesty's Government certainly had hoped that the nomination of the Select Committee would have been assented to without difficulty as soon as the House re-assembled after the Easter Recess. But the number of miscellaneous Notices that have been given, coupled with the pressure of Business and the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule, have delayed the nomination of the Committee. I am perfectly well aware, and deeply sensible, of the urgent importance in the case of several river basins of legislation of this description. I very much sympathize with those hon. Members who do not altogether agree with me in regard to the proposed composition of the Committee, or to the method of procedure which I propose on behalf of the Government to adopt; but, considering the importance and urgency of the subject, I would venture to hope that those hon. Members may waive their Notices and allow the nomination of the Committee to proceed. Be that as it may, it, has been, and it remains, the desire of the Government to prosecute this measure with the least possible delay, and to secure legislation on the subject in the present Session.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the rule which prevails in the Army, making it compulsory on officers to retire at certain ages, with a view of securing a steady and healthy flow of promotion in the junior ranks, might not with equal advantage be applied to the Civil Service generally; and, if there is any reason why the regulation now in force at the Admiralty, requiring clerks of forty years' service to retire or, attaining the age of sixty, should not be extended to the War Office and other Public Departments, in which, failing the introduction of any such measure, the prospects of advancement are exceedingly remote?

By the Superannuation Act of 1859, any member of the Civil Service of 60 years of age and 40 years' service is qualified, on retirement, for the maximum pension of two-thirds of fns pay and allowances. Formerly, the rate of retiring pension increased up to 50 years' service, when it might be equal to the full pay and allowances. Undoubtedly, the tendency of that system was to detain men in the Service too long; but under the one now in force it is not very usual for any clerk in the Public Departments to remain after he is qualified for the full retiring pension. The Regulation now in force at the Admiralty, to which the hon. Member alludes, was promulgated at a time when great changes were being made. I am not aware of any case which calls for a new general Rule; it is, however, in the power of the Head of any Department to propose to the Treasury for adoption the Admiralty Regulation.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the vacancies created by the new Army Organisation will be filled up in the battalions in which they occur, or in the new double battalions, according to seniority; and, will officers, who by existing regulations are already disqualified from further promotion, gain any benefit in promotion by the new Warrant, or be obliged to retire at once?

In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that the question to which his inquiry points has been fully discussed; and that in the General Orders, which will give effect to the new organization, clauses will be inserted fully providing fur the equities of these cases. I do not think that I need, at the present time, give further detail as to a portion of the very elaborate scheme which will shortly be before Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has taken any steps to ascertain the views of the French Government respecting the renewal of the Convention of 1875, which expires in 1882; and, if so, if he will communicate the answer of the French Government to the House? He also asked, If Her Majesty's Government consider that any alteration in the jurisdiction of the Consular Court at Tunis is required under the present confused state of affairs in the Regency; and, if not, will Her Majesty's Government obtain an undertaking from the French and Tunisian Governments that the jurisdiction of the Court shall be as extensive in the future as it was when the Court was first established?

If the noble Lord will turn to the Convention with Tunis, which was laid before Parliament in 1876, he will perceive that Article 40 provides that at any time after the expiration of seven years from the date of the Convention, either of the high contracting parties shall have the right to call upon the other to enter upon a revision of the same; but until such revision shall have been accomplished by common consent, and a new Convention shall have been concluded and put into operation, the present Convention shall continue and remain in full force and effect. With regard to the second Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that the Convention of 1875 determines the jurisdiction of the Consular Court, and the subject is therefore covered by the reply which I have given to the noble Lord's previous Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is to be inferred from Lord Granville's letter of the 20th May to the French Ambassador that England does not recognise the Treaty forced upon the Bey on 12th May; whether, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Government does or does not recognise such Treaty; and, whether the Order in Council of the 18th May does or does not treat Tunis as a part of the Ottoman Empire; also, if Her Majesty's Government is aware that M. Roustan has ordered the Bey of Tunis to surround the house of the Sheik-el-Islam with soldiers; and that M. Roustan has sent an intimation to the Sheik-el-Islam as to the decision he must deliver in the Enfida case?

I am unable to give within the limits of a reply a full statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the points raised by the noble Lord; and I must leave him to appreciate the views expressed in Lord Granville's Note. With regard to M. Roustan, Her Majesty's Government have received no information of the kind referred to from Her Majesty's Consular General at Tunis.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any arrangements are in progress, and, if so, what arrangements, for opening the inclosure in Lincoln's Inn Fields as a recreation ground for the public?

I believe that a proposal has been made to open Lincoln's Inn Fields to the public; but I am afraid it has not made much progress, owing to the legal difficulties raised by the householders in the neighbourhood. The question is one which concerns the Metropolitan Board of Works more than the Office of Works.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has yet come to any decision in regard to remitting the fines levied upon three men (John West, Isaac Martin, and John Basset) at the West Powder Petty Sessions, for killing rabbits, on the invitation and at the request of the occupier of the land?

, in reply, said, that, after careful consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the magistrates had misconceived the law, and that the conviction could not be sustained. He had, therefore, directed that the fines imposed by the magistrates should be remitted.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether before deciding on any plans for the building of the new Science and Art Museum and National Library in Dublin the Corporation of Dublin will be consulted; and, whether in the construction of the National Library regard will be had to the improved mode of construction which separates the public reading rooms from those in which the books are stored?

asked whethey, considering the number of years the project had been under consideration, the Government would use all their exertions to bring it to a speedy completion?

, in reply, said, there had been no delay since the matter came into their hands. The only hindrance they had experienced, they had experienced in the City of Dublin itself. As the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) was, no doubt, aware, the acquisition of the Leinster Lawn site was wanted, and the Government were pre- pared to acquire it immediately they came into Office. They had, however, been defeated by local opposition. Now they were thrown back upon the Kildare Street site, and they were making arrangements for a public competition in respect to the plans and valuations for the proposed new buildings. Every facility would be given for the criticism of the plans by the Corporation and the public generally before a selection was made. The hon. Member might rest assured that the Government would do all it could to secure the best possible arrangements for the Library; but it would be premature to state before the plans were prepared what those arrangements would be. He could assure both the hon. Gentlemen the Government were as anxious to push the matter forward as they themselves were.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since the 5th May, the Government have received any information on the subject of the necessity of suspending evictions in Ireland in the case of tenants unable to pay their rents; whether that information has received the close and early attention of the Government; and, whether, in view of the delay of legislation, he will bring in some provisional measure to check evictions in such cases, and thus remove serious sources of disturbance in Ireland?

inquired whether the attention of the right lion. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had been called to a Return issued that morning, stating that there had been 91 judgments entered in the High Court of Justice between January 29 and May 1, and that ejectment decrees had been granted during the Easter term to the number of 3,003?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many tenants who were well able to pay their rents refused to do so under pressure of the Land League; and whether he would consider the propriety of simplifying the procedure for the recovery of rent in Ireland?

My attention is not commonly called to Papers such as those to which the hon. Member for Galway refers except upon some collateral suggestion; and I have not had the opportunity of considering these Returns. I am afraid it is the case that a considerable number of persons who are able to pay their rents are under sinister suggestions to avoid payment; but I cannot at this moment say whether it is desirable to take any steps, or, if any, what stops, in the peculiar state of the law, with regard to the recovery of rents in Ireland. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), I believe it refers to a previous reply of mine, which reply seemed to invite some further information on the subject to which it referred. I can only say that, so far as the Members of the Government in London are concerned, and so far as my right lion. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is concerned, at the time when he left London, we had not as yet received any such further information; but, undoubtedly, all information which we do receive will be for us a matter of very serious consideration. With respect to exceptional legislation, I would remind the House that our Compensation for Disturbance Bill last year met with no success. I fear that further legislation of the same kind now, while very uncertain in its own direct issue, would cause serious delay to other legislation which we hope may be of a more permanent character.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether ho has now concluded negotiations for expediting the mails to and from Inverness and the North of Scotland; and, if so, whether he will be good enough to indicate the new arrangements?

informed his hon. Friend that negotiations had been concluded for the acceleration of the mails to the Highlands; but he would not trouble the House with the details. He might say that the London night mail would arrive at Inverness an hour and a quarter, and at Wick two hours and 20 minutes earlier than at present, while the day mail would arrive at Inverness 50 minutes earlier. He had decided upon all arrangements as to arrival of the mails, and he could send the hon. Member a copy of them. He would only add that this improved postal arrangement would come into operation on Wednesday next, the 1st of June.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether after the holding of the Court of Inquiry on the state of Captain Chatterton, as mentioned by him last Thursday, there were not general, brigade, and divisional orders issued in reference to his case, dated respectively March 15th, 16th, and 17th, 1869, and whether in consequence of such orders Presidency Surgeons Baillie and Brougham, and Garrison Surgeon Powell did not place Captain Chatterton in the officers' hospital at Fort William, Calcutta, for urgent surgical treatment, as the operation, however simple it might have been if performed in the September previous, had become a serious one owing to delay; whether Garrison Surgeon Powell has not certified that after full examination he found Captain Chatterton suffering from a contracted limb, for which he considered the division of the left tendon achilles necessary; that he attended him daily; prepared his papers, and proposed to take him before the Medical Board in Calcutta on the 28th April, with a recommendation that he be granted twelve months' leave of absence to visit England, in order that the operation might be performed under favourable circumstances, but that he was unable to take him before such court in consequence of an order from the India Council being served on him on the 26th April requiring him to dismiss Captain Chatterton from the hospital; whether that India Council order was not founded on the previous Despatch of January, and in ignorance of the opinions subsequently formed by the highest medical authorities in Calcutta; whether, in consequence of Captain Chatterton being so hastily and improperly turned out of the hospital, he was not left to find his way back to England to undergo the operation the best way he could; and, if he will allow this officer to be examined by the Medical Board at the India Office to report to the House whether Captain Chatterton is not now a cripple for life, notwithstanding five operations performed in England, in consequence of the delay in attending to his case in India, owing to the differences of opinion existing among the medical authorities in India?

Since this morning, when I first observed this Question on the Paper, I have not had time to examine the details of Captain Chatterton's case. The General Brigade and Divisional Orders issued with reference to it have never been received at the India Office, as it is not the practice to send such Orders home from India. I will have the matter carefully examined, in order to ascertain whether it requires further inquiry in India; but I cannot hold out to the hon. Member any hope that it will be possible to take further action in reference to it in view of the amount of consideration it has already received and the number of Secretaries of State before whom it has been brought.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the reason why the 50th Regiment of Foot has been kept at home since June 1869, while every other regiment in the service has had its tour of foreign service?

For the reasons which I gave to the House on the 23rd instant, when I was asked about the 58th Regiment, I do not think that the House will expect me to give detailed explanations as to the time during which the 50th Regiment has been at home beyond this—that there is nothing exceptional in the case.

asked the Postmaster General, If there is any truth in the report that has appeared in the newspapers that the Post Office authorities have nearly completed negotiations for the purchase of the site of Christ's Hospital; and, if not, whether they have any intention of endeavouring to secure it?

The great increase of business in the various departments of the Post Office has raised the question of providing improved accommodation. This question is under the consideration of a Departmental Committee, which has not yet arrived at any conclusion as to whether a new site for buildings ought to be acquired or not. In these circumstances, it is scarcely necessary to say that no negotiations have been entered into with regard to the purchase of Christ's Hospital.

asked, whether the question had been considered of selling the present valuable site of the Post Office, and erecting a new Post Office which would be nearer the principal railway termini—in the vicinity, for instance, of Bedford Square?

Of course, the question has been carefully considered; but no definite conclusion respecting it has yet been arrived at.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he proposed to take any Vote on Account before Whitsuntide?

said, he believed it would be necessary to do so.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government had received any confirmation of the report that Russia had formally annexed the country of the Take Turcomans?

We have received no information on the subject.

asked the Secretary o the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to instruct their officers in Belfast to permit persons, whose applications for transfers and confirmations yf publicans' certificates may not be heard until the annual licensing sessions on 30th October, to continue trading from the date their licences expire until that date, without requiring such person, as last year, to obtain ad interim authority from the Lord Lieutenant?

The Board of Inland Revenue intend to instruct their officers not to interfere with the sale of intoxicating liquors in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member pending confirmation of the licences at Quarter Sessions upon deposit being made of the proper amount of licence duty. This course has been approved by the Lord Lieutenant, and will be pursued in all similar cases in future, so that it will no longer be necessary to apply to the Lord Lieutenant for his ad interim authority.

wished to put a Question to the Prime Minister with reference to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Carlow Borough; and, with the indulgence of the House, he would preface his Question with one or two observations, which would be confined within the narrowest possible limits. He desired to make a suggestion, or, rather, an appeal, to the Prime Minister with reference to the present lamentable state of things in Ireland, as to evictions on the one side and as to the retaliatory spirit in which the Land League was resisting them on the other. He could say that there were some Irish Members who deplored both of those evils, and who were honestly desirous of seeing some truce established which would spare the country the horrors which were now being enacted. He would, therefore, appeal again to the Prime Minister, Whether it would not be practicable to do something whereby the rush of evictions could be eased, and at the same time the people could be called upon to discharge their honest obligation to pay rent where they could? He was the ambassador of no one; but he could say that there were some Irish Members cordially acting with their Colleagues round about them in his part of the House who would heartily throw themselves into an effort to effect, in the interests of peace, an honourable adjustment of the terrible state of things prevailing in Ireland.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that at the meeting of the Land League held on Tuesday, the list of evictions for the past week was larger than any list made at any previous meeting of the League; also, whether his attention had been called to a statement in The Irish Times and Freeman's Journal that the Lord Chamberlain (the Earl of Kenmare), the Earl of Arran, the Earl of Courtown, the Earl of Charlemont, the Earl of Granard, Bishop Alexander, Sir W. M'Mahon, Sir Nugent Humble, and Lord Cloncurry wore among those who were pushing things to an extreme against their tenants; and whether he would endeavour to establish something like a truce between the relentless landlords and their impoverished tenantry?

wished, before the right hon. Gentleman replied, to ask him whether he was aware that at the meeting of the Land League which the hon. Member had just referred to, the gentleman who was in charge of the League (Mr. Kettle) suggested a propaganda for the non-payment of any rents whatever; whether he was aware that many persons had refused to pay any lawful rent, though admittedly well able to do so; and also whether he was aware that the evidence given before the Richmond Commission by Mr. Kettle showed what was the position he held as a tenant farmer.

In answer to what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Galway, I have to say that I heard with great dissatisfaction and pain generally, though not in the precisest terms, of the announcement at the Land League meeting to which he has referred. Every such announcement, of course, adds to the difficulty, not only of governing Ireland, but likewise takes away from the chances of bringing that country to a state of peace and prosperity. I have not received the particulars mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). It may be my fault in his opinion, but I am not in possession of the most recent details on the subject; and I would suggest that, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will be in his place on Monday, the hon. Member should postpone his Question till that occasion.

said, he would sooner make the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman himself. He asked him whether, in his opinion, the number of evictions by landlords did not largely increase the difficulty of governing Ireland at the present moment?

It is extremely inconvenient that I should be called upon to give any answer with regard to the particular character of any set of evictions unless I had an opportunity of examining into the circumstances in detail. Harsh, cruel, and needless evictions are at all times most censurable, and now more than ever. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to expect or to ask that a class of men invested with legal rights, and believing that others are withholding from them dues which they are able to pay, should refrain from enforcing the rights which are given to them by law.

said, he had seen it stated in the newspapers that if any Member moved the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day it would be moved at a Morning Sitting. It would be convenient if the Speak or would kindly state when that Motion would have to be made.

pointed out that a Morning Sitting had been already fixed for to-morrow for the consideration of a Government Bill.

said, that yesterday an Order of the Day was actually appointed for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and therefore there would naturally be a Morning Sitting to-morrow. In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, he might say that the Motion for the adjournment of the House over the Derby Day world have precedence. That Motion, whether made by a Minister or by another Member, had, according to custom, always had precedence.

asked whether that Motion would take precedence of all other Business at 9 o'clock?

said, that the contingency of a Morning Sitting rather complicated the matter; and, as the question of adjournment over a given day related to the Business of the House, he thought it ought to have precedence over the other Business at the Morning Sitting, according to the usage of the House.

Does the Prime Minister mean to move the adjournment himself?

I appeal to the Prime Minister, in the interest of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, not to move the adjournment.

It is the only curtailment that has taken place in Government, or in the Government share of the Business of the House in late years, and I am very unwilling to sacrifice it. I do not propose to meddle in my official capacity in the adjournment over the Derby.

Then, Sir, I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday, at 2 o'clock, I shall move that the house, at its rising, shall adjourn till Thursday.

And I shall oppose it.

I wish to say a word or two in regard to this clause, which I think may obviate the necessity for moving the Amendment which appears on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), and a further Amendment which, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) proposed to move. I bad no knowledge before Monday last, when we were in Committee upon this Bill, that this question was about to be raised in the House, and therefore I had no prior opportunity of considering it; but since that time I have examined it with some care, and I find two things. In the first place, I find that it is a matter which will not require legislation at all. It is entirely within the competence, and therefore within the responsibility of the Executive Government to give remission of taxation laid upon any commodity or any description of property in cases where it is sufficiently proved that the profit on which the tax has been levied has not been realized. In the second place, some explanation is required as to the method of doing it. Of course, I am quite sure my hon. Friend does not mean to apply that rule so as to alter the whole basis of the Income Tax in regard to the land which is in the occupation of landlords for the purpose of order, convenience, or sup- port. He means only to meet what may be called the present distress, in consequence of which a great number of farms have been thrown upon the hands of the landlords, which landlords are doing the best they can to turn the land to good account, but who, it may often happen, fail to make the usual farm profits out of them. On this basis I think I can say that we should be prepared to take the responsibility of framing a measure which will meet the case; and we have in the Land and Income Tax Commissioners a body of gentlemen to whom would properly belong the duty of determining whether the loss has been incurred in such a way as to justify the remission. It is obvious, of course, that there must be some cognizance in the measure of the relief thus given; and an impartial tribunal such as I have named would be proposed by the Bill, which would not be likely to be prejudiced in favour of the Government. The Land Tax Commissioners have property in the district in which they act, and they are likely to be interested in the land itself. There is also another question—whether, in this case, it is not fair that estates should receive some corresponding relief in respect of local rates. The ground is exactly the same, and, moreover, there is a still closer analogy, and for this reason—wherever any land is in the hands of the owner as occupier, the practice of the Rating Department is to consider its value on the basis of the Poor Law valuation. It is substantially on this Poor Law valuation that any abatement would be made in respect to losses shown to have occurred, and in the case we are now considering there would certainly be strong reason why there should be a corresponding abatement in respect of local rates. This, however, is a matter which I should like to have time to consider, and in the course of the Session we can easily return to this question. In the meantime, I hope I have said enough to be satisfactory to my hon. Friends, inasmuch as I accept the principle of the proposal of which Notice has been given. As I have said, I believe that the Government have powers that are sufficient for the purpose, and that they do not require altering, and if hon. Gentlemen will return to the subject in the course of a few weeks, probably by that time I shall be able to give them distinct information in a more formal manner.

said, that he believed it would not be competent for him to move his Amendment in the present clause; but it would be competent, if necessary, to move it in Clause 21. But after the generous concession which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make he did not intend to proceed with either of the Amendments which stood in his name. He should like to know, however, whether the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman made would take the form of a Treasury Minute?

I think it would come through the Board of Inland Revenue, and it would probably be approved and accepted by the Treasury.

The question of the remission of rent? [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) assumed that the order would have effect upon Income Tax, payable under Schedule A this year, in January last. He also assumed that specific directions would be given after the proposal had been finally determined upon, so that all persons interested might know that this concession had been made, and that they were entitled to relief; otherwise a great many persons might not be aware of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that night. These were points upon which he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance. There was, he believed, one precedent. In 1879 there was a remission of Income Tax upon rents not received, which he thought was on all fours with the present proposal. He would not say that it was exactly the same; but on that occasion the course taken by the Government was found to work very well. He had no doubt that the present proposal might be made to work equally well, and it ought to have reference to the payment which became due in January last. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman would take care to have the matter sufficiently notified in the local papers.

It will be necessary that I should examine into the legislation for the remission of taxes in bygone years. I shall have to inquire into the matter, and see whether there are any precedents or not. Undoubtedly, whether it is done by advertisement or not, I will take care through this House, and otherwise, that ample information shall be given.

said, the practice of remitting the Income Tax on rents which had not been received was commenced by the late Government; and he thought the present Government were entitled to credit for having sufficient discernment and generosity to follow the course then set. He believed the present Government had so far shown the sincerity of their intentions by actually making a return of the tax where there was evidence that the rents had not been realized. But the right hon. Gentleman hail raised a subsidiary question having a very close connection with this, which was also one of very great importance—namely, the liability of property in this position to pay local rates. In many cases it would be found that the rental had been repeatedly reduced in consequence of bail seasons; and he thought there should also be a reduction in the amount of taxation to which the property was liable. He did not know, however, that the right hon. Gentleman could do more than promise to consider how far these equitable returns or remissions could be carried out. He might take this opportunity of saying that he had, early in the Session, asked for leave to bring in a Bill touching upon the question of taxation; but which, in view of the pressure of the great Irish questions, he had hitherto abstained from bringing forward. It would be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the proceeds of landed property were at present divided between the encumbrancer and the real owner—he (Mr. Hubbard) believed that, in point of fact, the product was about equally divided. This fact disclosed a serious inequality in the incidence of their taxation. Tito capitalist who had a mortgage upon the estate, when he got his interest, had to pay Income Tax only on that interest, where as the owner was not taxed upon the residue alone, but upon the whole of this outgoings; consequently, while the capitalist was only paying 5d. in the pound, the owner might be paying 10d. That was the state of things last year; but what was it now? The reduction of rent had been so great that the mortgagees in many cases were receiving the whole proceeds of an estate, and yet the unfortunate nominal owner was required to pay Income Tax, not on the residue he received, because he received no residue at all, but out of other funds. That was a question which ought to be considered, perhaps not at the present moment, but certainly in the future; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend, if he happened to be Chancellor of the Exchequer in another year, would take care, both as regards Imperial and local taxation, that all measures of legislation concerning them should be brought on at the same time, and that each should be in harmony with the other, so that in future the Queen's Taxes and the local taxes might be charged on the same principle, and levied through the same medium. This would economize labour, mitigate the grievances of which the taxpayers complained, and would tend to facilitate and make more pleasurable the duty both of levying and paying taxation.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had earned the gratitude of a very large class who were interested in the concession he had made. He (Mr. Magniac) disclaimed any participation in the Amendment which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). The principle contained in that Amendment was one which involved an entire repeal of the Income Tax; and that he, for one, was not prepared to advocate. All he desired was that the tax should be levied upon some principle of justice. Perhaps he might be permitted to say a word as to the best means of carrying out the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make. He thought the best way would be to amalgamate Schedules A and B in regard to the owners of land. A remission made in that form would be most effective. He wished also to say that he was satisfied, and the agricultural Members would agree with him, that the west service ever done for the farmers of England was placing them under Schedule B. If they had been placed under Schedule D, they would have been obliged to keep their own accounts, and they would not have been, as they generally were, in a state of uncertainty as to whether they were making any profits or not. He trusted that some arrangement might be made for getting rid of that difficulty in future, and for placing the Income Tax upon that particular class in a more just and equitable position. He cordially thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made.

said, that he also, in common with the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) and the hon. Baronet below him (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made. He desired, at the same time, to draw his attention to this fact—that the question did not merely apply to farms which the owners were obliged to take into their own hands in consequence of not being able to find proper tenants, but it also applied to land absolutely lying waste. There were in many parts of England farms that were not occupied either by a tenant or by the landlord. He understood that the whole question would be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, there was one point with regard to this clause which was not satisfactory—namely, the way in which farm lands were dealt with under Schedule B. Of course, he was not raising the question with any idea of altering the present Bill; but, as he understood the matter, if a farm was assessed under Schedule Bit was charged a duty of 2½d. on the rent; but if the occupier was able to show that, owing to bad seasons, he had not made any profit, or had not realized the full amount of rent, then the Commissioners were at liberty to reduce the assessment so as to give the farmer relief. There could be no objection to the farmers having relief in bad seasons, providing, like other traders in the country, they paid the higher rate of Income Tax when the seasons were good. The present arrangement appeared to be altogether objectionable. If the farmers were to have a reduction in bad times, to which he did not for a moment object, he thought they ought not to be put under Schedule B, but under Schedule D. Farmers should be treated like all other traders, and should be required to keep books like all other traders, and if it was shown that they had made a profit then they should pay Income Tax on that profit, and only have relief if they could show that they had made no profit at all.

wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in reference to local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman, in the remarks he had made, threw out a hint about local taxes; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to know what the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was, because, as he understood local taxation, the Government had no power to interfere or to deal with local taxation at all. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to suggest that local rates should be lowered in the interest of one class of persons, it might be found that everybody else would be disinclined to accept such a happy consummation for that particular class; and there would be, he thought, a great difficulty in making any satisfactory arrangement, unless the assessment committee agreed in their different districts to carry out the arrangement in some other way than it was carried out at present. What he would press upon the right hon. Gentleman was this—that he would do good service to the agricultural interest if he took care that local burdens were decreased by assisting local taxation by other modes of taxation than those which at present existed. This was in reality one of the most pressing questions of the present day, and until something was done in that direction he believed that no real relief would be given to the agricultural interest.

, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the question, wished to call attention to the position of landed property under Schedule A. Heretofore it had always been the custom to assess the property of the country every three years. The last valuation was in May, 1879, and there would be no fresh valuation until May, 1882. What he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he did not think it would be advisable to have a new assessment this year? There had been a complete revolution in the value of lauded property throughout the country, and the Returns supplied by the Surveyor of Taxes in 1879 would be altogether at variance with those supplied in 1881. He would, therefore, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a fresh assessment this your. He knew that it was not advisable that there should be annual assessments. An assessment every three years was the general rule. Assessments occasioned great trouble and annoyance, and involved a considerable amount of expenditure. Therefore, he would not advise annual assessments; but this year was an exceptional year, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that one should be made of the value of property under Schedule A.

would also like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what was exactly meant by the information he had conveyed to the Committee. He wished to know how the concession generously given to land in the occupation of the owners at the present time could be extended to any valuation for the purposes of local rates? Under the existing law there was a process by which any landlord holding land which produced no return could apply to the assessment committee and obtain a reduction of rates. If the Bill which he had introduced when the late Government were in Office had passed into law, an annual opportunity would have been afforded by which any person could have his assessment reduced every year on showing that there had been a decrease in the value of his hereditament. He certainly regretted that the measure was riot enacted, and was not in force at the present moment. As his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had pointed out, the effect of remitting and reducing local taxation in the case of one particular class of persons might produce dissatisfaction among other persons in the same parish whose property or trades might have been injuriously affected by the same causes—namely, bad seasons and general depression. He only wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in extending the remission of the Properly Tax to local rates also, ire might be acting from an entirely different point of view and under altogether different circumstances.

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman replied ho should like to ask question in respect to the concession proposed to be made by the Government. He very much agreed with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to local rates; but what he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this. He understood that it was intended by the Government to take the necessary measures for remitting Income Tax on Schedule A and Schedule B in cases where the farm was in the occupation of the owner against his will, and without his deriving a profit there from. But did the right hon. Gentleman mean to provide for the case of a landlord whose tenant had become bankrupt, and had failed to pay the rent he ought to have paid? This would be a case where, although the land was not in the occupation of the owner, he would have received no rent at all, and he was afraid that in these days it was a case that only too commonly occurred. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for such an occurrence.

In reply to the last question by the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I may say that it is a matter which has not come under my consideration. My attention has been confined to the relief of the persons distressed alone, and has not been turned to the case of landlords whose tenants have become bankrupts. Under any condition of things a tenant may become a bankrupt or get into difficulties; but that is a case to be met by the ordinary law, and it is no part of the subject I have had under consideration. It will remain exactly where it does now. There is no question at all that any system of remission, in regard to local rates, must be done by course of law, and cannot be done by the Government; and, therefore, before any proposal can be made which is likely to affect the question of local rates, hon. Members, who are interested in the subject, will have ample opportunity for considering it. The whole matter has come upon me suddenly, and I have only been able to give it a very hasty examination. It only seemed fair that when we proposed to tax the income of the landowner we should do so on some principles of justice, and on the supposition that we were really dealing with income, and I simply suggested that if a man should not be taxed on an income he has not got, it would seem to follow that he should not be rated upon an income he has not got. I am very doubtful whether it would be advisable to alter the present system of assessment, and the machinery for levying and collecting the Income Tax. This machinery is difficult and complicated, and I should not certainly venture, on my own responsibility, to make any alteration until there lied been a thorough and careful inquiry into the whole matter.

suggested that if the concession were given by the Government it should not be confined to the agricultural interest. The pressure was equally great in some of the manufacturing districts of the North of England. It would be very acceptable to employers of labour and gentlemen engaged in commerce in the manufacturing districts just now to have shorter periods in which the assessments might be levied. He thought the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was unanswerable—that if remissions of this nature were to be made in adverse times they ought to abandon the present system of assessment, and insist upon the Property Tax being levied in full when times were good.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the great difference there appeared to be in the taxation of the latter's farming constituents in Mid Lothian, and his (Mr. Biddell's) in West Suffolk. He was aware that the different modes of letting land would in some degree account for the difference between ten farthings in the pound and the seven which the Scotch paid. He was also aware that this difference had existed from the first institution of the present tax; but no time would make good an injustice. It would be best understood if he put the case of two farms of equal merit and size—the one in England, the other in Scotland. Take a farm of 400 acres in England, it would be taxed as follows:—Rent—say 25s. per acre—£500. Tithe—say 6s. per acre—£120. Total £620. From this total one-eighth was allowed to be deducted, £77 10s., leaving a net total of £542 10s., which, assessed upon at ten farthings in the pound, would give for the farmer to pay £5 12s. 10d. In Scotland, the rent would include the tithe and the parish rates, which, taking them at £50–2s. 6d. per acre—about the same in both countries,—would make a total sum of £670—for the Scotch farmer to be assessed upon, at only seven farthings per pound, and would give for him to pay £4 17s. 8d., or about 15 per cent less than the English farmer. He knew how desirable it was to get on with the Bill, and therefore did not like to trouble the right hon. Gentleman; but proposed that he should explain the matter at some future stage or opportunity, more especially as the case involved figures suddenly put, and which possibly might be incorrect.

replied, that the difference had, as the hon. Member was aware, existed from the first, and arose from the Scotch farmer hiring under other terms, his rent including the tithe and half the rates; but he would suggest to the hon. Member to furnish him with his calculations, and he would be happy to explain the point at some future time. Clause agreed to. Clause 21 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties hereby granted) agreed to. Clause 22 (Provisions of Income Tax Acts to apply to duties to be granted for succeeding year) agreed to. Clause 23 (Assessment of Income Tax under Schedule (A) and (B), and of the inhabited house duties for the year 1881 — 1882, 32 & 33 Viet. c. 67) agreed to. Clause 24 (Interpretation of "servant" and "other person" in exemption from inhabited house duty).

moved, in page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert—

"Houses that are not strictly inhabited houses but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax."

The Amendment was aimed at a practice which, in regard to the Inhabited House Duty, had long been looked upon as a grievance. The law had been interpreted by those who levied the Inhabited House Duty to mean that it should be levied on the full rental of the house, whether it was strictly an inhabited house or not, provided anybody lived in it at all. Thus a large public institution, worth, perhaps, £1,000 a-year, if it bad as much as a caretaker living in it and occupying one or two rooms, was rated at its full rental. This had long been felt to be a great grievance. A few years ago the London merchants succeeded in passing an Amendment by which it was provided that merely having a caretaker living in a house should not subject a large establishment to the duty to the extent of the whole rental, provided that the establishment was used for purposes of gain; and it did appear to him that a large establishment not used for the purposes of gain had, à fortiori, a much stronger claim for relief than places used for gain. It was most unfair that such institutions as Museums, Colleges, Schools, or other public buildings of various kinds, should be charged the duty on their full rental value because it happened that a caretaker occupied a room in them. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in reference to this particular grievance a month or two ago, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the Treasury instructed the tax collectors not to levy on educational establishments, and that they gave a wide and liberal interpretation to the term "educational establishments." But when he (Mr. Anderson) came to inquire into the facts of the case, he found that however much that might be the understanding of the right hon. Gentleman and the desire of the Treasury, the practice of the tax collectors was to levy the tax in a great many cases all over the country in a most capricious fashion. Some establishments were allowed to escape altogether, while others, in precisely the same position, were heavily taxed. He was informed that of late a new instruction had been sent out by the Treasury, and that the grievance would, to some extent, be mitigated. But unfortunately in one of the cases which had occurred there had been an appeal to the Court of Session, and the Court of Session decided that the tax was a justifiable statutory tax. Having been so decided by a Law Court, he was very doubtful whether a mere instruction from the Treasury would be sufficient to cause the practice to be discontinued in future. It would certainly be in the power of any tax collector to say that any instruction of that kind was not to overrule and set aside a decision of the Law Courts. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to grant relief by a statutory enactment of the kind suggested by the Amendment. and he trusted that the words he proposed would be accepted. Amendment moved,

In page 10, line 25, after "1878," to insert "houses that are not strictly inhabited houses, but which are institutions of a public or an educational character, and which Can be called 'inhabited' solely because a servant or caretaker dwells in some small part of them, shall not be assessed to the inhabited house duty, except in respect of the annual value of such part of them as is in the actual occupation of the Servant or caretaker, and if such annual value comes within the limits of the tax."—(Mr. Anderson.)

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

My hon. Friend proposes this Amendment because he is afraid that, in consequence of a declaration of the law by the Court of Session, the authority of the Executive Government will not avail to give the necessary remissions of duty. Now, the Executive Government were parties to obtaining that declaration of the law. They were unwilling that any statutory right should be established against them; but they see no difficulty in the relaxation of the conditions, and they are even disposed to add something to that relaxation. I can, therefore, assure my hon. Friend that he need be under no apprehension at all upon the ground he has stated—namely, that the declaration of the Court of Session will be an obstacle to giving this just relief in remission of the tax upon houses beneficially occupied by any person acting under the name of caretaker or servant. And the additional relaxation we propose to give is that in the case of buildings such as those referred to by my hon. Friend—buildings held in trust by municipalities for the advancement of either science or art—the assessment will be limited to beneficial occupation.

said, after that declaration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should not press his Amendment.

wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a small but important point in connection with this clause. There were many large buildings in the City of London in which more than one caretaker was required, and under the peculiar wording of the Act of 1878, it had been suggested that in cases of that kind the house should be dealt with as an inhabited house. That appeared to him to be an absurd proposition, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would say that under this Act it was not intended to put it in practice. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the matter should receive attention. Clause agreed to. Clause 25 (Amendment of 43 & 44 Viet. c. 19, s. 53) agreed to. Clause 26 (Provisions as to assessment to inhabited house duty on houses let for short periods).

said, he did not think attention had been sufficiently directed to this clause, nor did he believe that hon. Members fully realized the effect which it would have upon the owners of property, especially in our large cities and towns. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax upon occupation; but the effect of this clause would be to transfer the incidence of taxation from the occupier to the landlord. It was difficult to realize the extent of the prejudicial result which this proposal would have with regard to property in large towns. He believed almost every hon. Member connected with those places would know that, say, eight-tenths of the houses in them were not let in annual tenancies, but at three, six, and even one month's notice. If, therefore, the owner of property were made liable not only for Property Tax, but also for Inhabited House Duty in cases where he might not receive his rent, their position would be greatly prejudiced. He was convinced, from the representations made to him from many quarters, that the owners of property in large towns had no idea of the extent to which they would suffer. They would ho unable to protect themselves, because it was almost impossible to get tenants for their houses, and it would necessarily bear very hardly upon them if they were exposed to this extra taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would ascertain the vast amount of property held in every large town upon occupation of under 12 months, he would see that his proposal would produce a very serious injury to the owners of property therein. For that reason he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the clause, which, as it stood, simply called upon one class to pay a tax that another class ought to pay, and agree to its postponement.

agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool in thinking that the Committee were not at ail aware of the effect which this clause would have. For his own part, having been a Commissioner of Income Tax for many years, he had never heard of such a proposal as this being made. Certainly, ho did not think the clause was understood throughout the country as making the owner, instead of the occupier, liable for Inhabited House Duty if the house was let for any period less than a year. Many houses in Yorkshire were let out three months' tenancies. The Inhabited House Duty was essentially a tax levied upon the occupier; but the country was now given to understand that the owner was responsible. In view of the great importance of the proposal in its effect upon property throughout the country, he suggested that the best course would be to omit the clause from the Bill, and then, at some future time, when the country had fully considered it, it might, if necessary, be brought up again. It had rather the appearance of stealing a march upon the country to make the owner liable for the occupier's tax.

pointed out that the Inhabited House Duty was always paid by the occupier in the case of houses let upon lease. That was not the case with the Land Tax, which was always paid by the landlord, unless he covenanted with the tenant to the contrary. He did not think the Treasury ought to impose further conditions upon landlords in order to make them liable for default of the tenant more than they were at present; but, according to this clause, every landlord would be liable for House Tax in cases where the property was let for a less term than one year.

said, that the term "Inhabited House Duty" implied occupation, and had, therefore, always been the tenant's tax. The distinction between the landlords' taxes and the tenants' taxes was perfectly well known at present; but, as he understood the clause, it would entirely relieve the occupier from the payment of a tax which had always been paid by him and throw it upon the landlord, notwithstanding any previous contract that might exist between the parties.

said, the object of the clause was to prevent the recurrence of loss, which, under the present arrangements, had occurred to the Revenue. At the same time, he should be sorry that a proposal such as that contained in this clause should be adopted without full consideration on the part of the House; and he was, therefore, willing that it should be omitted from the Bill. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

contended that the duty under the next grade of the scale would fall more heavily on estates of between £300 and £500 than those in any portion of the scale; and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive with favour his proposal to extend the duty of £1 on every £50 to those estates. Amendment moved, in page 12, line 19, to leave out "£300" and insert "£500."—(Mr. Alderman Lawrence.)

said, he was not convinced that the operation of the duty would be more severe at the particular point indicated by the Amendment of the hon. Member than at any other; but as it would afford relief to a large number of persons, and as there would be no great loss to the Revenue in consequence, he was willing to extend the limit of £300 to £500. Amendment agreed to. On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

said, the Committee would be aware that the Probate Duties were considerably raised last year by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had upon that occasion taken some objection to the measure, but had been unable to pursue the subject fully in consequence of the dispersion which occurred at the General Election. There was, however, no doubt that the former alteration had a very considerable effect in the way of increasing the charge on estates. The present Bill now proposed a further advance. Upon an estate under £4,000 the old duty was £80; it was, under the arrangement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised to £130, and the present Bill would increase the duty to £147. The original duty on an estate under £10,000 was £180; under the present Bill it would be £297. In the ease of estates under £30,000, the old duty was £400; it was raised last year to £690, and would now be increased to £897. He admitted that lineal descendants would be relieved—that was to say, those in direct descent would be relieved to the extent of 1 per cent; but, as he understood it, there would be no relief for those in remoter degrees of consanguinity. This alteration was very material in view of the possibility of the Probate Duty being extended to real estate, and should be borne in mind by those who were in favour of that change. He did not raise any objection to the amount of the duty, but thought it right that the Committee should understand the real effect of the clause.

said, the aim had been to make the scale almost entirely equal. He felt rather dissatisfied with the arrangement proposed, because the ½per cent Probate Duty was not the exact equivalent of the Probate Duty which had been given up. It was something less, and if they had not been led by a desire to keep to round numbers the charge would have been a little higher. It was perfectly true that the change did not operate with perfect equality as regarded lineals and collaterals; but this change had been instituted on the principle that the residue generally went to the lineal. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) might be assured of the correctness of the general assertion that the lineals would receive relief somewhat greater than the tax, while they would have no expense in connection with the payment of the duty. On the other hand, the Department would get earlier payment.

pointed out that under the proposed assessment every £100 had to bear its proper share of the duty, and that the blots which existed in the old system, and had been complained of for so many years, were now got rid of. No doubt, some estates had now to pay which formerly escaped duty altogether.

said, that the clause made no alteration whatever with regard to the legacies received by collaterals, who would have to pay the same amount of duty as before. They would have to pay more only in case they were residuary legatees. He hoped the principle would be brought to bear upon freehold legacies, which now had to pay an infinitely smaller amount than they ought to pay.

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was proposed that the duty should be paid upon affidavit instead of on probate? At present the duty had to be paid before it was possible to ascertain the value of the estate, and in case of error the practice was to pay back the excess in fees. Of course, in the case of a mistake—say, of £1,000—it would be very inconvenient to receive the overpayment in this way and not in cash. If it was thought desirable to change the present practice, and transfer the duty from probate to affidavit, perhaps some directions might he given to the officers to settle the form of the affidavit before the Probate Duty was paid. If the money was returned in fees it would cause great difficulty to the Profession. He had heard no reason for the change that was proposed up to the present time, and should, therefore, be glad to receive some explanation with regard to it. Numbers of representations had been made to him from the Profession, and he was sure that the removal of the difficulties to which he had referred would be received with great satisfaction.

said, he was in a position to re-assure the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley). He had brought this point under the attention of the authorities at Somerset House, and had received from them very satisfactory assurances as to the way in which the proposed alteration would be worked. The conclusion at which he had arrived, after fully considering the question, was, that there would be no difficulty whatever in connection with it. Some difficulty existed at the present time in ascertaining the amount of the estate, but, in future, payment would simply be made upon the affidavit; the duty, however, would not be charged until all preliminaries were settled—until it was ascertained whether there were any difficulties with regard to probate, and whether any caveat was entered. He was assured there would be no inconvenience under the new system. On the contrary, there would be the benefit of deducting the debts in a way that was not before practicable. For his own part, he was grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this benefit. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 29 (Power to deduct debts and funeral expenses when deceased died domiciled in the United Kingdom).

said, the object of the Amendment he was about to move was to insure that if affidavits were made of the debts of the deceased, they should not be taken as an admission of liability, as between the creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased. On applying for probate a person had to swear in an affidavit that such and such amounts were due to certain persons. But it was well known to be impossible, in many cases, immediately after the death of the deceased to ascertain what the debts were. Many of the debts sworn to might be doubtful, and be only confessed afterwards, in the course of administration. In case of litigation it might materially prejudice the estate of a debtor to have it put in evidence that he had made an affidavit to the best of his knowledge and belief that certain debts were due by him. If the Solicitor General would say that the party in question would not be prejudiced, he would give up his Amendment. He regarded it as a most serious matter that the affidavit should be held to be an admission of liability; and as the insertion of his Amendment would, at all events, do no harm, he trusted it would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think it afforded anything like an adequate protection to say that the admission made in the affidavit would be withheld by the office, which could be compelled by the ordinary process to produce it. Amendment moved,

In page 13, line 9, after the word "exhibited," to insert "but such Schedule, or any statement therein, shall not be taken as an admission or evidence of a debt as between a creditor and the estate or representative of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)

thought the Amendment would encourage laxity on the part of executors in the preparation of statements of debt, and that it might induce some persons to put in claims for which there was no foundation. On the whole, he did not think the Amendment was ready required, and he trusted his hon. Friend would withdraw it.

The whole change we are making is a change for the benefit of the taxpayer. In giving him that relief we run the risk, more or less, of his entering debts in order to get a large remission of the Probate Duty; and we must, therefore, have some security for correctness in the case that debts are not put in for that purpose. If a man has a debt about which he is uncertain, no doubt his proper course is not to enter it, but to wait and claim rebate afterwards. The hon. Member will see the danger of persons being encouraged to include debts not meant to be acknowledged, without suffering any inconvenience whatever; and it is, therefore, quite necessary that the effect should be against him, as far as it goes, in order to prevent the abuse of the very considerable opportunity we are giving for a somewhat culpable laxity.

said, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) seemed to be entirely at issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect of this clause. While the former hon. Member argued that the affidavit would not be an admission of liability as between debtors and creditors, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to indicate that it would be an admission. In this conflict of great authorities, he thought the Committee would be instructed by an opinion from the hon. and learned Solicitor General. If lie would state whether or not the affidavit would be an admission as between debtors and creditors, they would be better able to appreciate the arguments of the hon. Member and the Prince Minister.

said, he did not think there was any necessity for him to inform the Committee whether or not the affidavit would constitute an admission of debt. At the same time, he was quite unable to see the slightest inconsistency between the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockton and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should, therefore, not attempt to reconcile a difference that he was unable to distinguish.

was understood to say he could only gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that he did not differ from him with regard to the admission made by the affidavit. It was to meet the cases of persons who were willing to give the best statement they could under the circumstances that he wished the Amendment inserted. He believed that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman would have little practical operation, as it would be impossible for representatives to depose to debts until they had investigated them, or for the office to accept statements of debts without the subsequent production of vouchers for the payment of them.

would point out to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that all he had been alluding to with regard to defrauding the Revenue might occur even now in the matter of partnership. When a man had been a partner in a concern, the Inland Revenue Department knew nothing about his debts, and all that the hon. Member had said about a statement concerning them being inaccurate would apply to every statement of any partner.

could not agree with the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who said that he could see no difference between the statement of the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). The statement of the hon. Member for Stockton was that these words that his hon. Friend proposed would do no harm, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was that they would do a great deal of harm—at any rate, he had understood that to be the right hon. Gentleman's argument. This showed a material difference in the appreciation of the two. The words the hon. Gentleman proposed were open to the objection taken by the Prime Minister—namely, that the risk the Re- venue must run was so great that it ought to be guarded in every way that could be thought of. If the representatives of the Exchequer told them that they required this safeguard they ought to be very chary indeed in depriving them of it. Though everyone admitted the great boon that was conferred, and, in a certain sense, the act of justice that was done in levying the Probate Duty so as to exclude debts, yet the risk was very considerable. They were making an experiment, and the Government should be very cautious and careful in every step they took.

said, this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. Under this Bill they were enabling parties to gain considerable advantage by making an affidavit of the amount of the debts due from them—by setting forth in an affidavit a schedule of their debts. "But," said his hon. Friend opposite, "let them have the full benefit of this affidavit as against the Government, by its being accepted as a positive evidence of the amount due from them; but take care not to put them to any disadvantage in the event of their putting down a debt which is not actually due, or, at all events, an amount which is in excess of that which they have to pay." The matter was one which did not admit of argument, and if the parties were prepared to make an affidavit, he thought they might fairly be left to the consequences of their position.

said, the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) showed how desirable it was that the Committee should be enlightened as to the law on the subject by Her Majesty's Solicitor General. The hon. Member for Burnley argued in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), which was advanced on the ground that the Schedule would be taken as an admission of liability. He wished to know from the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether that was the case? Surely the Committee were entitled to know, as a matter of law, whether the Amendment was or was not necessary. The hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) wished for an answer to the question. He (Mr. Gorst) was happy to see that the hon. and learned Attorney General had just come into the House; and now, perhaps, he would tell them whether, as a matter of law, the Schedule of this account would or would not be taken as an admission between the creditors and the executors. On receiving his answer, the Committee would know whether the Prime Minister ought to refuse the Amendment on the ground that it was desirable that the Executive should be under every possible safeguard, or whether he should accept it on the ground that it would make clear that which would otherwise be obscure.

found it very difficult to believe that the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down was really serious in this matter. Of course, this statement would be admissible, and would be evidence as against the person making it. It would not be conclusive evidence, still it could be used for what it was worth. He had not answered the question before, because he had not thought the hon. Member was serious in putting it.

said, he should be happy, after what had been said, to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he experienced some difficulty in rising to speak on this question after the statement of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that this was not so much a question of law as a matter of common sense. He wits afraid to say anything, as the hon. Member said the matter did not admit of argument, and had pronounced upon it in the spirit of "Rome has spoken, and the cause is finished." Infallibility had at length spread to England, and was, seemingly, concentrated in the hon. Member. He (Mr. Warton), however, claimed to possess an opinion of his own on the matter, and it was that the question really did, to some extent, admit of argument. There was one reflection which he should like to submit to the hon. Member for Burnley and the Committee, and it was this—that if any representative or executor should be so foolish as to put down a wrong statement of debts, he would be running a very great risk for a very small gain. No one would run such a risk for the sake of saving 1 per cent, or, perhaps, ½ per cent on £100, £200, or £300. This consideration, perhaps, had not struck the hon. Member for Burnley; but now that he was aware of it, perhaps he would tell the Committee, presently, whether it made any impression on him. The hon. Member seemed to think that the amount the State might be defrauded of was a small matter. He (Mr. Warton) complained of the waste of time on the part of the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench. First, they made a pretty little speech refusing to accept the Amendment, but saying nothing on the legal question; and then, when repeated protests were made as to the absence of an opinion from the Government, they got up in order to say that they did not think hon. Members meant what they said. He was glad to hear that what he was saying with regard to waste of time met with the approval of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds); and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not again be led into a useless wrangle. Let the Committee bear in mind that a person would run a very great risk by putting down a fictitious debt for the purpose of saving a mere trifle.

felt that he had not received that support which would entitle him to press the Amendment to a division. As to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he would point out that the affidavit would be mere primâ facie evidence, and that they ought to require vouchers to be prepared for any subsequent action. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to. Clause 30 (As to forms of affidavit).

said, he had a question to propose on this clause, which he had intended to bring up on Report; but perhaps the Government would tell him whether he ought to proceed with it now. The Inland Revenue Commissioners were to sell stamps, and he complained that the Government were changing the method of disposing of stamps without making the necessary compensation in the case.

said, that, according to the proposal, postage stamps and receipt stamps could be used alternatively.

said, it included other forms of stamps. He was informed that it was a question affecting the distributors of stamps, and he was not certain how the matter stood.

The only change is in another clause. Clause agreed to. Clause 31 (Probate or letters of administration to bear a certificate in lieu of stamp duty). Amendment moved, in page 13, line 34, after "Probate," insert "and;" and after "Matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

I should like to know what this Amendment means?

It is only a verbal alteration. Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 13, line 37, leave out "setting forth," and insert "showing."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 13, line 38, after "delivered," insert "and that such affidavit, if liable to stamp duty, was."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 32 (Provision for return of duty overpaid).

said, he had several Amendments to this clause; but it would save time if he mentioned them all at once, and not separately as they arose. The clause, as it was drawn, seemed to him scarcely so liberal as it ought to be; therefore, he had given Notice of these Amendments, which touched the point the Committee had been discussing—namely, the amount to be deducted from the deceased's estate on account of debts. His first Amendments were to leave out certain words in order to insert others of a much more comprehensive character. Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 4, after "deceased," insert "at the time when the grant was made, or if at any time within three years after the grant, or within such further period as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may allow, it shall appear that no amount or an insufficient amount was deducted on account of debts and funeral expenses."—(Mr. Dodds.)

Amendment agreed to.

said, ho had understood that the preceding and the following Amendments would be accepted by the Prime Minister. The adoption of the last Amendment had rendered unnecessary one standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), which was to insert after "deceased," the words "it shall be shown that a sufficient amount has not been deducted or allowed for the debts of the deceased." Amendment moved, in page 14, line 9, after "value," insert "or, as the case may be, the amount or corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.)

As the hon. Member has said, I have an Amendment down before this; but I do not propose to move it. Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 13, after "deceased," leave out to "certificate," inclusive, in line 14, and insert "were at the time of the grant of probate or letters of administration of greater value than the value mentioned in the certificate, or that any deduction for debts or funeral expenses was made erroneously."

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 33 (Provision for payment of further duty). Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 17, after "stamped," leave out to "excess," in line 19, inclusive, and add "for the amount which, with the duty (if any) previously paid on an affidavit in respect of such estate and effects, shall be sufficient to cover the duty chargeable according to the true value thereof, and shall at the same time pay to the said Commissioners interest upon such amount."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

said, the next two Amendments, which stood in his name, were covered by the alterations already made in the Bill, therefore he would not move them. The next was in the name of the Prime Minister. Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 20, after "grant," insert "or from such subsequent date as the Commissioners may, in the circumstances, think proper."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 14, line 25, after "ascertained," insert "or, as the case may be, the corrected amount of deduction."—(Mr. Dodds.) Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 34 (Provisions as to obtaining probate, &c., where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds). Amendment moved, in page 14, line 28, leave out "deceased."—(Mr Dodds.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "(inclusive of property by law made such personal estate and effects for the purpose of the charge of duty, and any personal estate and effects situate out of the United. Kingdom)."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved,

In page 14, line 28, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.)

Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 14, line 31, after "deliver," insert "to the proper officer of the court or."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "probate," insert "and."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 3, after "matrimonial," leave out "and Admiralty."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 7, after "of," leave out "the notice by the officer," and insert "notices by officers of Inland Revenue."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 11, leave out "the officer is," and insert "officers of Inland Revenue are."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 13, after "president," insert "or judge."—(Mr. Gladstone.) Amendment agreed to.

The next Amendment is in the name of Mr. Patrick Martin, and is as follows:—

"Clause 34, page15, line 18, add.—"Provided however, That in every case where district regis trars are now paid in Ireland by fees, and it shall be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury that such registrars may be damaged under the provisions of this section, then the commissioners shall direct that each such registrar respectively shall be paid a fixed salary equal to the net annual amount of profits derived by them from such, fees, on an average, of five years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act, or sums of money, at the option of the Commissioners, equal to the damage sustained by each such registrar.'"

This Amendment cannot be put, as it proposes to increase the taxation of the people, and that increase can only be proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and not by a private Member. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 35 (Provision as to inventories where gross value of estate does not exceed three hundred pounds). Amendment moved,

In page 15, line 19, leave out from beginning of clause to "seventy," in line 24, inclusive, and insert "'The Intestates, Widows, and children (Scotland) Act, 1875,' and 'The Small Testate Estates (Scotland) Act, 1876,' as amended, by 'The Sheriffs' Court (Scotland) Act, 1376.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved, in page 15, line 25, leave out "deceased."—(Mr. Dodds.) Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved,

In page 15, line 25, after "person," insert "dying on or after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Dodds.)

Amendment agreed to. Amendment moved,

In page 15, line 27, after "pounds," insert "whoever may be the applicant for representation, and wheresoever the deceased may have been domiciled at the time of death."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 36 (Effect of false statement of value as under three hundred pounds). Amendment moved,

In page 15, line 34, after "obtained," leave eat to "value," in line 37, inclusive, and insert "in Conformity with either or the two preceding sections."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 37 (Relief from legacy duty in cases under three hundred pounds) agree to. Clause 38 (Power to Commissioners to require explanations and proof in support of affidavit or inventory).

did not by any means object to this clause; on the contrary, not only did he think the Commissioners would have power to alter an account, but he thought they should be required to do so where necessary; but what ho did object to was the want of limitation as to time. As the clause stood, it was totally indefinite in that respect, and an executor or administrator might be liable for all time to be called on for a further account. If a man was liable to be called on at any time, practically, he could never hand over the residue to the legatees. He thought, therefore, that some period should be fixed during which the Commissioners had power to call upon an executor for an account, and, to his mind, the period should be one year after the death of the deceased. By that time the Commissioners ought to have made up their minds as to the accounts of the deceased; consequently, it seemed to him that his proposal was a reasonable one.

Does the hon. Member move the Amendment on the Paper?

replied in the affirmative. Amendment moved,

In page 16, line 11, leave our "and from time to time," and insert "within one year after the death of the deceased."—(Mr. Gregory.)

hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. In the opinion of the Revenue authorities the clause was necessary for the proper protection of the Revenue. Its absence might lead to fraud.

trusted his hon. Friend would press the Amendment. It was absurd for the noble Lord to talk of fraud; but perhaps it would be well if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) would consent to give a little more time—say two years—in which the executor would be required to act.

thought it would be better to allow two years. Some time ago he was executor, and paid the duties according to the demands of the Inland Revenue Office. Two years after that he wound up the estate; but then a new clerk had been appointed in the Office, and he said the authorities were of opinion that other duties were to be paid. An executor was placed in a very difficult position when, after he had paid what were understood to be sufficient duties, he was called upon to pay additional duties. Two years would be enough time to allow, and during that period he ought to be able to answer all questions.

said, at any rate, it seemed clear that it would not be proper to accept the Amendment as it now stood. If the hon. Gentleman would accept the words" within three years from the date of probate" he would consent to the Amendment.

suggested that the Amendment should take the following form:—"Within three years after the grant of probate or the letters of administration."

moved, in page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one." The object of the clause was to extend the payment of Probate Duty to voluntary settlements. He did not object to such extension hereafter, but did not believe duty ought to be levied upon settlements made heretofore. The effect of his Amendment would be that the settlement must be made after the 1st of June, 1881; upon any made prior to that date no duty could be charged. Amendment moved,

In page 16, line 26, after "made," leave out "by any person so dying," and insert "after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one."—(Mr. Gregory.)

said, if the hon. Member would read the clause he would see it only applied in cases of those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased. It would, therefore, apply in an infinitesimal number of cases, and, except as a matter of principle, the change was of no great importance.

remarked, that the noble Lord had answered the well-founded objection of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory) by saying it was limited by the three months' clause at the foot. He had not been able to look critically into the matter; but if it was so insignificant why did not the noble Lord give way? The Committee could not be too careful, especially in matters connected with property, in objecting to retrospective alterations. It might be in this case, as the noble Lord observed, that the clause only applied to those settlements made within three months of the death of the deceased; but the Committee must remember that in every one of these cases they were establishing precedents which, on subsequent occasions, would be cited. As to the question of voluntary settlements, the Legislature had advisedly abstained for years past from inflicting upon a person a penalty for dealing definitely with his property. It had distinctly refused to charge the same Stamp Duty upon these settlements as it did upon property left by will. Why should not the man have the benefit? The noble Lord said he intended to alter the system; but he would only do so to an infinitesimal extent. The Committee were entitled to say—"Don't inflict new burdens on the people retrospectively, and don't alter a burden which is properly payable on a particular transaction, even three months after it occurred, by increasing the duty which the Legislature has settled upon it." It seemed to him his hon. Friend was not only right in principle, but from a common sense point of view.

said, this was only another instance of the injustice of the policy of the present Government. He hoped the noble Lord would respect the rights of property, and agree to the Amendment. If not, the Committee ought to go to a division.

asked if it was worth while to complicate the clause for the purpose of catching people just three months before their death. As he understood the noble Lord, all settlements were good except those made three months before death? In his opinion, it would be wise if the clause were made to read "all settlements made before the passing of the Act." Amendment negatived.

moved, in page 16, line 11, after "interest," insert "in such property." Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 40 (Delivery of accounts on oath) agreed to. Clause 41 (Double duty payable, in case of default) agreed to. Clause 42 (Cesser of legacy and succession duties at the rate of one per cent. in certain cases) agreed to. Clause 43 (Charge of legacy duty on legacies not amounting to twenty pounds).

moved, in page 18, line 3, after "of residue," to insert"— "Under the will or the intestacy of a person dying on or utter the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one." Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 44 (Power to Commissioners to accept composition for legacy duty under a will).

, with the view of giving more elasticity to the clause, moved in page 18, line 12, after "names," to insert "or description of class." Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.Miscellaneous. Clause 45 (Reduction of stamp duty on silver plate).

moved the omission of the clause. Clause omitted. Clause 46 (Amendments of the Stamp Act, 1870) agreed to. Clause 47 (Stamp duty on transfers of county stock) agreed to. Clause 48 (Stamp duty on stock certificates to bearer) agreed to. Clause 49 (Stamp duties of one penny may be denoted by postage stamps, and vice versa).

said, he understood that under the new regulations the Post Office would appoint the distributors of stamps; and, therefore, those people who had hitherto distributed stamps would lose a considerable amount yearly. lie wished to know if the Government would take the case of these people into consideration. The justice of the case might be met by a small compensation. The Government were making a change which, on the whole, would be beneficial; but in carrying it out no one interest ought to be prejudiced.

said, the vested interests in the sale of stamps appeared very small. The House had always felt it to be its duty Li make an alteration in respect to stamps without having to compensate the sellers of stamps. The reform now proposed was much needed, and he could not recognize any vested interests.

asked if it was possible to make any arrangement as to the destiny of the revenue from stamps when issued? He did not see how the difficulty was to be got over; but it appeared to be a complication which was most unfortunate. He would not say it was not outweighed by the public convenience; but there seemed this disadvantage—that whereas hitherto they hail been able to keep the revenue from stamps perfectly clear, they would not be able to do so under the altered arrangements. They were now about to confuse the items of revenue without the means of dissecting them. They all knew the revenue of the Post Office came in a very large sum—one gross item—on the one side of the balance sheet, and that the expenditure on the other side went out as an annual charge on the country. It ought not to be forgotten that they were mixing up two branches of the revenue which hitherto had been distinct.

said, that on careful consideration it had been found the advantage to the public would outweigh the statistical disadvantage. The Inland Revenue and the Post Office were considering the best means of obtaining a satisfactory statistical arrangement.

inquired which portion of the revenue would be credited with the amount derived from stamps? Would the Post Office get one portion, and the Inland Revenue the other, or would the Post Office the whole or the Inland Revenue the whole?

said, at present they knew the proportion of the two classes of stamps; and it would be perfectly easy hereafter, by Rule of Three, to arrive at a just apportionment of the revenue.

said, he had intended to move an Amendment with the object of rendering valid the bonâ fide use of receipt stamps as postage stamps, and vice versâ, before the passing of this Act. He did not know whether an alteration of that kind could be made; if it could on Report he should be very glad.

said, it was proposed to have a uniform stamp for both purposes. Clause agreed to. Clause 50 (Repeal of enactments in Schedule) agreed to.

moved, in page 9, after Clause 23, to insert the following Clause:—

(Particulars to be stated in collectors' receipts.)

"Where any collector of the duties on inhabited houses and of income tax under Schedules A and B has not, in a demand note delivered previous to payment, distinctly described the property assessed, and specified the amount of the assessment, and the rate at which the duties are charged, the description of the property, the amount of the assessment, and the rate of charge shall be specified in the receipt."

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. Schedule agreed to. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

rose to move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert such Clauses as may check the evils arising from absenteeism, and to impose upon absentees such conditions and restrictions with respect to their estates as the Committee may direct."

said, he was bound to inform the hon. Member that the Instruction would not be regular or permissible, because it proposed to authorize the Committee to do that which it already had the power to do.

said, there was no reference to the subject in the Bill.

said, it was, nevertheless, competent to the Committee to insert Amendments in the sense indicated. The same objection would apply to the proposed Instruction of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) to take the fifth part of the Bill first. The Committee would have such authority; and, therefore, the Instruction could not be put.

, if not out of Order, proposed to move an Instruction to the Committee to do that which it would certainly not be within the competence of the Committee to do without authority from the House. It was to the following effect:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to snake provision that sums may be advanced to Irish tenants for the purchase of their holdings from such funds as Parliament may direct, and without further restriction as to amount than the Committee may direct; and also that the Committee may direct that money may be advanced to poor law unions, town commissioners, or other public bodies to provide land for labourers to such an amount and with such restrictions as Parliament may direct."