I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is true that the Magistrates of Glasgow have been required to make arrangements for carrying into effect the death sentence passed on John Finlay, for a murder committed in Kirkintilloch, entirely outside of their jurisdiction; and whether, taking into consideration the extremely repulsive nature of such a duty, and the fact that it has only recently been imposed on the Magistrates of the larger towns in Scotland in the case of crimes committed outside of their jurisdiction, through the closing of a number of county prisons, the Government will consider the propriety of altering the present rule, either by re-imposing the responsibility for carrying out capital sentences on the Magistrates in whose jurisdiction the crimes have been committed, or by imposing the duty of arranging for all executions upon some Government officer?

It is unnecessary for me to answer the first part of the question, as the sentence passed on Finlay has been commuted to penal servitude. As regards the second part of the question, it is impossible in all cases to provide that the Magistrates in whose jurisdiction crimes have been committed should make arrangements for an execution; and where there is no prison within a district in which a murder has been committed, the responsibility in respect of prisoners under sentence of death must rest with the Magistrates in whose jurisdiction the prison is in where the convict is confined. It is not proposed to alter the prison rule.

As the responsibility is felt to be a great hardship I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is correct, as announced in the Manchester Courier of the 13th instant, that it has been arranged that a motion fixing an international telegraphic tariff at 12½ centimes, or rather more than 1d. a word, shall be brought before the International Telegraphic Conference, which com menced its sitting last week at Paris, and that the motion will have the support of the English Representatives; and if correct, and the Conference should adopt the motion, will he endeavour to arrange with the respective Governments that the same rate of 12½ centimes should also extend to Denmark and Russia, as those countries are not members of the International Telegraphic Congress, and would not be affected by its decision?

I do not feel myself at liberty to disclose the proposals which have been brought forward for discussion at the International Telegraph Conference by the Representatives of the Governments; such a course would be unusual. Both Denmark and Russia are members of the International Telegraph Union, and are represented at the Conference; and they will, therefore, be affected by the decisions arrived at. I may mention that the charges for telegrams from this country to Prance, Belgium, Holland, and Germany were only lately reduced to a uniform rate of 2d. per word with a minimum of 10d.; and I may assure the hon. Member that it is certainly my desire that the Representatives of this country should endeavour to bring about such further reductions in other directions as, having regard to the interests of all the parties concerned, seem to be called for.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is true that, at a recent Licensing Court for the Airdrie District of Lanarkshire, Sheriff-Substitute Mair acted as Chairman, and, in the case of an equal vote for and against granting a new public house licence at Swinton, gave his casting vote in favour of its grant; whether it is true that, when the new certificate came before the Licensing Committee on the 2nd instant for confirmation, Sheriff Mair was present, and spoke in support of the application; whether Sheriff Mair is a member of the Licensing Committee of the district; and whether it is customary for Sheriffs, or Sheriff-Substitutes, to sit as Judges ex officio in Licensing Courts in Scotlad, or to interfere at confirming Courts?

It is the case that Sheriff-Substitute Mair was Chairman of a recent Licensing Court at Airdrie, having been voted to take the chair by the other Justices. He gave a deliberative, and not a casting vote on the question of the licence at Swinton. It is not the case that Sheriff Mair spoke in support of the application before the Licensing Committee, but merely corrected an erroneous statement that was made of what took place before the Court of which he was Chairman. There is, so far as I am aware, no doubt that Sheriffs and Sheriff-Substitutes are entitled to sit in these Courts; and I am informed that, though it may not be the universal practice, it frequently happens that these officials do sit in the Licensing Courts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in Schleswig-Holstein since 17th April last; whether those Duchies have been since then officially declared free from foot-and-mouth disease; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Agriculture now to redeem the promise given last year by Lord Salisbury, and to permit the importation of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein?

The last case of foot-and-mouth disease reported to the Department was on April 6, and it is true that the Province of Schleswig-Holstein was declared free on April 23, rather less than a month ago. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that a similar declaration was made in August last which was followed by a fresh introduction of disease into Schleswig-Holstein in March of this year, of which we did not receive notice until several days after the outbreak. Foot-and-mouth disease, I regret to say, prevails extensively in Germany at the present time, and at no great distance from the Schleswig-Holstein frontier; and the fact that that Province was declared free on April 23 does not afford any guarantee that it may not be again re-introduced at any moment as it was in the spring within the limits of that Province. Under these circumstances, and taking into consideration the prevalence of the disease in Germany, it would be impossible, in my opinion, to permit the importation of live animals from Schleswig-Holstein at present with any regard to the precautions which it is my duty to take against the introduction of disease. I may add that the statements referred to on the part of Lord Salisbury were made under circumstances which were wholly different from the circumstances of the present time.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to a statement that a letter addressed to a resident in Edenfield, Lancashire, and posted in Manchester on Saturday the 19th April, did not reach its address until 44 hours after the letter was posted; and, if so, whether he can see his way to provide the increased postal facilities for which the inhabitants of Edenfield have petitioned the Department?

My attention has not been called to the particular instance of delay to which the hon. Member refers; but I sanctioned arrangements for the improvement of the postal service at Edenfield some months ago, and quite recently I have authorised an extension of the evening delivery there. The arrangements now appear to be quite satisfactory.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the case, as has been alleged, that fatal accidents on the last of the nine hours work per day in many Welsh collieries are 100 per cent. in excess of the fatal accidents during the whole of the remaining eight hours; whether he has any reason to believe that fatal accidents are at all more numerous in the last hour of a nine hour shift than they are in any other hour of the shift, or than they would be in the last hour of an eight hour shift in the same district; and if he will grant a Return showing for the years 1888 and 1889 at what hour of employment of persons killed in collieries underground the accidents which resulted in their deaths happened?

The Inspector for the district informs me that the statements in the first two paragraphs of the question are not correct. In 1889 out of 126 fatal accidents it appears that 12 occurred in the first hour, nine in the second, 14 in the third, 18 in the fourth, 17 in the fifth, nine in the sixth, 12 in the seventh, nine in the eighth, 18 in the ninth, seven in the tenth, and one in the 11th. I have no reason to believe that it is the fact that the last hour of a shift is accompanied by more danger to life than any other hour of the employment. I will inquire whether it is possible to give generally the information asked for in the last paragraph of the question, and if it is I will direct the Inspectors to include it in their Annual Reports.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that so few miners work into the 11th hour that the Return is misleading without that explanation?

I have given the figures as they have been given to me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly make inquiry?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the deaths resulting from miscellaneous underground accidents in coal mines are annually from two to three times as numerous in the South Wales district as in the Newcastle district, although the number of persons employed is only fractionally greater; whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement made by the Inspector of the South Wales district, in his Report for 1887, in reference to fatalities arising from miscellaneous accidents underground:—

"I am thoroughly convinced that the number could be sensibly reduced by the enforcement of stricter discipline;"

and what steps, if any, have been taken since 1887 to enforce stricter discipline?

The deaths resulting from miscellaneous underground accidents in South Wales are rather more than twice as numerous as compared with those occurring in the Newcastle district; but the number of persons employed in South Wales is 30 per cent. more than in the Newcastle district. I am informed by the Inspector that his observations with regard to the fatalities had reference to the better enforcement of the special rules by colliery officials, and that he takes every opportunity of calling the attention of owners and managers to their responsibilities under the Act of Parliament, and of urging them to use the powers given them by law to enforce a strict observance of the special rule's. The Inspector has, whenever he could procure evidence, instituted prosecutions against owners and managers for not enforcing the observance of the general rules.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to that part of the Queen's Regulations of 1889, which specifies that—

"Officers me not interred with military honours unless they are at the time of their decease on full pay, or employed on the Staff, or in the exercise of some military command or office:"

whether General Sir William Jones, G.C.B. (who was in command at the capture of Delhi, the turning point of the Great Mutiny), was, at the time of his decease, Colonel of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, and in receipt of the pay of £1,000 a year; and whether he was, therefore, entitled to a military funeral?

Sir William Jones was the Honorary Colonel of the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry. An officer holding such an appointment is not on full pay nor in the exercise of any military command or office, and is, therefore, not entitled to a military funeral. I may mention that Sir Archdale Wilson commanded the forces at the capture of Delhi.

Is, then, the doctrine that unless an officer is on full pay he is not entitled to a, military funeral?

No, Sir. He was not entitled under Military Regulations.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is competent for the Scottish Fishery Board to allocate any of the funds at their disposal for harbour construction and improvement as security for advances to Harbour Authorities in Scotland by the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and, if such is the case, whether the Secretary for Scotland would consider the expediency of recommending this course to be adopted by the Fishery Board in the case of Eyemouth Harbour, where £25,000 advanced by the Public Works Loan Board has been expended in improving the harbour without any improvement to the harbour entrance, which is impracticable to fishing boats during large periods of each tide?

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. The matter is somewhat complicated, and I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give directions to the Labour Correspondent to inquire and report as to the extent of the establishment and working of Councils of Conciliation under the 30th and 31st Victoria, chapter 105, and of Boards of Arbitration under the 35th and 36th Victoria, chapter 46, as amending the 5th George IV., chapter 96; and, further, to inquire and report as to the causes, if any, pre- vailing either amongst employers and employed, which have hindered the utilisation in any, and what, trades, of either of such Councils of Conciliation or Boards of Arbitration?

No use was made of the Act of George IV., and its existence seems to have been forgotten. When it was enacted the necessary organisations for its successful working did not exist, and its compulsory features and penalties were alike distasteful to employers and employed. Before the Act of 1867 was passed, industrial arbitration was frequently and voluntarily applied. The tribunals proposed by these Acts did not provide for the Settlement of future but only of actual disputes. The Act of 1872 was intended to give further powers in this direction; but so strong a preference has always existed in this country for the voluntary system, that neither of the Acts referred to has ever been called into operation. The two later Acts have only followed, not preceded, the establishment of voluntary Councils, and have only given the sanction of law to a system already largely adopted. Under these circumstances, no special inquiry seems necessary.

Is it the case that nothing has been done under the Statute?

That is so, I believe. The fact is that people prefer to manage their own affairs in their own way.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present condition of the debt of £250,000, bearing interest at 3½ per cent., and repayable by means of a 25 years' annuity, due by the Government of the Transvaal to the Imperial Government; and whether these payments have been suspended, and for what reason?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to this point. The payments in respect of the Transvaal debt of £250,000 have been regularly made. They have until within the last year been applied in discharge of a debt due to the Treasury Chest Fund of £61,073 15s. 3d., and now that that debt has been discharged the payments are made into the Exchequer, the first of such payments having been made in April last year. The note at page 136 of the Finance Accounts should, I think, have been fuller, and I propose that it shall be more explicit in future.

I had intended to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the two telegrams of 23rd January and 1st February, 1889, referred to in Sir A. B. Havelock's Despatch of 11th February of that year, on Zulu affairs; and whether he can state exactly what proposal is referred to in the following paragraph of Lord Knutsford's telegram to Sir A. Havelock of 5th February, 1889, which paragraph has been omitted from that telegram as printed in the Blue Book, but appears incidentally elsewhere:—

"In answer to your telegram of the 1st February proposed removal of Dinizulu by force or surreptitiously undesirable"

and by whom such a proposal was made? I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if those sending in silver plate to be weighed, &c, next Thursday, are likely to receive the full amount of the drawback or if the quantity of plate sent in is likely to lead to a considerable pro rata reduction?

It is hoped that the sum of £120,000 will enable the full drawback to be paid on all plate, sent in next Thursday to be weighed, &c.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return of the number of public houses which have a certificate licence from Licensing Justices, but whose owners, in respect to whom the certificates have been granted, have not applied to the Excise for an Excise licence?

The information can be given.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a Memorial (unanimously passed by the London School Board on the 20th March this year) has been received by the Education Department, in favour of the London School Board Elections Bill, which proposes to assimilate the present Electoral Divisions to those used for Parliamentary and County Council Elections; and whether the Education Department can, by Section 37, Sub-section 2, of "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," which gives them power to determine the boundaries of the different Divisions, and the number of members to be elected for each Division to the London School Board, make this necessary change under the present law; and, if not, whether the Vice President will give effect to the Memorial of the London School Board by assisting in the passing of the Loudon School Board Elections Bill, which is down for Second Reading this (Tuesday) evening?

I have seen the Memorial referred to. The Education Department have no power by order to assimilate the present Electoral Divisions to those used for Parliamentary and County Council elections. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to support the hon. Member's Bill, which will have the effect not only of altering the method of voting in the Metropolis, but also of removing the securities which at present exist for the due representation of minorities.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the police have recently received instructions from the Post Office Authorities to make inquiries and report as to meetings of Post Office employés about to be held; whether such instructions have been issued to the police generally, or in what districts; and if he will state to the House why the police have in this respect in any case been substituted for, or added to, the Local Postmaster?

No, Sir; no such instructions have been given either generally or in particular localities.

Then the inquiries which have been made in the County of Bucks by the county police have been made without the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman?

Certainly, Sir; I have given no instructions.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the fact that on the 21st April last, when Father Humphry stood talking with Mr. Gill, of Nenagh (in streets of New Tipperary), the policeman, who is alleged to have told them rudely to "move on" and was asked his name, gave the name of Moran though his true name is Leonard; did he refuse to state where he was stationed, and why; what are the regulations of the Force as to giving their name and address when asked; is it the fact that, on the 22nd April, a policeman followed Father Humphry, and whistled after him in an insulting manner, and refused to give his name, but on another occasion gave it as Wilson Williams, though in a prosecution in Court swore his name was William Welsh; has the duty been especially assigned to this constable, William Welsh, to walk by Father Humphry's side and keep step with him, whilst another constable walks a few feet behind keeping step with them; and what is the name of the second constable?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the proposals made to the Anti-Slavery Congress for the imposition of Customs duties on the Congo, whether, before the Government commits this country to that policy, this House will have an opportunity of an explanation of the reasons which may exist for adopting such a policy, and of expressing its opinion thereon?

There would be obvious inconvenience in any discussion taking place in this House while the Conference is still sitting; but British interests in connection with this matter will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of convictions for drunkenness, with and without violence, in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively for the financial year, April 1889 to April 1890?

The judicial statistics for England and Wales give the Returns of convictions for drunkenness classed together under the heading, "Drunkenness and Drunk and Disorderly Conduct." The number of such convictions for England and Wales for the year ended September 29, 1889, was 156,634. I am not yet in possession of the figures for the period ended April 1890. For figures relating to Ireland and Scotland application should be made to the Scotch and Irish Offices respectively.

If the right hon. Gentleman has the figures separately for each county, will he give them in a future Return?

I will consider that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to accept on oath the evidence of several gentlemen concerning the transactions of Messrs. Metcalfe at the Royal Small Arms Factory; and will he cause an inquiry to consider that evidence?

If the hon. Member will furnish me with the statements to which he refers I will consider them, with a view to see if further inquiry should be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if instructions have been given to the Customs House Officials at Harwich, and the other out- ports, as in London, that, notwithstanding the remission of the duty, foreign plate cannot be delivered to an importer without subjection to assay, according to the superior standard in force in this country?

I am informed that there has been no change made in the instructions to Customs officers as regards foreign plate.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether ho will now state his intentions with regard to extending the time allowed to licensed dealers in plate to send in their claims for drawback?

Intimation has been given that if, in any case, from unavoidable delay, the detailed Reports are not in the hands of the Inland Revenue to-day their cases will not be prejudiced.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why a procession of barge builders and gas stokers was broken up by the police on Mile End Waste on Friday last?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no intimation of this procession was given to the police, and that the time chosen being night, and the night on which there was a function at the Guildhall and a demonstration of postmen on Clerken-well Green, it was anticipated that inconvenience and possible danger to the public would result from obstruction caused by the march of such a procession, which proceeded through the streets from Mile End Waste. The police, accordingly, informed the processionists that their march could not be permitted, and prevented it taking place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the procession was proceeding to Mile End Waste and not through it?

My information is the other way.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated annual cost of the Drill Instructors and Adjutants of the Volunteer Force, also of the Colonels commanding Regimental Districts in Great Britain and Ireland?

The estimated annual cost, exclusive of non-effective charges, is as follows:—For Adjutants of the Volunteer Force, £108,700; and for the Drill Instructors of the same Force, £142,400; for the Colonels commanding Regimental Districts in Great Britain and Ireland, £35,900.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any further information concerning the murder of Private E. E Page, Royal Marines, at Kustenje, Rou mania, on 10th March?

A Roumanian lawyer has been retained by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires to act as inter prefer and unofficial legal adviser at the Court-Martial. Until after the finding of that Court I shall not be in a position to give any further information on this case.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the London and North Western Railway Company have offered, on certain conditions, to contribute the whole, or a part, of the cost of removing the Platters Rocks in Holyhead Harbour; and whether the offer has been accepted; and, if not, would he state on what grounds?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Lewis) yesterday.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the report of "Mitchell v. Regina" in the London Times, 13th of May, and the remarks in the Evening Standard of that day; and whether, in consequence of the decision of the learned Judges, he is prepared to introduce a Bill to conserve to officers the promises conveyed to them in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Royal Warrants, which are signed by the Sovereign?

There is no necessity for introducing any Bill with the object suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The decision of the learned Judges has not deprived officers of any rights or promises conveyed to them by any Royal Warrant. The Courts have held, in accordance with former precedent, that the decision of the Secretary of State, in a case in which It is his duty to interpret the Warrant, cannot be reviewed in a Court of Law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has noticed the extent to which the action of the weather has corroded Cleopatra's Needle so that many of the hieroglyphics appear to be becoming effaced; and whether any steps can be taken to remedy the mischief?

I am informed by the Clerk of the London County Council, who have charge of this obelisk, that in May of last year the acting engineer made an examination as to the condition of the Needle, and reported that its present state was not unsatisfactory; that the surface of the stone does not seem to have been affected by the weather to a greater depth than a quarter of an inch, and the hieroglyphics are in many places more than two inches deep. The granite does not seem to have deteriorated since the Obelisk was examined 16 years ago.

Cannot something be done to protect the Obelisk in the same way as the Mosaics in Italy are protected?

I will draw the attention of the London County Council to the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 4th Battalion Rifle Brigade, which returned from India in January, has since remained unfit for service for want of serviceable arms and equipment?

On the return of this Brigade from India it was found that their arms and equipment were in bad order, but new arms and equipment have been issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to provide suitable hospital accommodation, constructed in accordance with modern sanitary rules, in connection with the barracks that are to be rebuilt in Ireland; and, if so, what particular hospitals are intended to be thus renovated?

The hospital accommodation at the Curragh and at Belfast will be enlarged in accordance with modern sanitary rules; and wherever barracks are constructed, any hospital accommodation which may be required in connection with them will be built after the most approved modern methods.

What steps are being taken in regard to the hospital of the Royal Barracks in Dublin?

The sanitary arrangements in connection with the Dublin Royal Barracks are being thoroughly overhauled.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether a gentleman named Gethin has been recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County Sligo; if so, what were Mr. Gethin's qualifications for the office; has he a residence in the county; is he a landholder or landlord's agent, or does he hold any official position in the district'; and, if he does not possess any of these qualifications, on what grounds did the Lord Lieutenant of the county recommend him to the Lord Chancellor?

The Lord Chancellor of Ireland informs me that Mr. Gethin is neither a landlord nor a land agent; but is a gentleman of education and position residing within the County Sligo, in which county members of his family have property. He having been recommended by Her Majesty's Lieutenant of the county as a fit and proper person to be a Magistrate, was appointed in the usual course, and to meet the necessity for an additional Magistrate in the Ballymote district, in which he will attend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman has no residence in the county nor anywhere else; and that he is simply a lodger in his brother's house?

No, Sir: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that he resides in the County of Sligo.

That, answer conveys a fallacy. 1s he not simply a lodger in his brother's house?

The information supplied tome officially is that he resides in the County of Sligo.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether this gentleman has really a residencu or property in Sligo?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the officials of Dublin Castle to supply him in future with such information as will not be misleading to the House?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which H. M. S. Malabar recently arrived in England with 500 invalids on board, of whom 100 or more were very ill, and about 40 were absolutely helpless: whether the actual hospital accommodation on board consisted of a cabin capable, when absolutely crammed, of holding 35 berths arranged in two tiers, and whether, under these conditions, erysipelas spread so rapidly that it was necessary to have some cases behind at Aden, with the view of trying to stop the further progress of the disease; whether the surplus sick had to be put up in cots slung along the port side of the main troop deck, where they were insufficiently protected from cold, and exposed to the dust and dirt of coaling; and whether he will try and arrange that in future invalids shall be conveyed in troop ships properly adapted for the care of the sick?

The embarcation of these troops from India is entirely regulated by the Government of India. I have requested the Secretary of State for India to give the matter his consideration, and an investigation is now taking place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the amount of Council Bills sold since the commencement of the present financial year; what proportion is this amount of the whole of the current year's estimate; under whose advice has Her Majesty's Secretary of State forced on the market so much larger a proportion of the year's drawings than is needed for the current requirements of the India Office: and what is the present amount of the cash balances in the Home Treasury of the India Office?

The amount of Council Bills and Transfers sold since the commencement of the present financial year is Rs. 5,32,34,000; being 24¼ per cent. of the estimate for the year. The sales have been made under the advice of the Finance Committee of the Council of India. It is incorrect to say the large amount sold has been "forced on the market"; the demand has been abnormally large. The present cash balance of the I Home Treasury is £6,000,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Second Battalion Royal Welsh Fusiliers was, on its return from Burma in 1887, sent to Lucknow instead of to a hill station, although it had suffered severely from the effects of the climate in Burma; if he can explain why it was that, although this corps was very sickly during the autumn of 1887 at Lucknow, and that the Local Medical Authorities strongly advised that it should be sent to a hill station in the spring of 1888, no notice was taken of this recommendation; whether during the trooping season of 1888–9 more men were invalided from this corps than from all the other troops then at Lucknow, consisting of two regiments of infantry, one of cavalry, and two battalions of Royal Artillery; will he lay upon the Table the Reports of the medical officers at Lucknow; and whether the corps is now at Peshawur, or under orders for that station, which is notoriously a sickly station?

The statements contained in the question are substantially correct, except that the battalion is the 1st and not the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. The 2nd Battalion is much more happily circumstanced. It is at present quartered in Galway. The Secretary of State is not aware of the reasons why the recommendation of the Local Medical Authorities was not attended to. Such matters are, I believe, in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if it was the fact that the Commander-in-Chief did communicate with the Medical Authorities and was in favour of their recommendation, but that afterwards that recommendation was set aside on representations which were made by other authorities? If that is so, I would also ask what is the use of having Medical Officers at all?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman alludes to. I may, however, say that no recommendation from the Commander-in-Chief has been set aside by any orders from home.

I did not moan that. What I meant to say was that the Commander-in-Chief was in favour of the recommendation of the Medical Authorities, but that his decision was reversed in consequence of representations made from another quarter.

Inquiry shall be made.

I think we are entitled to complain of this very peculiar proceeding on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not profess to be so well acquainted with the procedure of this House as some other hon. Members; but I must say that I think it is somewhat extraordinary to find that the Government are desirous of taking up the whole time of the House for Government business before Whitsuntide. Only this afternoon we have gone through the farce of putting down our names for a Ballot, in order that we may be able in a Constitutional manner to ventilate grievances. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman propose that all this shall be done away with at once, so that we may be spared the trouble of coming down here on Tuesdays and Fridays in order to obtain a favourable place? The position we find ourselves in at this moment is all due to the gross bungling of Her Majesty's Government. Looking at the past records of Parliamentary Government I fail to find any instance in which an Administration has succeeded in getting the business of the country into such a tangled skein. They have had their Irish Land Purchase Bill read a second time, together with' the Tithes Bill, the Allotments Bill, and the Bill dealing with Registration; but when they had succeeded in getting those Bills advanced to a certain stage, with almost insane infatuation, they brought in their compensation scheme, knowing full well that it was bound to meet with the most strenuous opposition, and that it was one of the most contentious measures they could bring before the House. They have taken this course without solicitation either by the Temperance Party, or the publicans, or the general public, and with complete knowledge of the feeling which was created throughout the country when a similar course was projected two years ago, and the only way in which they propose to get out of the difficulty in which they find they have placed themselves is by proposing to sacrifice the whole of the time of private Members. Having obtained the first place to-night, I cannot abandon it without a serious protest, and certainly not without dividing the House. Personally, I have not been able to discover whether the Government really want the time of the House for this Bill, or simply to do a kindly action towards those who are assailed by the Motion I proposed to move this evening, dealing with the system of faggot voting which exists in London. There may, however, be another reason, because, when my Motion was disposed of, it would have been possible to have afforded facilities to the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) to bring forward the Motion dealing with the dockyards which stands in his name—a Motion which the Government, by a piece of sharp practice, succeeded in staving off on Friday night. It is a singular fact that the three questions which have precedence for the evening sitting all affect the people of London, and yet Her Majesty's Government avail themselves of the opportunity for telling the inhabitants of this Metropolis, "No matter what your grievances are, we, by our automatic majority, will vote you down and take up the whole time of the House." If private Members are to have any rights at all, the conduct of the Government must be resented, and it is our duty to let the country know that if there ever was a, Government which succeeded in mismanaging its business it is the present. I intend to divide the House against the Resolution.

I sympathise very strongly with the remarks of my hon. Friend in regard to the business which stands on the Paper for to-night. Only the other night the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, by a manœuvre, got rid of the Motion of one of his own supporters the hon. Member for Woolwich—with regard to the bad pay of men employed in the Public Service of the country. Only this morning I received a note from the hon. and gallant Member, in which he says, "My Motion as to the very low wages paid to labourers in the Government establishments in London is down for to-night, and will be divided upon. I shall feel obliged if you will extend to me the same kindness you did on Friday night in making and keeping a House." I have no doubt that my hon. Friends have re- ceived a similar letter, and there are very few who would not be in their place, in order to secure an opportunity of discussing the question. And now it appears that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be unfairly deprived of all opportunity of discussion by his own Government. I do not know whether I am in order in alluding to the scenes which kept us here until 4 o'clock this morning, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the Government are pursuing a deliberate plan of throwing dust in the eyes of the nation. About 1 o'clock this morning, with an assumption of seriousness, they proposed, in the absence of the members of the Press, and surrounded by hon. Members who had been in attendance for nine or 10 hours, to begin the discussion of two of the most important clauses of the Budget Bill. We resisted that proposal, and I hold that we were justified in resisting it; but we offered to discuss the question adequately, as we thought the interests of our own constituents demanded. We made an offer of that kind to the Government over and over again, but offer after offer was refused, and it was only in sheer self-defence that we were obliged to shield ourselves behind the Forms of the House. I am glad to say that the course we pursued had the countenance and support of the able and impartial right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Committees of this House. His refusal to be a party to the gagging of Members drew upon him, I regret to say, something like an intentional insult, and a complete misapprehension of his motives. And what is the position of the Government? In the short recess which is about to take place if the First Lord of the Treasury makes a speech it will be to denounce the conduct of the Opposition as factious and obstructive. I entirely share the opinion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the present Ministry is a lawless, an immoral, and a profligate usurpation. They hold office in spite of the constant and unmistakeable condemnation of the constituencies, and under such circumstances I regard Her Majesty's Government as just as much an usurpation as if they were an oligarchy, who had established themselves by a coup d'etat. For my own part, I think the House are justified in refusing to grant a single penny of the public money to a Government which has ceased to represent the nation. Upon one or two occasions we have endeavoured to call the attention of the House and the country to some of the proceedings of the Government with regard to foreign questions.

The hon. Member is now transgressing the limits of the Motion before the House.

I will not pursue the subject further. I was only illustrating my argument that the Government have no right to complain of the action of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, the Government do not want this time, which properly belongs to private Members, seeing that the Budget Bill of 1885, which led to the defeat of the Government, did not reach a Second Reading until the 8th of June. The only reason for pressing forward the Bill now is to divert public attention from the mismanagement of the Government, by making an unjust and unfair attack upon the Opposition. It is part of a scheme to push through the House legislation against which the country has indignantly revolted.)

As the First Lord of the Treasury is now seeking to appropriate the whole of the time of the House, may I ask him if he proposes to afford facilities this Session for the discussion of the Eight Hours' Bill for Miners, seeing that early in the Session 154 Members of the House, representing all Parties, signed a requisition to him expressing a hope that time would be found for the discussion of the measure? As the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to appropriate the time of private Members before Whitsuntide, and as he is certain to ask for further encroachments after Whitsuntide, I think the time has arrived for asking what his intentions are with regard to a measure in which the miners of the country are intensely interested, and in which those of Scotland are unanimous? I should also like to ask when the remaining Votes for the Navy are to be taken?

The hon. Gentleman is not discussing the Motion before the House. Nor do the subjects to which he refers come within the period of time for which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take the time of the House.

I only wished to point out that one of the questions upon the Paper for to-night would raise a discussion as to the condition of labour in the Government establishments, and if such questions as this cannot be discussed to-night, I should like to know when they can be brought on?

I should like to know upon what ground the First Lord of the Treasury considers himself entitled to present a Motion attacking the rights of private Members without offering a word of explanation. The onus lies upon the right hon. Gentleman of proving that the Motion is necessary, and that at this early period of the Session it is desirable to extinguish the rights which the hon. Member for East Fins-bury (Mr. J. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes) have succeeded in obtaining for the Motions which stand in their names. The House cannot forget that the hon. Member for Woolwich was on Friday night deprived of his right by something very like a trick. I strongly protest against a manœuvre by which the Government are seeking, for the second time within a week, to deprive the hon. Member, who is one of their own supporters, of an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House the grievances of a, body of persons who are in the employment of the State. I should have thought that it was, at any rate, incumbent on the right hon. Gentleman to show that the Budget Bill is of such extreme urgency as to demand the appropriation of the time required. We have not yet reached the end of the i month of May, and we are entitled to inquire why it is necessary that the Budget Bill of 1890 should be passed earlier than in any previous year? I have been 10 years in the House of Commons, and certainly I have never known the business of the country to be in such a state, owing to the chronic incompetence and spurts of tyranny of the Government. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, after the word "proceedings, "to insert the words" in Committee."

I intend to support the Government, although representing a dockyard constituency. I regret the abandonment of the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich relating to the low rate of the wages of dockyard labourers; but I quite recognise that in view of the unparalleled obstruction which has been offered, Her Majesty's Government have taken the only course open to them. The hon. Member for Finsbury spoke of the farce of coming here to put down Motions for Tuesday and Friday. I do not agree that it is a farce; but, at the same time, I feel that we are sent here to do the business of the country, and not to discuss the fancies of private Members.

I should like to point out that, although a large number of questions of the deepest interest to London constituencies have been placed upon the Paper, not a single opportunity has been afforded for bringing them before the House. Having the honour to represent a London constituency, I think it is high time for the Metropolitan Members to make a protest against the action of the Government in seeking to deprive them of the only opportunity they are likely to have of making some of their grievances known.

I listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. H. Knatch-bull-Hugessen), and I absolutely deny that there has been any obstruction whatever. If the business of the country is not in a satisfactory condition the Government are alone responsible for it. At the very earliest period of the Session the First Lord of the Treasury has come down and made a demand upon the time of the House of a most extraordinary character, but he has very prudently and wisely made no attempt to justify the demand he makes. The Government would have had their Budget Bill passed before now if they had refrained from introducing contentious clauses into it. As a matter of fact, they have introduced bills of a highly contentious character, which it would be utterly impossible to pass this Session, even if the Sittings were prolonged until Christmas. So far as the Irish Members are concerned, they know that the licensing proposals of the Government are regarded by their constituents with hate and detestation, and they feel that it is their duty to oppose them by every means in their power. The Government have tacked on to the ordinary business of the country propositions that are perfectly novel, and which raise great issues of policy upon which the constituencies have a right to pronounce an opinion. That, and that alone, is the real reason why we are making such little progress. If there has been obstruction of public business it has been the result of the unprecedented proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury. We have simply done our duty in opposing these proposals, and what I suggest to the Government is that they should now take out of this Budget Bill the clauses which introduce this new policy. If they do that, the Budget Bill will pass as quickly as the Forms of the House will permit; the Government will be able to make progress with Supply, and to clear away other business of the country, and then the remainder of the Session can be devoted to the interests of Irish landlords and English publicans. It is uncandid and unfair to seek to blind and deceive the country by endeavouring to lay the blame upon our shoulders of delaying or obstructing public business when, in reality, we are simply opposing a great and novel policy which the Government are seeking to introduce under the cloak of doing the ordinary business of the country. Supposing the Government succeed in carrying out this policy, I suggest that, for the convenience of Members, they should now get up and announce to the House what is their real programme of business for the remainder of the Session, and what they propose to throw over-board, and what they intend to carry. I would suggest, too, that in order that there should be a clear week's holiday, the House, if necessary, should sit on Saturday.

The hon. Member has told us that it is the bounden duty of the Opposition to resist the policy of the Government by every means in their power. [Mr. DILLON: The policy of the endowment of publicans.] If any reasons wore wanting why, as proposed by the Motion, special facilities should be given to the Government for carrying the Bill through, the hon. Member for East Mayo has himself supplied them. He has not called it obstruction, but he has admitted that the policy of the Government has been opposed by everything in the power of the Opposition—

I am afraid I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—

Order, order!

That is absolutely false.

Order! If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way he is in possession of the House, and has a right to continue his remarks.

It is customary for hon. Members to give way under such circumstances.

It is entirely optional with the right hon. Gentleman whether he gives way.

It is customary.

Order, order!

I think the majority of the House will acquit me of being in the habit of making false accusations.

You said exactly the opposite of what I said.

Order, order!

I am content to take the judgment of the House as to whether I have put an unfair interpretation on the hon. Member's words. I made the Motion now before the House because it is imperative in the judgment of the Government, upon whom the responsibility rests, that it should be made. In the discussions which have taken place on the Bill there has been a considerable and a needless repetition of arguments. The hon. Member for East Mayo has invited the Government to take these particular clauses from the Bill. Recommendations of the same character have been made over and over again on the Opposition side of the House, and there surely must be some limit at which even the most reasonable recommendations must cease, if the majority of the House make it clear that those recommendations cannot be accepted. I am most anxious to carry on the business of the House so as to suit the convenience of private Members; but the legislation of the Government must be passed, and it is not the fault of the Government that by unduly protracting discussion private Members have deprived themselves of their opportunities. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich, he will have an opportunity of making it on going into Supply. Both the Secretary of State for War and the First Lord of the Admiralty will give careful consideration to any matters brought before them by hon. Members with a view to remedy grievances. I will not now enter into the Programme of the Session, because the Motion before the House is an extremely limited one. If it becomes necessary for the Government to make proposals for a further extension of time, then the views of the Government with regard to the future progress of business may be properly put forward. On the' present occasion we simply ask the House to give precedence to a Bill which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, ought to be passed without further delay, and as to which there has been very considerable and protracted discussion. I hope the House will now come to a decision on the question before it.

There is no doubt the demand of the Government is a most unusual one at this period of the year. When such a demand is made it is the duty of Members of the House to examine the grounds upon which it is based. The greater part of this Bill, that which makes provision for the finances of the country, is unopposed. That could be passed today, and might have been passed last week. But the opposed part of the Bill has no relation to the Imperial finances, and is part of a scheme the discussion of which the Government have admitted ought to be postponed till after Whitsuntide. This is said to be a part of the business of the Government, but it formed no part of the recommendations in the Queen's Speech. It appeared all of a sudden as an accident and an incident, and as a secondary and independent part of the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard astonish- merit expressed equally on both sides of the House at the madness which has inspired the Government to flash upon Parliament, encumbered as it is already by the immense demands of the Irish Land Purchase Bill and the Tithes Bill, this question of compensation to publicans. Sheridan is reported to have said that he had heard of a man breaking his head against a brick wall, but he had never heard of a man building a brick wall to break his head against it. Yet practically this is what has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making a proposal which is no part of his Budget, but is rather an unwholesome excrescence upon it. If the Government choose to fight out this question of compensation to the liquor interest I have no objection, if only they will give time to the country to form and pronounce an opinion upon it. The Opposition is ready to fight it out; but we will not have it closured. If the Government imagine the question is going to be disposed of on a side issue they are entirely mistaken. The proceedings of yesterday were inaugurated by a rescript from the Times, in following whose advice on a previous occasion the First Lord of the Treasury came to disaster. The Times is in the confidence of the Government, and the Government enjoys the friendship of the Times. That paper yesterday—a meeting of the Cabinet was held on Saturday—announced what was to be the policy of the Government on this measure and what treatment the Opposition was to expect. The words of the Times have been endorsed by the subsequent action of the Government. They have been advised to make the best possible use of their majority without the least regard to the hypocritical outcries of the minority, because "what the country believes in is success." That is the morality of the Government policy; but whilst it is true that "nothing succeeds like success," it is also true that nothing fails like failure. The Times says—

"If work is done the Opposition may go bout the country whining or howling about the arbitrary use of a majority or the stifling of discussion until they are hoarse. Nobody cares a straw though they are closured 10 times every night, nor will their complaints excite anything but amusement."

I venture to denounce language of that kind addressed to the House of Com- mons as a brutal and insolent outrage. [Laughter.] The First Lord of the Treasury laughs at the idea of being guided by his old friend. The House can see that what the Times has said is an exposition of the policy of the Government. There is one sentence in which I can entirely concur:—"Sir W. Harcourtand his friends have not the least apprehension of being called to account for obstructing business." Later on the Times says:—"There are far too many speeches" [Ministerial cheers]—yes, Sir, I waited for that cheer—"far too many speeches from the Government Benches." Now, the Government have difficulties. "It may be a little difficult" says the Times, "to curb the loquacity of their supporters;" but it adds that this can be done if they are made to see that business is really to be advanced by their self-denial. I was glad to see that the first lesson in self-denial was learnt by Gentlemen opposite last night. There was an attempt to carry out the policy indicated in the Times, and it was followed by as humiliating a disaster as ever befel a Government when engaged in an un-Constitutional and unscrupulous attempt to override free discussion in the House of Commons. What I protest against is what took place last night when, in the most material part of a most important policy, the Government endeavoured to gag the House of Commons, and in the dead of night to pass measures which most materially affect the interests of every part of the United Kingdom, without discussion, or in a manner of which the country could have no notice. The First Lord of the Treasury was not in the House at 4 o'clock this morning, and perhaps he would like to know what happened. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to forget it; but it shall not be forgotten in the House or in the country. Well, what took place? There was a scene—

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to refer in detail to what took place in Committee last night, of which the House has no cognisance when I am in the Chair; but within a certain limit, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows, he can allude to it in a general way.

I will follow your ruling, Sir. I was only about to say that certain incidents of the Sitting reminded me of the story of the battle of Waterloo. When we had been pounded all night, and had stood our ground, there appeared on the scene a foreign force, which the Napoleon of the night supposed to be Grouchy, but which turned out to be Blucher. Then the force disbanded, amid a general cry of "Sauve qui pent!" and the Napoleon fled. I hope that course will not be repeated by the Government. The Government, I understand, are determined to go on with their compensation scheme and with these clauses in the Budget Bill. Very well, I, for one, will not refuse them the time they ask even at the sacrifice of the interests of private Members. I regret that the interests of the people of London should be deliberately sacrificed in order to forward the compensation to publicans policy of the Government. I am very sorry that, by the brushing aside of the Motion of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes), the interests of the working men, whose cause he has espoused, should be sacrificed. But, if the Government are determined to make this afterthought on their part the first and most prominent portion of their policy we are ready to meet them, and will grant the time necessary to discuss their proposals. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has charged us on this Bench with weakness in our resistance to the Government. I will expose myself still further to the charge by giving the Government all the time they can get for the fair discussion of their policy. It ought to be, however, on the understanding that their proposals are not hastily forced through by the Closure. The difficulty in which the Government find themselves is due to the character of their measures, which are repugnant to the feeling of the nation -Bills for buying out Irish landlords, compensating English publicans and brewers, and aiding parsons in Wales. That is not a, popular programme, or one that recommends itself to the country. If, however, they choose to occupy the whole time of Parliament for the discussion of these particular topics we cannot help our- selves, and must meet them as best we can. In order that we may have ample time to discuss their policy, we will not oppose their present demand.

I do not wish to use any of the epithets which have been used against the Government to-day. They have received a severe castigation. They have been called lawless, immoral, and unprincipled, and the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to their having suffered a humiliating disaster. I wish to appeal to them in a friendly spirit. On one point the Government and myself are at present in cordial accord, and that is in the desire to promote temperance. They seldom make any speeches without saying that the earnest desire of their hearts is to promote some temperance measure. In fact, I look upon them now not so much as a Government as a great temperance league. It is not for me on this occasion to discuss their mode of promoting temperance, but I think they must admit that there are other people who have the interest of temperance at heart almost as much as Her Majesty's Government. To-morrow there is on the Paper a Bill which embraces the views of an enormous number of the people of this country in regard to what should be done towards diminishing the evils of the drink traffic, and I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he thinks it ought not to be discussed. It is a Bill based on three Resolutions of this House, and there are more people interested in it, I feel sure, than are interested in any other Bill before the House at the present time.

If I could hope that by giving the Government the time they ask for we could obtain from them time for adequate discussion, I should not have the slightest objection to granting them a certain amount of time, on the principle of giving them enough rope; but I am afraid the rope would be used to strangle us. They would take the time of private Members, and, instead of giving us full opportunities for discussing the compensation proposals, they would Closure us. I should, therefore, like some Member of the Government to be good enough to break that remarkable silence which has fallen upon them since they received the orders of the Times, and explain the intentions of the Government with regard to the future. The First Lord of the Treasury has put himself forward as a very able man of business. I shared in the opinion that he was an able man of business, but I own I have been disappointed. I think now that not only is the right hon. Gentleman not a good man of business, but that he does not understand the House of Commons. He seems to be under the impression that he should come down here as a sort of schoolmaster and treat us as a sort of school children. It is all bullying and bartering on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He is constantly telling us if we do not do this or that we shall not have a holiday—as if we were children. That, Sir, is not the way to treat the House of Commons. We know we are absolute worms in the right hon. Gentleman's eyes, but by the course he has adopted he has induced us to turn and protest against his proceedings again and again. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of us as having been guilty of unparalleled obstruction. I must explain that the word obstruction is used in two senses—a good sense and a bad sense. Of course, all opposition is obstruction in a certain sense. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed to the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as having announced an intention to obstruct, because he said he would delay and oppose. Why, every speech in opposition to the proposal of the Government naturally delays that proposal being-passed, and opposes it. In that sense, no doubt, we do obstruct, but, in an improper sense, we never obstruct in this House. I have heard this playing on the word obstruction time after time. The ins always complain of opposition as obstruction, whilst the outs maintain that it is legitimate opposition, although immediately the outs become the ins, their view of opposition changes, and they begin to charge their opponents with obstruction. If the present Government should go out, its Members would be found to act just as we are acting at this time. ["No, no."] Well, we shall see. On the Land Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, the Conservatives did not obstruct—God forbid that I should charge them with anything of the kind—but they took 38 days to consider the clauses in Committee. When we have occupied 38 days in Committee on a Bill of the First Lord of the Treasury, perhaps he may be justified in complaining of obstruction, but I deny that he has any ground for complaining of it now.

rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

I would remind the House that the subject under discussion is the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Belfast to insert in the Motion after "proceedings" the words "in Committee." I do not think there is any disposition to unduly delay the decision on that Amendment.

I think I may say, Sir, on behalf of my Colleagues, that you have fairly interpreted the feeling which prevails on this side of the House, and I thank you for allowing us to continue for a few moments longer the Debate raised by my hon. Friend. It is a remarkable thing that the First Lord of the Treasury has so little regard for the rights of private Members that, even at the moment he is depriving them of the time which the Rules of the House allow them for bringing on business, he endeavours to prevent them from expressing an opinion upon his action by the Closure. In spite of the violent interference of the First Lord of the Treasury, I will say that which I rose to say, namely, let us fall in with the proposed of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. Let us agree to give the Government the whole time of the House, let us not take a Division against the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, on the understanding that now that he proposes to take private Members' time, he shall not, at least in the time he so takes, attempt to use the Closure. Let the Government take, in addition to their Morning Sitting, all the time of the House after 9 o'clock to-night, and let them have all to-morrow, in addition, but let private Members be protected in their own time from the violent measures of the First Lord of the Treasury. It will go forth to the country that the right hon. Gentleman has met the proposal of the Member for Derby by an attempt to apply the Closure; but, at any rate, let it also go forth that private Members are not to be closured during the time they surrender to the Government -that they are not to be strangled by their own rope, so to speak. I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is a good one. We are entitled to an answer to it, and also on another matter. This Motion will give the Government an additional day and a half. Surely, therefore, hon. Members are entitled to have a day and a half added to the Whitsuntide holiday. I entirely repudiate any charge of obstruction. There is, indeed, no need for obstruction, as we are not now in the position we occupied in former times. We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by obstruction. The game of obstruction, if it ever was played in this House by private Members, is at an end. Ad we desire is to have a reasonable opportunity of expressing our views and of arguing questions with the Government.

It is the intention of the Government to use the time of the House in a proper and reasonable way. In regard to the holidays, if the hon. Member will put a, question to me on Thursday on the subject, I hope I shall be in a position to give him an answer.

If the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby, supported by my hon. and learned Friend, is accepted, we shall understand that the proceedings on this Bill only occupy the time usually at the disposal of private Members, and be free from the operation of the Closure Rule.

I think the hon. Member must see that I cannot give any general pledge on that point. There is an expectation held out by the right hon. Gentleman himself that the proceedings in the Committee on this Bill shall terminate within a certain reasonable time. I say no more than this—that the Government will endeavour to conduct the Debates in a just and reasonable spirit.

I should like to explain that what I intended to say was, that if the Government receive a large accession of time from private Members, it will be unreasonable on their part to insist upon forcing on Debates at late hours of the night to the inconvenience of all parties in the House, and when it is impossible that the Debates could be reported. I say that that will be unreasonable, and I accept the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman that he intends to act in a reasonable manner. Consequently, I understand that we are to consider ourselves safe from being called on to continue these discussions at an unreasonable time of the night. In these circumstances, I hope we need not go to a Division.

It will be remembered that I alluded to the reasonable expectation held out by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members opposite that the Bill will pass through the Committee to-morrow.

I hope that reasonable expectation will be fulfilled, but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, when, at the instance of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), I made that offer to the Government last night, it was rejected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I consider I should be at liberty to recede from that offer if I desired to do so. I do not desire it however. I hope that expectation will be fulfilled.

We, too, are to indulge in the expectation that we shall not be kept up to an unreasonable hour, and that we shall not have the Closure applied to us. Our position with respect to this Budget Bill is this. It has been a surprise to us from first to last. It was not in the Queen's Speech, and must have been the result of a sudden decision—either that, or the Government have kept it in their minds without saying anything about it. We have heard from the Government, over and over again, that they do not desire to compensate the publicans, but this is a measure to give compensation, and the conviction of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country is that if the Bill passes in its present form an enormous burden will be thrown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers through this compensation. Our constituents--and I can speak for my own—are most anxious that we should press the Government for an explanation of the scheme. We cannot do this with the fear of the Closure hanging over us.

I understand it to be affirmed that the proceedings on the Bill are not to be pressed forward at an unreasonable hour of the night. Upon that understanding I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in line 34, to leave out the word "gallon" and insert "hogshead." The object of this is to reduce the taxation on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. The amount of taxation raised from the Alcohol Duties is £21,649,448, and this presses very unequally on the rich and poorer classes. For three glasses of British spirit, the poor man pays, say, 1s., and out of it he pays 9d. on duty, but suppose a man consumed a bottle of wine that cost 1s. 6d., the only payment to the Exchequer out of that is a 1d. This increased taxation now proposed means increased adulteration, and it means an increase in illicit distillation, and consequent loss to the Revenue. I cannot say that I should be prepared to condemn this illicit distillation, though technically it is against the law, because I know the taxation upon the article is unjust and is unequal in its incidence between the rich and the poor. I know it is urged that the heavy taxation will conduce to temperance, because it will act as a check upon consumption, but I am quite sure that those who have studied the question will come to the conclusion that this is all nonsense. If you were to take all the taxes off, I do not believe there would be a whit more drunkenness, and, indeed, I believe there would be less. There would' be less of the habit of men treating each other, for it would be a cheap and common means of refreshment, and there wonld not be heavy drinking bouts alternately with periods of total abstinence. The very heavy duty on spirits stimulates the manufacture of spirits from unwholesome materials, bad spirit impregnated with fusel oil finds its way into consumption, and Excise officers can tell you that a large amount of spirit is made from molasses and other substances. I am not greatly impressed by the statement made in the Times that a similar Amendment to this, devoted to the Customs Duty, was a foolish and meaningless Amendment. It is simply a protest against the working classes being robbed, as practically they are, with every glass of liquor they take, and being compelled to bear taxation which, if fairly adjusted, should fall upon the landed class and the richer classes in the community.

I really have nothing to say more than I said yesterday in regard to a similar proposal The whole argument of the hon. Member goes for a total abolition of the duty. It would be far better to make a total remission of the duty than to reduce it to a 54th part of 6d, which would be a ridiculous conclusion.

My hon. Friend has explained the principle upon which he makes his proposal, he finds that opinion is adverse to it, and I would suggest that he should not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.

Yesterday I had three Amendments, only one of which I actually moved, and did not take a Division, but all the same I am met with a charge of obstruction. Neither yesterday or to-day has the right hon. Gentleman convinced me that there is any absurdity in my proposal, but though the Government have not showed themselves worthy of much consideration, yet, in deference to the request of my hon. Friend, I will not insist on the Amendment.

I take the liberty of moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, to insert in line 34 the words—

"Of Spirits which shall not have been in bond for a period of at least one year the duty of 6d. per proof gallon, and so in proportion for any less quantity."

This raises a very important question on which we have had no defence of the Government proposal, and, indeed, a somewhat qualified assent to my view from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be objected that it raises the whole question which was raised on a former occasion upon the "Bonding of Spirits Bill," but that is not quite the case. The Amendment reduces to a minimum the ill effects of the proposed new tax as regards Ireland and Scotland, and will, I think, largely tend to diminish the annoyance the tax will cause. If there is one thing more than another in connection with the Spirit Duties upon which all parties are agreed, it is that it is highly desirable, if it is practicable, that new spirits should not find their way into consumption, or, at any rate, that no facilities should be offered for such spirits finding their way into ordinary consumption. Where my Amendment differs from the proposal to bond all spirits for 12 months, is in giving a Differential Duty of 6d. a gallon in favour of spirits that have been bonded 12 months, favour being shown to the better article, which is not likely to produce the injurious effect on the consumer that new spirit does; whereas the Bill to which I have alluded proposed to apply the 12 months restriction to all spirits. In 1879 that Bill passed its Second Reading without Division, and why it was not carried to a legislative enactment I do not understand. I have read the Debates on that and other occasions, and I find that any argument used against the bonding of spirits for 12 months could not apply to this Amendment, because here the bonding for that time is optional and is not absolutely demanded, but the Preferential Duty will encourage dealers to put the same mellow spirit on to the market. There is an abundance of testimony to show the injurious effects of new spirits, and all authorities are agreed that, at the present time, a large amount of new spirit, containing fusel oil in large proportion, finds its way into general consumption, with, of course, great injury to the health of the consumers. The Committee appointed to hold the inquiry in reference to the Adulteration of Food Act of 1872 reported unanimously on this very subject. They said there was a singularly unanimous expression of opinion from scientific witnesses as to the perfectly maddening effect of the consumption of new spirit. Dr. Cameron, a well-known scientific authority, said that fusel oil was highly pernicious, even in small quantities, and he went on to express an opinion that it would be well if new spirit were not allowed to be removed from bonded stores until after the expiration of an appointed time, say a year. That is exactly in the direction of my Amendment, which is, however, not compulsory. Another authority, Dr. McAdam, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh University, said—

"I have not the slightest doubt that the fusel oil in whisky is injurious to health, and I believe in most cases the maddening effects attaching to whisky drinking are due to the presence of fusel oil."

That Committee arrived at its opinion upon testimony which was overwhelming to the same effect. Last night we had' an expression of opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he undertook that this question should be considered, not only from a Revenue point of view, but as it concerns the health of the community. That being so, I suggest that my Amendment is well worthy of attention, and is a step towards a solution of the difficulty. If we bring in a Bill to provide that all spirits shall remain in bond for 12 months, we shall meet with opposition from certain distillers, who will urge that it is unfair to ask them to lock up their capital for 12 months, thereby handicapping them in their competition with importers of foreign spirits, but my proposal, acting in a permissive way, will give the home distillers the benefit of the difference in duty if they give the public a more wholesome article. I hope I have made my meaning clear-, and I believe there would be no Excise difficulty in carrying out my suggestion. The consumption of spirits in England, Scotland, and Ireland, is on the increase, and how far that increased consumption is made up of new spirits it is impossible to ascertain. I have endeavoured to find out, but I have been unsuccessful. I do not know whether the Government have any means of ascertaining-the respective proportions of new and of matured spirits sold, but I think one would be safe in arguing that, if this additional tax of 6d. per gallon is imposed, and if the Government entertain the idea that its imposition will bring about an increased Revenue, the actual result will be that a greater quantity of new spirits will be put on the market. I think it would be better by far to offer an encouragement to distillers to keep their spirits in bond for a good period. I am not concerned, either directly or indirectly, in the trade, but I am making this Motion in the interests of the good character of both Scotch and Irish whiskies, because I know that, under the present absurd - system of Excise collection, a large quantity of maddening new spirit is now put on the market, and I am anxious to restrict the sale of such spirit. Those who are jealous of the reputation of whisky should support this Motion. I have been told by some hon. Members of this House that they would prefer to see whisky abolished altogether. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cocker-mouth, who makes such interesting-speeches on the subject of temperance, said, that instead of keeping spirits in bond for one year he would prefer to see them kept in bond for two hundred years. But we must approach this subject as sensible men. If whisky is made to be drunk, surely it is an advantage that it should be given to the public in a form in which it will not produce bad effects. I know of some parts of Ireland where it has produced most terrible effects; and if we refer to the Constabulary Returns, and to the evidence of those who are interested in the subject, we shall find that the new whisky that is sold in many parts, bath of Scotland and of Ireland, produces these bad effects, both on the morals and on the health of the community, and leads to a very large amount of disturbance and disorder. If anything could be done to diminish the terrible evils of intemperance, which undoubtedly arises from the consumption of new spirits, I think it should be done; and I believe that the Amendment which I have proposed would be a step in the right direction, and one which ought to command the sympathy both of the Committee and of the Government.

I can assure the hon. Member that I have devoted a portion of the short time which has elapsed since last night's Sitting to a study of this particular question. I have been in conference with distillers from Scotland, and, although I desire to deal seriously with this question, I am not prepared to accept this Amendment in the form in which the hon. Member has put it. We must proceed with considerable caution in the matter. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that it is receiving most careful consideration. It would be necessary, for instance, to define the class of spirits which ought to be kept in bond. It is not all spirits that should necessarily be so treated. The Amendment may be desirable in the interests of whisky, but I am told that in the case of gin that spirit is as good, as far as health is concerned, immediately after manufacture, as it is after keeping it for a considerable time I propose to have a scientific examination made on this question, and I, therefore, hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has determined to pay attention to this very serious question. But what he has stated in reference to the difficulty is a matter which, I think, might be dealt with in Committee. Of course, if gin stands in the position stated by the right hon. Gentleman, it could easily be excepted from the operation of this Amendment. I contend that the interests of the Irish whisky manufacturers are seriously damaged by the lack of a provision such as is contained in this Amendment. This question has been a long time before the House. It is a complicated question, and I trust that now the right hon. Gentleman has entered upon an investigation he will be able to put a stop to the practice of which my hon. Friend complains, and I also hope that before next year's financial proposals are made we shall have communicated to us the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived.

Yes, Sir. I certainly will undertake before another year's Budget to announce my decision, but I hope to be able to deal with this mattereven before then. I shall place myself in communication with the distillers of Ireland in the same way as I have communicated with those of Scotland.

I desire to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has gone the right way to work in making inquiries into the matter if he has consulted only distillers.

I have consulted others than the distillers, and am in communication with scientific authorities who may be able to throw some light on this subject. I desire to communicate with anyone who may be able to assist in this investigation.

I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he is in consultation with authorities other than distillers. I have a very great regard for distillers, but the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I impress upon him the serious importance of this subject, so far as the Irish people are concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the character of Irish whisky, when it gets fair play, is very high indeed. I do not know whether it is within his knowledge that very recently a great and distinguished monarch was kept alive for a very long period by the use of this stimulant, medically applied. I am told, on the highest authority, that the late Emperor Frederick was almost fed on Irish whisky during the latter months of his life. Experience proves that Irish whisky, when properly dealt with, pos- sesses very valuable characteristics, but I am sorry to say that its character at the present time is very low indeed. In fact, the distillers and manufacturers have been driven out of the market by the adulteration of the article. Irish distillers, unfortunately for themselves, have a habit of selling all their productions in a new and raw state. The whisky is made from the very best materials, and it is able to resist the largest amount of adulteration; but when it gets over to England it is so-mixed up with deleterious commodities that its character is destroyed. I have noticed that, as a result of this, in the great refreshment houses in the Metropolis, the demands for Irish whisky are only about one-ninth of those for Scotch whisky. That is a revolution which has been brought about in the trade during the last 15 years.

Order, order! The hon. Member is surely straying very far from the Amendment before the House. This Amendment does not affect any particular whisky. It only provides for the keeping in bond of spirits for one year.

I only want to point out that if Irish whisky is taken out of bond before it is 12 months old it is more liable to adulteration with deleterious compounds, and I believe if this Amendment were carried it would be an encouragement to Irish distillers to keep the spirit until it is perfectly matured. I am speaking, also, in the interests of the Irish barley growers. The population of Ireland is largely engaged in agricultural pursuits, and I believe that one effect of passing this Amendment would be to give the agricultural population a little better opportunity of meeting the many and weighty engagements which they are already under, and which they are about to enter into with the State. I have still another reason, and that is in connection with the health of the people at home. I am sorry to say, from my knowledge of the trade in Ireland, that the people engaged in distributing this drink to the poor buy, in most cases, the very newest and the very rawest spirits. They then reduce it to a very low degree—far below proof—and subsequently add to it a quantity of deleterious spirit in order to give it a strong flavour, and to make it so that the customer can feel it going down his throat. Now, the spirit thus provided has a very bad effect on the health and on the morality of the people. New whisky taken out of bond is able to resist this reduction to a much greater degree than old spirit, and I think that the adoption of this Amendment would have a beneficial effect on the Irish people at home, by securing the destruction of the power to add to the spirit these deleterious compounds. We should get a more wholesome and a better article for the consumption of the people. I have for a great many years observed the evil effects produced on the people in Ireland by the use of new whisky, and I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee would confer great benefit on the people if they accepted this Amendment.

This question affects Scotland as well as Ireland. I have among my constituents a considerable number of distillers. Of course, I do not claim many supporters among them, because I have never opposed the increase of the Spirit Duties. But I have had communication with many distillers, who have urged me to support This Amendment, I desire particularly to draw attention to the use of the German potato spirit. I am informed that it is no uncommon thing for the spirits to be blended in the Custom House, and for the German potato spirit to be used for this purpose. I am informed also that if Scotch whisky is kept in bond for 12 months this adulteration with German spirit would become impossible. I, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an assurance that he will put a stop to the custom of allowing Scotch whisky, adulterated with German potato spirit, to be sold in the open market as genuine Scotch whisky. I think the principle of Trade Mark legislation might very well be applied to the whisky trade, and I shall be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not overlook this point.

Proposals have already been made for preventing this practice, but I am afraid they have not been practical ones. I have asked the authorities at Somerset House to investigate this matter. I agree with the general principle that Trade Mark legislation ought to apply to spirits as well as to other articles of commerce, and I hold that Scotch or Irish whisky which is largely composed of German potato spirit should not be sold as Scotch or Irish whisky.

I think that, after the expression of opinion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will not be necessary for us to divide on this Amendment. We are aware, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said on previous occasions on this matter, that he has a not unsympathetic mind. He has stated that he is examining into this question. We know that he has enormous sources of information at his command; information which is largely of a Departmental character; but I would suggest that he should come into more direct contact with the distillers. There is now a Committee sitting upstairs to consider the Trades Marks Amendment Act of last year, and I would suggest whether it would not be desirable to refer the question to that Committee, or to a Special Sub-Committee, in order to go fully into the matter. I am strongly in favour of temperance, and I think it is to the interest of everyone that pernicious spirits should not be sold. It is in the interest of temperance men, as well as moderate drinkers, among whom I number myself, that we should have reasonable and legitimate protection from the adulteration of Scotch and Irish spirits. I am very glad to think this question has made great progress since it was first brought forward by the late Mr. O'Sullivan. I think the Government are entitled to great credit for the action which they have taken in connection with the Merchandise Marks Amendment Act. It is a valuable measure to the commercial community, and I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that this question of the blending of whisky, and the keeping it in bond, is one which, being as it is of an entirely non contentious character, might very well be referred to a Committee, which could have before it rectifying distillers and others interested in the trade. I think an inquiry by such a Committee would very materially strengthen the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in deal- ing with the question of the importation of foreign spirits.

I may state that the idea has passed through my own mind as to whether it would not be wise to refer this subject to a Committee upstairs. I thought it my duty to make the necessary inquiry into the matter myself; but I should be very glad to share with or pass over the responsibility to a Committee of this House. I will, however, communicate with my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject, but I think it right to add that, in my opinion, it would be well to refer this question, together with other similar matters in relation to the group of questions connected with the manufacture of whisky and other spirits, to the same Committee, should one be appointed; but, at the same time, it must be understood that this is not to interfere with the question of taxation.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be doing well in referring this question to a Committee, and I hope it will be a Special Committee, and by no means a large one. After what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think it necessary to refer to another matter I was about to urge upon him with reference to the question of branding; and therefore I will only suggest the employment of a brand or mark, such as the letter B, on any blend, which distinctive mark should be continued up to the moment the Customs receive the goods.

I am extremely glad to have heard the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have no doubt that his promise will greatly facilitate the passage of the Bill.

I feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the statement he has just made. I would suggest that in the inquiries he may make he should consult the Irish distillers, who are fully competent to furnish every information as to the character the Irish whiskies hold in the general market and the disadvantages to which they have been subjected by a long course of unfair treatment. I am glad of the reception given to my Amendment, and I wish to express my agreement with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tipperary that it would be better to have a small than a large Committee, and also that it would be better to have a Special Committee than to send the questions to be considered to the Merchandise Marks Committee. After what has now taken place, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.

I venture to say that the statement made on behalf of the Government as to the appointment of a Committee to consider this question will materially reduce the number of Amendments to the Bill, but I should like to make one suggestion. We must, of course, recognise the enormous experience of hon. Members now sitting on the Merchandise Marks Committee; and, though I think we ought to have a separate Committee to inquire into this question, I would suggest that if the experience of some of the Members of the Merchandise Marks Committee can be brought to bear on the new Committee it would be a distinct advantage.

I now rise to move, as an Amendment to this clause, the omission from page 2, line 35, of the words "United Kingdom," in order to substitute the word "England," the object being that the proposed increase in the duties on spirits should not fall on Scotland or Ireland. We say that this increase of the Spirit Duties is unnecessary, unjust, and uncalled for. It is uncalled for because there is no precedent for raising the Spirit Duties at a time when the Budget has shown a surplus. There was a rise in the Spirit Duties five or six years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian was Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh was Chancellor of the Exchequer; but at that time there was a deficit, which is not the case now. Again, we say that whisky is the national beverage both of Scotland and Ireland, though in Ireland it is not consumed to such an extent as in Scotland. Still, it is proportionately much more largely consumed in Scotland and Ireland than in England, and, therefore, the duty presses more heavily on the Scotch and Irish than on the English people. Looking at the Return furnished by the Secretary to the Treasury, I find that taking the heads of the Customs and Excise Duties on spirits, together with those on wine and beer, in England, the amount is £20,140,000; in Scotland, £3,805,000; and in Ireland, £3,222,000; the average per head of the population being, in England, 14s.; in Ireland, 13s. 6d. and in Scotland, 18s. 10d. But when we turn our attention to the Excise Returns on spirits alone, we find that England pays 5s. 6d. per head; Ireland, 8s. 6d.; and. Scotland, 14s. per head; while the amount of Excise Duty on spirits retained for consumption in the three countries, as compared with the total amount of duty from all sources, is 31 per cent. in England, 65 per cent. in Ireland, and 76 per cent. in Scotland. I would remind the House that when the then Government was defeated on this subject by a majority of 12, in 1885, on the Amendment moved by the present President of the Board of Trade, that Amendment declared—

"That this House regards the increase proposed by this Bill in the duties levied on beer and spirits as inequitable in the absence of a corresponding addition to the duties on wine,"

and so forth. How do the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported that Amendment reconcile that proposition with their present attitude in regard to this question?

I may answer that question at once, and the answer is that since then the duty on wine has been increased.

It is hardly necessary to stop to inquire how far the votes and speeches of that time were animated by political and Party considerations, but I find that among those who supported the Amendment denouncing the increase of the Spirit Duties was the hon. Gentleman the sometimes Civil Lord of the Admiralty.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman should address himself to his own Amendment which proposes to allow the duty in England, but not in Scotland or Ireland.

Every Member of this House is anxious to have your experienced guidance, Sir, in matters relating to the business before the Committees of this House, and I shall not, therefore, go further than to express my surprise that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side can be found supporting the present proposal when they voted against a similar one in 1885. Looking at the question as a whole, we have this undoubted fact before us that the proposed increase of the Spirit Duty is viewed with great disfavour and dislike both in Ireland and Scotland. I think the Government are bound to make out to the satisfaction of the country that this increased duty is required. This they have failed to do, and, therefore, seeing the strong feeling which prevails in Ireland and Scotland against the proposal, I beg to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper.

I think the case is much stronger than it has been put by my hon. Friend, because not only does this increased duty affect England, Ireland, and Scotland unequally, without any corresponding duty being imposed on foreign wines, but between 1885 and now a considerable reduction has been made on the duties on foreign wines.

I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment is against the imposition of the new tax in Scotland and Ireland, while it allows it with regard to England; but it is not directed against the tax altogether.

I am endeavouring to show that this additional tax is altogether unjust.

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak against the tax altogether.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and would therefore now merely point out that the duty on the national beverage of Ireland is as 10s. compared to 1s. 10d. on the alcoholic equivalent in the national beverage of England—beer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Blane) would reduce the tax to l–54th of the sum proposed in the Bill, and would, therefore, be a reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps he was not altogether wrong, but he cannot use that argument against the Amendment I now move, as it is of a very moderate character. I trust the Party opposite who say that they put this additional tax on spirits in the interests of temperance really have those interests at heart. If they have I think they will find no difficulty in accepting my proposal, which is to make the new duty 1d. instead of 6d., so as to proceed gradually. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made out no case for the 6d. It is not justified by the state of public finances, for his Budget shows not a deficit, but a large surplus. The Scotch and Irish Members do not consider that a case has been made out for the 6d., and if the motley group who call themselves "Unionists" would only remember that this matter, after all, is really a Scotch and Irish one, and that the proposal of the Government is not necessary, I think they would find no difficulty in agreeing with us. Let the Committee consider what a large proportion of the Revenue on spirits is raised in Ireland and Scotland. We have a Return showing the incidence of taxation, and from that I will extract a few figures for the information of the House. I find that in 1881–1889 the number of gallons of spirits on which the duty was paid in Ireland was 4,826, 352. The proposed increased duty, payable in Ireland upon this—supposing the consumption this year is about the same as last—would be £121,700; but if my Amendment Were adopted that would be reduced five-sixths, leaving the increased revenue at £20,000. That. I maintain, would be a considerable addition to the taxation of Ireland, especially in view of the fact that you propose to put up the money for some years to come. The increase in Scotland under my proposal would be £27,000, which is a large sum to extract from such a poor country. The increase in England under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal amounts to £572,807, a very respectable sum wherewith to commence this experiment. I do not adopt an extravagant view or speak in terms of unqualified censure of the scheme of the Tory Party. They defend this increased charge on broad and general principles, and I go with them to a great extent; but I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should advance slowly and steadily on the road he wishes to follow that he should begin with an extra impost of 1d. instead of 6d.; then, if he finds it work well, and finds that the people gradually get reconciled to the tax, he will be able to advance by progressive steps. In time the right hon. Gentleman would have no difficulty in getting the whole 6d., but the country would have faced the tax gradually, and we should have had experience in the way in which the money should be applied. I think the Government will be the first to acknowledge the reasonableness of the manner in which we are discussing these various Amendments and clauses, and I would urge on their attention the desirability from every point of view of accepting this proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should forget for the moment that he is a Party man, and should remember only that he is the guardian of the Public Purse. If he does that, I think he will see the advantage of proceeding in this matter by gradual steps.

I have to move the rejection of this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to put a new tax on whisky without putting a new tax on beer. He has repeatedly told us in the course of these discussions that he is imposing a new tax of 3d. on beer, that the extra 3d. was last year put on beer on the understanding that it would be taken off on the earliest possible occasion. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer argues that ho has carried out any such undertaking he is playing with the brewers—he is deceiving them. He is taking off a tax with one hand and putting it on with the other. As a matter of fact, the relative taxation of beer and of spirits is an important factor in the international incidence of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman will not dispute that the relative taxation was arranged as far back as the year 1868, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian raised the duty on spirits to 10s. per gallon. You then had a Malt Tax. That Malt Tax has since been converted into a Beer Tax, intended to be its exact equivalent. The brewers made an outcry on the occasion of the change, saying that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would mulct them to the tune of some £800,000 a year, and the consequence was a change was made in favour of the brewers' contention. Subsequent experience, however, showed that the remission had been made in consequence of statements which were found to be incorrect, and, consequently, in 1889 the right hon. Gentleman re-imposed the duty on the basis on which it was originally proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and in order that there might be no mistake on the subject his words were quoted last night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) intended to go back to the original scheme of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he imposes this new tax on spirit in order to rectify an unfair advantage which Scotland and Ireland are obtaining at the expense of England, owing to the distribution of the Probate Duties. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman made the allocation of the Probate Duties, he gave us not the smallest reason to think that the arrangement was not to be permanent. As a matter of fact, he anticipated an increase in the Probate Duties, and he put forward that antici- pation as an additional inducement to Local Authorities to accept his scheme. The right hon. Gentleman wants not only to take the increase back from us, but to impose a heavy fine upon us.

I do not take it back. I do not understand the hon. Member.

Well, the right hon. Gentleman does not take it back; but he leaves us a benefit of £56,000 and imposes a new tax, of which we shall have to contribute £76,000 more than we shall receive back, leaving us minus £20,000. The right hon. Gentleman has laid before us a Return which is very ingeniously drawn up so as not to show this. We shall benefit to the extent of ½ per cent. on the Beer Duty; but, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own Return, Scotland is called upon to pay £76,000 a year more than she will receive in connection with the new tax. This, I say, is a grossly unfair proposition. We have nothing to do with the increase in the Probate Duty, as the proportions of that duty were settled three or four years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman knew very well what he was about when he settled that proportion. The right hon. Gentleman challenged us with the alternative suggestion that the respective duties raised in the different countries should be allocated to each country in proportion to the amount obtained from them I should accept the right hon. Gentleman's challenge gladly, because if his suggestion be adopted, Scotland will be £7,000 or £8,000 a year better off than she is now. According to the right hon. Gentleman's Return, while Scotland will only receive out of the Probate Duty a benefit of some £69,000 a year, she will have to pay under the Whisky Duty some £76,000 a year. Of course, the same argument would not apply to Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman knows his offer could not possibly be accepted, inasmuch as we have no right to give up the Probate Duty as fixed. I move the rejection of the clause.

I hope we shall be allowed an opportunity of discussing this question properly. It is a question greatly affecting Scotland. I have repeatedly challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us the figures to show what proportion of the Probate Duty is paid by the Metropolis, and England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. We have the figures with regard to the Income Tax, and it is important we should have those relating to the Probate Duty. In the meantime, I do not wish to repeat the arguments used, but I think this clause will work great injustice to Scotland.

I deny that there is any injustice to Scotland in the allocation of the new tax. What we propose is that we should follow the same principle in dividing this particular tax as we followed in respect to the Probate Duty.

What is required is a division in proportion to the extent to which each country contributes to the tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not possibly have picked out a tax which is so unfair to Ireland as the Probate Duty. I deny that the Returns upon which the money has been allocated are fair. Ireland, for instance, gets a less share of money than she would get if the Returns, which yon signed when Secretary to the Treasury, had been adopted.

Order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now entering upon the subject of the next clause—the question of the distribution of the money.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not entitled to say that there has been a real increase in the Beer Duty, when it has been proved out of the right hon. Gentleman's own mouth by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton that he has said that the transaction is a mere rectification of the mode of levying the duty.

I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will claim the credit of giving Ireland a greater amount than her contribution entitles her to, but I desire to point out that, whatever benefit Ireland derives from some remission of taxation, it is taken from her with the other hand. It is true that in the whole scheme of the right hon. Gentleman Ireland is bene- fited, to some extent, by the reduction in the duty upon tea, but then Ireland will lose in regard to the manufacture of whisky a greater amount than that which she will save by the remission upon the Tea Duty. We shall save by the reduction in the Tea Duty something like £105,000, but the right hon. Gentleman proposes to impose an additional tax of 6d. per proof gallon upon what I may call the native manufacture, namely, whisky. [Mr. JOHNSTON: There is linen.] Yes, but the linen manufacture is confined to one corner of the country, while whisky is manufactured all over the country, even in Belfast. The increase that will accrue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's next Budget will be something like £100,108, and that will more than counterbalance the benefit we derive from the remission of other taxation. This additional tax is put upon an article that is already overtaxed.

If the hon. Member makes the same Motion later on—at 12 or 1 o'clock—I do not think the Chairman will oblige the hon. Member.

Order, order!

If the hon Member had been paying attention—

Order, order!

I would not object to the Second Reading of this Bill if the hon. Gentleman would consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There are many debateable points, and I think the best way of satisfying the claims of all parties would be to refer the measure to a Committee.

There are, no doubt, debateable points, but I do not think it necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I would suggest that the Committee stage should be delayed until we have had an opportunity of considering all the points dealt with.

I hope the House will allow the Bill to be read a second time. I have carefully gone into the details of the Bill, and I believe the Bill will afford a means of settling the question upon a satisfactory basis.