I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. W. D. Ford, postmaster at Uddingston, some time ago got up a lottery in aid of the family of a letter carrier who had lost his appointment through ill-health; that over 66,000 tickets were sold, and over £800 realised; that of this sum £367 had been accounted for as bonuses to the persons who sold the tickets, and only £33 paid to the letter carrier's family; and that, with a balance of over £300 in hand from this lottery, Mr. Ford had started another lottery in England with the same avowed ob- ject, tickets 3d. each, and amount realised estimated at about £600; whether letter carriers or other servants of the Post Office were among the persons who sold the tickets on commission; and, if so, whether he will warn them in future to avoid such transactions, and whether he proposes taking any steps in connection with Mr. Ford?

In December last attention was called to the fact that Mr. Ford was engaged in a lottery for the benefit of the family of a Post Office servant whose health had broken down. On inquiry being made, he expressed regret for having done what was disapproved of, and abandoned the issue of tickets and circulars; but until this question appeared on the Notice Paper there was no idea that the practice had gone so far as it now appears to have done. In view of the allegations brought to my notice by the Hon. Member, an immediate and thorough investigation will be made.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to four public lotteries organised by Messrs. William Hunter, of the Inland Revenue Office, Glasgow, and W. D. Ford, postmaster at Uddingston, and to the fact that the carrying out of these lotteries was characterised by an absence of those precautions as regards drawing and accounting which would be thought necessary, as a guarantee of fair play, in the case of a legalised lottery; whether the lotteries in question came within the class of lotteries forbidden by the law of Scotland; and whether he proposes to institute any legal proceedings in connection with them?

My attention was first called to this matter by the question of the hon. Member. On inquiry I find the subscription sales referred to were promoted for purely charitable purposes, and there is, on the information before me, no trace of fraud or even of advantage to the promoters. While these sales appear to fall within the definition of lotteries under the Statute, the Public Prosecutor has always exercised a discretion as to the classes of lotteries which are fit subjects for prosecution, and I do not consider that any of the cases referred to call for my intervention.

I beg to give notice that in Committee I shall move to reduce the salary of the Lord Advocate in order to call attention to this subject, and the persistent neglect of the Lord Advocate to enforce the law.

Does the Lord Advocate hold himself entitled to carry out the law in any particular case or not, as he thinks fit?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue has been called to the fact that Mr. Wm. Hunter, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Glasgow, about two years ago got up a public lottery in aid of a lad named Miller; that, although repeatedly challenged to do so, he has never published any account of receipts and disbursements in connection with it; that again, a few months since, he advertised "A Grand Prize Drawing on the Art Union principle, in aid of a seaside home for cripple and deformed children," with prizes valued at £1,000, and tickets at 3d. each, but subsequently, "in consequence of reflections cast upon the scheme," resolved to abandon it; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any steps in the matter?

The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue was not called to the lottery got up in aid of the lad Miller. Mr. Hunter states that he has never been personally challenged to publish a statement of accounts in the case, and that no suggestion of the kind was made to him previously to the publication of the anonymous letter to which, as it was anonymous, he did not consider it necessary to reply. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have, however, supplied me with figures showing the disposal of the gross receipts, and they show that the balance now in hand is vested in Trustees. The "Grand Prize Drawing on the Art Union principle" was brought to the Board's notice last January, and Mr. Hunter was at once ordered to sever his connection with it. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue see no reason to doubt that Mr. Hunter's object was purely philanthropic, and, though his conduct has no doubt been highly injudicious, they do not feel it incumbent upon them to take further steps in the matter.

Does the information of the right hon. Gentleman go so far as to show how much money was paid as commission on sales of tickets?

A considerable amount, but I am unable to answer without notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to proceedings under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act against 80 of the inhabitants of Clare Island, women as well as men, for resisting the seizure of their cows for arrears of rent; whether the islanders so prosecuted have been recently depending for their existence upon relief administered by the Government; why the hearing of the charge did not take place on the island where the alleged offence took place; is it a fact that the two Resident Magistrates, after bringing the islanders to the mainland at Louisburgh and partially hearing the case there, adjourned to Westport, a town 13 miles further inland, obliging the islanders to undertake this long journey in a severe snowstorm, and at Westport threatened to issue warrants for the arrest of such of the islanders as were detained upon the journey; and if he will ascertain from the Magistrates the reason for the adjournment, and whether any allowances will be made to the islanders for the expenses and hardships caused to them thereby?

The prosecutions referred to, against certain inhabitants of Clare Island, arose out of an unlawful assembly in November, 1891. It may be the case that the defendants were among the islanders who were given employment on relief works on Clare Island in the spring and early summer of 1891. They also were provided at that time with seed potatoes on easy terms. They had fine crops in the autumn and they are represented to have been fairly well off and able to pay their rents when demanded in November. The Petty Sessions Court-house for Clare Island is Louisburgh. The Magistrates did adjourn the case from Louisburgh to Westport, as the place in which the Court is held at Louisburgh is merely a small room and wholly inadequate to accommodate the defendants without danger to health of all concerned. The defendants did not travel in a snowstorm. In the case of only two defendants did the Magistrates say they would issue warrants to secure their attendance; but this was unnecessary, as they subsequently appeared. No women travelled from Louisburgh to Westport. The defendants were merely bound over to keep the peace, and appeared to be well pleased at the leniency of the Magistrate's decision. The Government are not aware of anything in the circumstances of the case suggesting remuneration.

I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman derived his information, but I happen to know there is very sufficient accommodation at Louisburgh. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether really the only persons convenienced by carrying the case to Westport were the well-paid Magistrates themselves, who consulted their own comfort at the expense of these unfortunate islanders?

From full and careful inquiry, which the Report shows has been made, I am sure there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. The room at Louisburgh, if the hon. Member knows it, is, I understand, a very small room. There were quite a considerable number of persons; it was impossible to provide even seats, and the atmosphere of the room was unbearable. It should be borne in mind that the case was adjourned in the first instance at the request of the solicitors for the defendants. I think a wise course was followed in the interest of everybody concerned, and I heard of no complaint until I saw the notice of the hon. Member's question.

If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, if these poor people were able to pay anything it was simply because they had been relieved by the Government. Now, I put it to him whether the case of these poor islanders was not one for the Congested Districts Board rather than for the Criminal Law? I would put it to him whether really there is any public service to be done by carrying out these raids upon the poor people; and whether the Government intend to lend the forces of the Crown again for the seizure of the cattle of these poor people for arrears of rent? If they do this, do the Government intend to make any provision for the relief again of the people whose cattle are seized?

If the hon. Gentleman desires any further information I must ask him to give notice of a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether one of these Resident Magistrates, at whose instance these poor people were brought a distance of 13 Irish miles—

Ten Irish miles.

Thirteen English miles—is a gentleman who was specially promoted for services rendered to the Pigott Commission?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Land Commission will proceed to dispose of the large number of cases of appeal which remain over for the district of North Tipperary; and whether steps will be taken to arrange that the Commissioners do hold their sitting at Nenagh (as formerly) for the hearing of such appeals, and so obviate the necessity for tenants and their witnesses from North Tipperary being obliged to attend at Limerick at great additional inconvenience and expense?

The Land Commissioners report that in the list of cases for hearing before the Court of Appeal at Limerick on the 21st inst. there are only nine appeals entered from the County of Tipperary, all of them being appeals on points of law. No date has yet been fixed for the sitting of the Appeal Court to hear the outstanding cases from the County of Tipperary. When arrangements are being made for a sitting for North Tipperary cases, the convenience of suitors and all persons interested will be carefully considered, but at present it is not possible to state the name of the town at which the sitting will be held.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Irish exhibitors at the "World's Fair," Chicago, are to be charged 5s. per square foot for ground space by the British Commission recently appointed; and, if so, why is the charge to be made, in view of the fact that the Chicago Committee propose to make no charge for such space, and that exhibitors will be put to considerable expense in costs of transit, expenses of attendants, and other charges?

Irish exhibitors, as well as British, will be charged 5s. a square foot for spaces not exceeding 100 square feet, and on a diminishing scale for larger spaces, because the funds placed at the disposal of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition will not suffice to defray all the expenses without being supplemented by payments from exhibitors.

Is it the fact that the Chicago Committee make no charge for space, and will he recommend that the charge should be reduced by the Commission?

I have explained that the charge is made to cover expenses.

But the Chicago Committee make no charge for space.

I do not know, but I have no control over the Chicago Committee.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at Ballinspittle, County Cork, on the 8th instant, an evicted tenant, named Michael Coughlan, was charged before Messrs. Irwin and Cronan, Resident Magistrates (under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act), with re-taking possession of the home from which he had been evicted, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of that period to find bail to keep the peace for twelve months or go to gaol for a further term of two months; under what section of the Act was the prosecution brought; what sections of the Act are at present in force in that district of Cork; and, being brought under the said Act, why was it that the prosecution was conducted by the solicitor for the agent, Mr. J. H. Carroll, Cork, and not by the Crown prosecutor for the district? Also, is he aware that Mr. Humphreys, clerk to Mr. J. H. Carroll, the agent of the landlord, admitted in cross-examination that he caught Coughlan by the collar, and ordered him to "clear out;" what steps were taken by the policemen present, who witnessed this alleged assault; and why was not the case tried under the ordinary law?

It is a fact that Michael Coughlan was prosecuted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act for taking forcible possession, with the result stated in the question. The prosecution was brought under Section 2 Sub-section 3 (b) of the Act. The portions of the Act at present in force in the district in question are Sections 1, 3, and 4, and Sub-section 3 of Section 2. The prosecution was conducted in the manner stated because it was a private prosecution at the suit of the landlord, and not at the suit of the Crown. I am informed that the act referred to was done by Mr. Humphreys, on behalf of the landlord, in assertion of his legal right to remove Coughlan from the premises of which he was holding forcible possession. There was no occasion for the police to interfere. The agent for the landlord, at whose suit the case was brought, elected to proceed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, as he was entitled to do.

I should like to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the fact that a policeman was present, was the agent of the landlord or clerk entitled to assault the man?

Neither in England or in Ireland can the police interfere when a person in the assertion of a legal right has to remove another person from his house, using no more force than is necessary for the purpose. Of course, if there should be excessive force used, the person against whom it is used may have his legal remedy; but it is not usual for the police to interfere.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a prosecution can be brought by a private person under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act instead of proceeding by the ordinary law?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland if he has any objection to give the names, titles, salaries, and length of service of all officers and clerks who have served under the Land Commission (Ireland) up to the 1st March, 1892?

I am not sure that I understand what information the hon. Member desires to obtain; but if he desires to obtain a Return of the officers and clerks in the employment of the Land Commission on the 1st March, 1892, and if he will move for it, I shall make no objection.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why Patrick Donnelly, who has been a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, since December, 1883, when he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude for larceny by Judge Lawson, has not been allowed the usual period of three months' diminution off each year of his sentence; and whether, having regard to the lengthened period of imprisonment to which this man has been subjected, his case will be considered, with a view to reducing the original term of his sentence?

The General Prisons Board report that there is no convict at present in custody in Ireland under the name of Patrick Donnelly.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case before the Hon. Judge Boyd, in the Land Judges' Court on 10th inst., in the matter of the Dowling Estate; whether it has been brought to his notice that the tenants on the estate declared upon affidavit that they were evicted in 1881 for non-payment of a single year's rent (in which was included a hanging gale), and that upon the death of Thomas Dowling the tenants asked to be reinstated upon the condition of paying one year's rent, and in order to take advantage of the Land Purchase Act; will he explain why, by the sanction of the Receiver of the Court, the two sons of the deceased were accepted as tenants at a less rent than the original tenants offered and were willing to pay: whether he is aware that the two sons referred to have practically paid no rent at all; and what action does the Land Court intend to take in the matter?

I have not called for a Report in regard to this question, nor have I any right to do so. The matter appears to be one entirely within the jurisdiction of the Judge, with whom the Government have no right to interfere.

Is it not competent for the Irish authorities or the Irish Government to communicate with the Judge in question (Judge Boyd) on the subject?

No, Sir; when a Judge exercises his jurisdiction in a matter he is clearly within his province. It is not customary, and it would be improper, for the Executive Government to interfere with him.

I will call attention to this on another occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the reported proceedings in the Greenwich Police Court, on the 12th instant, in the case of the Lewisham District Board of Works against the New Land Development Association, in the course of which Mr. E. Wright, clerk to the Board, is alleged to have sworn that the Board were in the habit of dining sumptuously at the Crystal Palace, and driving in carriages to the Board meetings at the cost of the ratepayers, and disguising such items in the Board's accounts under the heading "Sundry Expenses;" whether he has made inquiries into the case; and whether it is his intention to take any action with regard to it?

I have no information respecting the alleged expenditure of the Lewisham District Board of Works beyond that which appeared in the report of the proceedings in the case of the New Land Development Association at the Greenwich Police Court on the 12th instant. The accounts of the District Board of Works are not subject to the audit of the District Auditors appointed by the Local Government Board, and I have no jurisdiction whatever with regard to the expenditure of that authority. I have not, therefore, made any inquiries respecting the allegations, nor am I empowered to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the post of Resident Magistrate at Eleuthera, Bahamas, has been vacated by the retirement of Mr. Bethel; and, if so, whether it has been filled by the appointment of any legally qualified gentleman?

The post of Resident Magistrate at Eleuthera has been vacated by Mr. Bethel's retirement. No special qualifications are required for the post by the law of the Bahamas; but it has been filled by the appointment of an officer of long experience as a Magistrate in another Colony.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Government that certain water bailiffs employed at Cork Harbour recently fired shots at persons alleged to be poachers; and whether the bailiffs will be prosecuted?

I am informed that for some time past water bailiffs employed by the Cork Board of Conservators have been seizing nets illegally used in fishing, the use of which has threatened the destruction of a valuable fishery, which has been the means of livelihood of a number of fishermen. The bailiffs while engaged on this duty were attacked with stones, and fired shots they allege into the air. No person was injured, and, as at present advised, the responsible authorities do not propose a prosecution.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what grounds the assistance given by the Foreign Office and the British Embassy at Paris to Mr. Purdie was denied to Messrs. Cooper and Bednell, who were arrested and imprisoned at St. Etienne under the Espionage Act; whether the Foreign Office at the time of the arrest of Cooper and Bednell was furnished with testimonials to the good character and respectability of Bednell from the heads of the Technical Institute at Coventry, who had sent him to St. Etienne to complete his studies there, and from the Mayor and Authorities at Coventry, in which city Bednell had passed the whole of his life, and what efforts were made by the Foreign Office to obtain his release; and whether the Foreign Office will now endeavour to obtain compensation from the French Government for the imprisonment which Bednell has suffered?

The two cases mentioned by the hon. Member are quite dissimilar. Mr. Purdie was arrested on suspicion, and was not permitted to communicate with Her Majesty's Embassy for some days. When his case was investigated he was at once discharged. Messrs. Cooper and Bednell were tried upon a charge of "espionage" and convicted. There are no grounds for saying that the proceedings were irregular. The British Vice Consul watched the case, and rendered to them all the assistance possible. Her Majesty's Government have made unofficial representations to the French Government, with a view to obtain a mitigation of the sentence passed on Bednell; but there are no grounds for claiming compensation on his behalf.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the Foreign Office and the British Embassy interfered so promptly in the case of Mr. Purdie, and that they absolutely refused to interfere in the case of Messrs. Cooper and Bednell?

I do not think the statement of the hon. Member is quite borne out by the facts, so far as the Foreign Office is aware of them. I am not aware that the attention of the Embassy was called directly the gentlemen in question were arrested. So soon as it came to the notice of the authorities that he was arrested, the Vice Consul at Lyons, who was the nearest official to the spot, at once proceeded to St. Etienne and took such steps as were in his power to obtain his release, but was unsuccessful.

I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in future, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure that, in cases similar to that of Mr. Purdie, British subjects, when arrested in France, shall be allowed at once to communicate with the British Embassy?

I answered the question of the hon. Member, in reply to a question put to me by an hon. Member yesterday, in the affirmative. I said that steps would be taken to make arrangements with the French Government that the attention of the Embassy should be at once called to the fact of an arrest of a British subject having taken place.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if, in the case of guaranteed rural posts in Ireland, it is true that, in calculating the cost of the post messenger, the number of letters and papers delivered by him is alone taken into account, no allowance being made for the letters and papers he receives from the district; and, if so, on what grounds is this method of calculation justified to the guarantors of the post?

It is the invariable practice, in calculating the revenue available to meet the cost of rural posts throughout the United Kingdom, to take into account only the letters, &c, delivered, those collected for despatch being considered as providing the revenue for the service of the places to which the letters are addressed. Both could not be counted at each end.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Mr. Murray Browne, Local Government Inspector for North Wales, is about to be promoted to another district; and whether he can see his way to appoint as his successor a gentleman who is conversant with the Welsh language?

Mr. Murray Browne is about to be removed to another district. Arrangements are in contemplation which, if carried out, will render a new appointment unnecessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been directed to the telegram in Monday's Times, from the special correspondent in Calcutta, that the reports from all the districts threatened with famine, except Rajputana, are to the effect that the prospects are unchanged, and distress is slowly increasing; would the Under Secretary for India state to the House the result of any communications between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy on the subject; and when will he lay upon the Table the various despatches of the Viceroy, which he promised last Thursday would be submitted to the House at an early date?

The Secretary of State has seen the telegram referred to. I explained on Thursday, on the Motion for the Adjournment, that no improvement could be looked for till the rains in June, and that the Government of India had made the necessary arrangements for relieving distress. The Secretary of State has received no information of a later date than that given on Thursday. The periodical telegrams received from India are communicated to the newspapers as soon as received. The despatch from the Government of India, promised on Thursday, will be laid on the Table at once.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received an application for permission for a deputation, representing institutions interested in science instruction, to wait upon him relative to the proposed changes contained in the circular issued by the Department of Science and Art, dated 12th November, 1891, Form 349 S.; and whether, seeing that there is a very widespread objection to the proposals contained in the circular, he will kindly undertake not to lay the proposed regulations upon the Table of the House until the deputation has had an opportunity of laying their views before him?

I have already informed the deputation, to which I believe the hon. Member refers, that I did not think any good purpose would be served by my receiving them; but if they still press it, and my hon. Friend after hearing what I have to say thinks it would remove misconception, I shall be prepared to re-consider my objection. The Minute of the 12th November last, which, I may say, does not require to be laid on the Table of the House before coming into operation, was passed after very full and careful consideration. If the payments at the last examination had been made under its provisions, the total grants would have amounted to within a few pounds of the amount actually distributed under existing rules. But the administrative and central charge would have been considerably less, and the results of the examination announced much sooner. Some schools will benefit pecuniarily under the new rules, while no doubt others will receive diminished grants, unless they improve their methods of instruction. There is no reason why they should not do so, and earn even larger grants than at present, if they carry forward the instruction of the pupils, instead of satisfying themselves, as they have hitherto done, by teaching the merest elements. Some modifications of existing rules have become, for the reasons given in the Minute, absolutely necessary. Those we have made, which will not take effect till after the current Session, will, while making the minimum of disturbance in the present system, greatly stimulate and reward more advanced scientific instruction. I am glad to say that the Minute has been very well received in the better schools and by educational authorities as a step in the right direction; and though we have carefully considered all the arguments that have been addressed to us we have heard none which would justify us in modifying it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Captain of Militia, ordered to act as Major, during the annual training is entitled to allowance for hire of horse; if not, whether he is allowed Major's pay and allowances, and relieved from all his "company" charges?

Such a case would be specially dealt with. In a recent instance the officer was allowed horse hire, but no increase of pay and allowances. The same course would probably be again followed in a like contingency.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the rights of persons having burying ground in Killinchy Churchyard, County Down, and whose families for the past 260 years have used the said churchyard as a burying place, have been infringed by the present incumbent, who has locked the gate, and admittance being refused unless accompanied with payment of a fee for each interment; and whether the Government will, by the insertion of a clause in the Local Government Bill, or by separate legislation, take some means of vesting all parish churchyards either in the Poor Law Guardians or County Councils, subject to existing rights of burial?

The Government have received a memorial from certain persons complaining of the alleged action of the present incumbent in regard to the burial ground at Killinchy, County Down. This graveyard appears to be vested in the representative church body, pursuant to the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, subject to any existing rights, and I am advised that such rights can be maintained by the parties concerned without any alteration in the present law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Land Commission will proceed to dispose of the large number of cases of appeal which remain over from the district of North Tipperary; and whether steps will be taken to arrange that the Commissioners do hold their sitting at Nenagh (as formerly) for the hearing of such appeals, and so obviate the necessity for tenants and their witnesses from North Tipperary being obliged to attend at Limerick at great additional inconvenience and expense?

The Land Commissioners report that in the list of cases for hearing before the Court of Appeal at Limerick on the 21st inst. there are only nine appeals entered from the County of Tipperary, all of them being appeals on points of law. No date has yet been fixed for the sitting of the Appeal Court to hear the outstanding cases from the County of Tipperary. When arrangements are being made for a sitting for North Tipperary cases the convenience of suitors and all persons interested will be carefully considered, but at present it is not possible to state the name of the town at which the sitting will be held.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Coroner's jury in the case of Dr. Cross, alleged to have been hanged in Cork about five years ago for poisoning his wife, failed to record a verdict because the executioner Berry refused to obey the Coroners' summons to attend and give evidence as to the cause of death; whether he is aware that in the case of a man decapitated during execution in Kirkdale Gaol the Coroners' jury required the evidence of Berry, who left the gaol and avoided giving evidence; and whether, in consequence of these cases, he will arrange that the executioner to succeed Berry shall attend all inquests on persons executed by him to give evidence if the Coroner's jury so desire?

I have no knowledge of the particular circumstances relating to the inquest on Dr. Cross which took place in Ireland, and which, therefore, concerns the Irish Government and not the Home Office. It is not the fact that the convict executed at Kirkdale was decapitated. According to the newspaper reports, one member of the Coroner's jury asked whether Berry was in attendance, and was informed that he was not, as it did not appear that his evidence was necessary. It is not usual for the executioner to give evidence at the inquest after an execution. I see no reason for giving any directions in the matter. The executioner will, of course, obey the Coroner's orders when the occasion arises.

In the case of Dr. Cross, who was executed five years ago, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the executioner admitted that the reason why he deliberately went out of the prison was in order to evade giving evidence before the Coroner's inquest as to how the man was executed? And did not the right hon. Gentleman say, in reply to a question in this House, that the man deliberately walked out of Kirkdale Gaol and refused to give evidence, and did not Berry afterwards explain that he was put out of the way to prevent him giving evidence that would tell against his own department? Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not see that his successor would attend, if required by a Coroner's jury, and give evidence?

The Coroner in that distinct case could order him to attend; and if he did not, the Coroner could order process to be taken against him. There is no difficulty whatever about that. The hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately cited the answer I gave on a former occasion. I stated that when Berry left Kirkdale Prison he had not been desired to attend the inquest; nobody wanted him to attend. His evidence was not required by anybody.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Judges, in whom it is proposed to vest the exclusive jurisdiction in all bankruptcy matters arising within the jurisdiction of the existing local Courts of Bankruptcy, are also Judges of the local County Courts, and are also Recorders for Belfast and Cork respectively; whether their duties as such Judges and Recorders compel them to hold Courts from time to time at various places scattered over the large areas comprised within the jurisdiction of their respective County Courts; are such Judges obliged, in addition to transacting the ordinary business of their County Courts, to hold special sittings from time to time at various places for the purpose of holding Land Sessions; and have they, in addition, to preside over the local tribunals for disposal of Admiralty business, and also to hold Courts as Recorders of Belfast and Cork; and, if so, how often do these Judges hold Courts for the transaction of bankruptcy matters?

This question has appeared without notice, but I am in a position to answer the first three paragraphs in the affirmative. If the hon. Member requires to know when these Courts sit for bankruptcy matters, I must ask him to repeat that portion of the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Thornycroft, Chiswick, who have obtained a contract from the Admiralty, have sub-let a portion of the contract to the firm of Ransome and Co., Battersea, who refuse to pay trade rates of wages; and what steps have been taken to ensure the observance of the Resolution of this House on 13th February, 1891?

The hon. Gentleman only put the question on the Notice Paper last night, and, therefore, I cannot answer it. With regard to the first part of the question which he puts to me, Messrs. Thornycroft have contracted with the Admiralty for the building of a vessel. Their firm has a very high reputation for excellence of work; and, therefore, I think it unlikely that any portion of the contract should be sub-let to a firm that would not pay adequate wages. The Resolution passed on the 13th February, 1891, has been circulated to all the Admiralty contractors, and we have informed them that they are all expected to comply with it.

Perhaps it would be more convenient if I put the question down again for Thursday, in the hope that the noble Lord may have the opportunity of inquiring into the question of sub-letting, and the character of the firm to which this sub-contract is sub-let.

Yes, but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that in every shipbuilding contract there must necessarily be sub-letting. What the hon. Gentleman wants is information that tends to substantiate his statement. Of course I shall give him all the information in my power; but I must protest against the assumption that any employer of labour may be paying inadequate wages, unless the hon. Member shall have had an explanation from the employer, and heard his part of the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has come to any decision as to the two men Rayner and Eggleton, now under sentence of death?

I can only return the same answer as that which I gave yesterday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether special campaign pensions for the Peninsular War up to the 1s. 6d. a day were awarded, irrespective of length of service, to men without sufficient means of support, and who, by reason of wounds, age, or infirmity, were unable to earn anything towards their support; and whether he will submit a Warrant giving like dis- cretionary powers to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital in favour of Crimean veterans?

Special provisions were granted in 1874 to the survivors of the campaigns ending in 1815. As 59 years had elapsed it was not expected that any large sum would be required; but the cost amounted to £112,440 to the present time, which was the more remarkable as enlistment had been then practically for life, so that nearly all soldiers would have earned pension in the ordinary course. Only 35 years have elapsed since the Crimean campaign, and to pension all survivors, irrespective of the length of service, would, it is calculated, cost a sum the present value of which would be £1,160,000. The Government are not prepared to recommend so extensive a grant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the new conditions as to voting at Poor Law elections in Ireland which have arisen in consequence of the purchase of holdings by occupying tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the Irish Local Government Board will secure legality and uniformity by issuing instructions to the Returning Officers, in time for the forthcoming elections, as to the issue of voting papers and the reckoning of votes, with particular reference to the cases of persons who are occupying proprietors of farms and also occupy leased or rented holdings, and in order to insure that voting papers may be duly issued to them for the votes they are entitled to give in respect of the fee-simple holdings, the valuation of the rented farms, and of any excess of valuation over rent?

The mode in which votes are to be computed and allowed in cases where holdings have been purchased by the holder is clearly provided for by the Statute, and the purchase of a holding by an occupier does not give rise to any new condition which is not so provided for. The Local Government Board, therefore, are not aware of any necessity for issuing general in- stuctions to Returning Officers on the subject. When complaint is made to the Board that a Returning Officer has in any case allowed a smaller number of votes than that to which a ratepayer is entitled by law the matter receives attention, and when necessary instructions are given to the Returning Officer concerned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the instructions of the Irish Local Government Board, having fixed the 21st of February as the last day for lodging claims to property votes in the Poor Law elections, certain Returning Officers have expressed doubts whether they will issue voting papers in respect of claims lodged this year on the 22nd February, the 21st having fallen upon Sunday; whether, as the voting papers cannot be taken up before the 21st instant, the full period required by law intervenes between the 22nd of February and the 21st of March, this being leap year; and whether instructions will be immediately issued that voting papers are to be given out in respect of valid claims lodged on the 22nd ultimo?

I am having inquiries made about this.

(subsequently): Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he would be good enough, if notice is given, to answer the last paragraph, as the question is one of urgency?

As I said I have not got the Report to enable me to answer this question, but I shall certainly communicate at once with the Local Government Board, drawing their attention to the fact that it is a question of urgency.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice—whether there is any truth in the statement published in today's Manchester Guardian, that the Government have prohibited the sale of munitions of war and salt in the Colony of Lagos?

I have received no information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Return directed to be made by the 57th section of the Constabulary Act, 6 & 7 William IV., c. 13, will be laid upon the Table?

I find that the last Return under the Act referred to was laid on the Table in 1869; and from that time it appears to have been discontinued.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a case in which an Act of Parliament directed that a certain Return should be laid on the Table of the House, and by the authority of the Treasury that Return has been discontinued, and I desire to ask you, Sir, where I can obtain the Return? I know no authority to whom I can apply except you.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to supplement what I said just now. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the Treasury, under 32 & 33 Vict., has the power to discontinue any Return they consider unnecessary, and I understand they have done so by that Act.

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it had ordered the Return to be discontinued before that Act?

No, no!

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause a Return to be made for the last financial year?

Of course, that question would require to be considered. The Return was prepared by the Treasury, and was considered unnecessary, and we should have to consult them again. If the hon. Member desires any information with regard to any particular question, and if he thinks the matter of sufficient public importance to have a Return made, I shall endeavour to obtain it for him.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that loss is inflicted on Essex farmers by the recent Order as to petty sessional districts, and prohibition of sending animals to London; and whether he would consider the possibility of allowing a radius of five miles round the infected spot instead of the petty sessional district, and also permit beasts to be sent into the Metropolitan area with a licence and marked with a broad arrow, as in 1878?

Nobody is better aware than I am that loss is inflicted, unhappily, by the regulations which are imposed in the districts where foot-and-mouth disease prevails, and no one regrets it more than myself; but I am afraid it is inseparable from the measures which are necessary to cope with the disease. The radius of five miles which he proposes would, I am afraid, be impracticable; but with regard to the last suggestion in his question, I have already directed an Order to be passed, which, I hope, will have the desired effect, and permit of beasts being sent to the Metropolitan Market under proper restrictions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolutions recently passed by both Houses of Convocation of the Province of York, expressing strongly their desire and conviction that no measure dealing with Clergy Discipline should be presented for Second Reading in either House of Parliament before Convocation has seen and considered such measure; and whether the Government will, under the circumstances, consider the advisability of not proceeding with the measure introduced in another place by the Archbishop of Canterbury until after the clergy of the Northern Province shall have expressed their views upon it?

I understand that a resolution of the character referred to by the hon. Member was passed by one of the Houses of Convocation—the Lower House; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a Bill at present in the House of Lords in charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The interests of the clergy are therefore fully protected, and I think that before the Bill has been read a second time in the House of Lords there will be a full opportunity for Convocation to discuss it. I should be sorry to interfere with the course of the Bill, especially as it might prejudice its chance of passing.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether the Government consider the consent of the Northern Convocation necessary?

That is an abstract question which I cannot answer.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any precedent to show that the consent is necessary?

That is a question which I cannot answer without notice. I am not very sure that I could answer it with notice. I have no machinery for making the kind of archæological research which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

I beg to oppose the Motion for the introduction of this Bill. This is an attempt to do away with all the safeguards supposed to be introduced in the year 1829, when Roman Catholics were admitted to sit in this House. Thus we see one by one these safeguards done away with, and pledges broken that were given with regard to the maintenance of Protestant institutions; and hon. Gentlemen opposite (or their predecessors) gave a certain undertaking if Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, which has not been fulfilled. I will not occupy the time of the House at this stage of the proceedings by making any lengthened statement, reserving that for the Second Reading; but I beg now to propose that this Bill be read a first time this day six months.

It is competent for the hon. Member who has brought forward the Motion to reply.

I confess I am surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member opposite, and I hope he will not persevere with his opposition to this Bill. I think he might withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to be introduced, so that he and the House may know what it actually proposes. Probably when the hon. Gentleman sees the Bill he may support it. I was encouraged to move in this matter by the vote of the House the other day, when the enormous number of 269 Members voted in favour of religious liberty in a particular borough of this country. I only ask that what the House would do for the Salvation Army they would do for the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty. Sir, it is not generally known that there is a penalty of £50 attaching to any minister of the Roman Catholic Church who appears outside his church in the robes of his office. It is likewise not generally known that any member of a Monastic Order who is not duly registered is liable to be fined and to be expelled the country. I quite admit that this Act has been encroached upon, and has been practically winked at, and if the feeling of the country is such I do not see why you should not remove altogether the stain resting upon those professing the Roman Catholic faith. There is also a penalty attaching to the use of the title of Archbishop; but I should say that not even the hon. Member for Belfast would have proposed the prosecution of so eminent a person as Cardinal Manning. If he did I feel assured he would neither have been supported by the House nor by the country.

Under the Standing Order relating to the introduction of Bills before the Orders of the Day are entered upon, I shall now put the Question, "That leave be given to bring in this Bill."

I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading, I will move that the Bill be read a second time "upon this day six months."

I should like to have an explanation of the somewhat enigmatic statement in respect to one of the Votes on the Paper. The excess is said to have been incurred owing to the expense of an officer upon a Special Mission. Perhaps the Under Secretary for the Colonies will explain?

The excess was due to the sending of a Mission to Paris in connection with the West Africa Railway. It was difficult to see what the expense of that Mission would be.

It is precisely those arrangements with France that have given offence to many traders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his connection with Liverpool that the West African merchants are irritated and indignant at the hindrances to their trade arising from these very negotiations with France. They are of opinion that the Government has been remiss in its attention to the commercial interests of the country, and that the French have been behind our settlements all along and have cut off access to our branches in a manner in the highest degree discouraging to British trade. I should like to have some explanation of this, and also whether these grievances are being considered?

That is a question which only indirectly affects the Colonial Office. It is really a Foreign Office question, and to the Foreign Office the hon. Gentleman should address himself.

I think we ought to have more information on the point which has just been raised with regard to the West Africa Mission; but, Sir, I rise not for the purpose of emphasising that point, but in order to call attention to the next item on the Paper. I think, Sir, we should have some more efficient control over the system of these Votes in respect of the Police Courts in the Metropolis. They postpone payments, and then come to this House and ask for an excess sum. We ought to know as to how this extra sum was incurred, and we ought also further to know whether the recommendation which has been made from year to year by the Public Accounts Committee, who made especially last year a recommendation which was most distinctly against the practice of postponing payments from one year to another, is to be carried out?

No explanation of this Vote will satisfy me because of the principles involved, and I have often asked the House to divide in regard to that prin- ciple. I find these Police Courts not only in London but all around London are charged on the public expenditure of the country. The Police Courts in every other town in England and Scotland and in Ireland, except in Dublin, which shall meet with my opposition, are not charged in this way. Whether you take the Ordinary Estimates, the Supplementary Estimates, or the Excess Votes, the Committee will always find something put down for these Police Courts. I ask hon. Gentlemen representing divers parts outside London whether they can justifiably vote for a Police Court in Sheerness? In respect of the Sheerness Vote I beg to move its reduction by the sum of £6 7s. 11d.

I do not know, Sir, whether it is too late to say anything about the first Vote.

The first item has passed.

Then with regard to the third item I should like to ask for an explanation. It appears that there is a sum of £888 16s. 8d. which is a fifth quarterly instalment paid by the Post Office in respect of the Aden and Zanzibar stamp service subsidy I want to know how so large a payment is made quarterly?

The matter is very simple; the payment was made on the 31st March instead of 1st April.

Are these payments ever made in advance?

No. On the last day of the quarter instead of the first day of the next quarter.

The matter referred to illustrates the inconvenience necessarily attending that system by which one Department acts as agent for another. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make an arrangement to get rid of this system of agency altogether by making it unnecessary?

This matter was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee. They made a recommendation which was very carefully considered by the Treasury with a view of conforming to it. No doubt it is for the general convenience that one Department should transact its business directly, but it would be a mistake if I were to say that the Treasury would put an end to the system of agency, which has its conveniences. The matter will be further considered by the Public Accounts Committee.

The matter was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and they could not get any definite information from the Treasury. We know the agency business has proved extremely unsatisfactory, as, for example, in the case of the relations between the War Office and the Admiralty, the Irish Board of Works as representing the Treasury in Ireland, and now in the case which has been brought under our notice. I should like to know how far this system prevails throughout the Public Service, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to put a stop to it?

I cannot tell at a moment's notice how far this system does prevail. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for information I will get it after adequate notice.

Information on this subject was asked for, but full information was not obtained by the Public Accounts Committee. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be well to thrash out this matter upstairs. I likewise agree with my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Edinburgh that the information given in the statement on excesses seems to be becoming more and more meagre. There is a theory that something is gained by printing the smallest possible amount of information, and in other cases giving information in a form which I will not say is untrue, but which certainly does not disclose the whole truth. After what has occurred this afternoon, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will arrange that for the future fuller and more accurate information is given about these excesses. But for an accident which placed me in possession of a proof copy of the Appropriation Accounts, I should myself have been completely misled by the statement now complained of.

Several questions have been placed on the Paper in regard to the representation of Ireland on the Royal Commission taking charge of British interests at this Exhibition. It was stated some time ago that the Duke of Abercorn had been appointed, nobody knew by whom, to represent Ireland in this matter. I do not wish to say anything personal about the Duke of Abercorn, but at meetings which have been held in Cork, Dublin, and Belfast a request was made that an Irish gentleman connected with Irish trade and commerce should be appointed to represent the Irish section. No attention has been paid to these requests. I am particularly interested in this question, because there is a large and growing trade between the United States and Ireland in woollens and linens, and though the McKinley Tariff Bill may have interfered with the expansion of that trade, we believe it to be only temporary; we believe that tariff will not be long in existence. It is perfectly idle to say that the Duke of Abercorn is fitted to look after these interests. For such a post you want a man of business capacity, thoroughly well acquainted with the details of the trade between America and Ireland, and with the Irish linen and woollen trade generally. Another point is that this Vote is for the expenses of the organisation of the British section. Are we to understand that Ireland is to be altogether excluded from the Exhibition? We do not allow for a moment that the word "British" includes of necessity the word "Irish." Irish individuality will be entirely lost if the word "British" is maintained and no attention paid to Ireland in the matter. I have followed the papers, and I find that English manufacturers have held meetings and shown a great interest in the matter, but it is different in Ireland. We have no guarantee that the Irish linen and woollen trade will be thoroughly represented. We ask that the Treasury should put themselves into communication with the committees which have been formed in Dublin, so that they may meet the wishes of the Irish traders who are deeply interested in the Exhibition. I am much disappointed about the charge of five shillings a foot for space; we say that charge is entirely too high. No charge should be made. It would be far better to increase this Vote to £30,000 or £40,000 than to charge the exhibitors five shillings a foot for space. The committee at Chicago are giving the space free, the only restriction as to space being that it shall be reasonable, and all they ask is that exhibitors from all parts of the world shall come and exhibit. My contention is that as the exhibitor will be put to very considerable cost in the matter of transit before he can get his goods to Chicago, the fact of this further sum of 5s. per square foot will deter many exhibitors who might be prepared to incur the other expenditure. A feeling of distrust has been caused in many minds whether it is worth while to go to Chicago at all, and I hope the Treasury will give attention to the three questions I have suggested: whether it is advisable to retain the charge of 5s. a foot for space, the non-appointment of any Irishman who in any way represents trade or commerce, and the exclusion of Ireland from any mention in the grant of this large sum of money?

We believe that the neglect with which this Commission has treated Irish exhibitors constitutes a very serious grievance. You will remember that when the proposal was first made by the United States that this country should participate in the Chicago Exhibition it was taken up very warmly, and a Royal Commission was appointed to see that the various parts of England and Ireland were properly represented. The Commission appointed eleven Committees, numbering something like 387 members, to carry out its recommendations; but amongst all these gentlemen there was not a single representative of Ireland, and the only gentleman who has been appointed by this Commission to represent Ireland is the Duke of Abercorn. I doubt very much whether he will be accepted as a representative by any large section of the Irish community. This Commission appointed Committees to deal with all the Irish industries, and it will scarcely be believed that the most important industry in Ireland—the agricultural industry—is not represented on any of these Committees. We hold that the Commission has displayed a gross neglect of its duties in regard to Ireland. The only body with which they communicated was the Royal Dublin Society, which, although it may do a good deal of useful work for Ireland, is scarcely the proper channel of approach when the interests of the Irish industrial community are concerned in a matter of this kind. The Commission may take shelter behind the Royal Dublin Society, but that explanation cannot be accepted in Ireland as an explanation of the gross neglect with which they have treated the Irish industrial community. A sum of £25,000 was granted for the expenses of this Commission, and now there is a further sum of £10,000, and of that £35,000 I venture to say that £50 would cover the sum that has been spent on behalf of Ireland. We think this is a very great grievance, as it places the Irish industries at a very great disadvantage. Then we have had no information of the workings of this Commission; and, so far as I can ascertain, no Irishman has been able to secure space in the Chicago Exhibition. The charge for space, too, we hold to be exorbitant, and I believe that for the smallest space which will be allotted in the Exhibition a sum of no less than £5 will be charged. We are informed that the Commissioners have advertised in various Irish newspapers! So well did they draw the attention of the Irish people to the matter that no meetings on the subject were held in Ireland until after the date on which the last application for space in the Exhibition could have been made. We consider that Ireland has had no recognition at the hands of this Commission, and that this money, which was voted by Parliament for Ireland as well as England, has been expended in such a manner that Ireland has been altogether left out. We are told that a large amount of this sum is required for the expenses of the English Art Section. We have no objection to the proper representation of English art at the Chicago Exhibition, but it should not be done solely at the expense of Ireland. We consider that these Commissioners have practically put Ireland on the shelf, and we submit that the time for sending in applications by intending exhibitors should be extended so that Irish exhibitors may have a chance of being represented, and we desire that some fair proportion of this money should be spent in giving Irish industry a chance of being represented at the Exhibition. It is our opinion that the Committee has no desire to encourage the exhibition of Irish industry at Chicago. The Irish people are sufficiently alive to the importance of being represented, and I see that meetings have been held in different parts of the country urging upon this House and upon the public the desirability of taking steps to secure the proper representation of Ireland at the Exhibition. A thoroughly representative meeting was held in the City of Dublin, at which a resolution was passed urging the necessity for the allocation of a sum of money to assist in the proper representation of Irish industry at that Exhibition. It will be interesting to see what steps will be taken with respect to that resolution; but we very much fear that whatever professions may be made by the Commission, they will not be sincere, and that Ireland has very little to hope for in the way of assistance from this Commission. We have been looking at the amounts expended by other countries in the matter of this Exhibition, and we find that France has voted £80,000; Germany, £52,000; the Republic of Mexico, £150,000; Japan, £126,000; the Dominion of Canada, £30,000; Austria, £29,000; New South Wales, £30,000; Ecuador, £25,000; Peru, £25,000; and Guatemala, £24,000. This great and rich country contributes £35,000, but not a penny of it is for Ireland. This House is asked to vote £1,400,000 for the cost of police for Ireland; but the idea of asking for money to promote Irish industries, even a small proportion of this £35,000, does not seem to occur to the Government. One of the main arguments of the Unionist Administration is that their aim is the material well-being of the Irish people, and here is an opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to show that they really desire to benefit the material interests of the Irish people. Let them take up the matter of the Chicago Exhibition, and grant the request we make that a certain amount of money may be set apart for Ireland's exhibitors; let them extend the time for exhibitors to send in applications, and then something may be done. We fear that nothing will be done; we are afraid that the Royal Commissioners do not care for Irish interests; but we desire that the Irish people should have an opportunity at the Chicago Exhibition of showing their industrial capacity. And I consider that our purpose is most surely to be attained by Ireland's securing a separate and distinct recognition and representation of her own at the World's Fair.

I am extremely anxious to make a statement on this subject in reply to what has been said by hon. Members opposite, and I think I shall be enabled to satisfy them on every point. But it is important, as the hon. Baronet has said, that the Vote should be taken, and time does not allow me to make a statement now. If hon. Gentlemen will allow the Vote to be taken now, on the Report stage I will take the opportunity of tendering to the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde) information which it is quite evident from his speech he has not received.

I really think this is a matter of so much importance that we should take the opportunity to insist upon something being done. Time is running on, and it is essential that the Government should do something for the material development of Irish industries. Already we have a market for Irish manufactures in the United States, and this is an opportunity not to be neglected for encouraging the trade. I speak more particularly in the interest of the industries of the South of Ireland, but in no way wishing to detract from the importance of Northern industries. We feel it is a great mistake not to have on the management of these business matters Irishmen with whom we could feel sure Irish interests would be taken care of. With every respect for the noblemen and gentlemen on the Commission, we do not recognise their connection with and interest in Irish commercial and manufacturing interests. We do not understand why such a heavy charge as five shillings per square foot should be imposed for exhibition space, seeing that the Chicago Committee make no such charge, and in addition exhibitors will have the cost of carriage and of caretakers. We desire that prominence should be given to an Irish section as distinguished from England and Scotland, and that we should not simply be contented with a British section.

I rise for the purpose of moving the Motion which stands in my name. Any person who for the first time approaches this subject will probably think there ought to be no difficulty whatever in ascertaining the incidence of any given tax, but no sooner does he address himself to the task of finding this out, than he finds great difficulties standing in the way of acquiring accurate information. He must not merely find out the amount of each tax, which is the simplest part of the matter; he has to ascertain, if he can, how much of the tax is paid by each different class, and on what kind of property it falls, and here he finds his difficulties arise. Further, in an examination of this kind, he must include local and Imperial taxation; and in this there are still more difficulties. I should not care about troubling the House with my opinion on the point, but I may mention that a very well-known critic of our Parliamentary accounts stated in the Economist, some 18 months ago, that not even by careful analysis was it possible to ascertain from Parliamentary accounts what portion of the total receipts constitutes Imperial Revenue, and how much belongs to the Local Authorities. The same critic, a little further on in his article, goes on to say that not one in a hundred Members of the House of Commons could give any clear statement of our National finances. We have the same thing confirmed from the Front Benches on both sides. Some two years ago, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said he defied any Member of the House to ascertain from the accounts furnished with the Budget how much the revenue was, or, for the matter of that, how much our expenditure was. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown his opinion by refusing to make a Return of land taxation, because he said many of the sums would have to be more or less conjectural. Therefore, it will be admitted that such comments as these are not re-assuring to any man who attempts to ascertain how much of the total taxation falls on different classes of the community. Nevertheless, we must use as best we can the materials at our disposal, and these very difficulties afford evidence of the necessity for adopting a more simplified and more complete method of accounts, so that it may not be said that not one man out of a hundred in the House can explain them, but that also every intelligent man outside the House can understand them. Another and a sub-variety in the incidence of taxation is when one part of the country is taxed more than some other parts of the country, or that one portion of the country is taxed for the benefit of other portions of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a very good example of that a year ago in the surtax of 3d. a barrel on beer and 6d. a gallon on spirits, imposed for local purposes. The result was most unfavourable to Scotland, and we were taxed in that part of the Kingdom for the benefit of other parts of the Kingdom. Now, this is more or less inevitable with some of our taxation, but it is absolutely indefensible when a tax of that kind is created, which is, I might say, inequitable in its very inception. But this sub-variety of the incidence of taxation is not one, upon which I intend to say anything more. My Resolution speaks of taxation which falls on different classes, and that is the point at which I desire to arrive. Now, this question has been very much disputed at different times, and some few years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) made some interesting calculations on the subject, which I must candidly say were not generally accepted at that time, and others also have done so. But the calculations have nearly always been made with reference to taxation upon some small area or small portion of the population, and have not, I think, furnished any correct estimate of the incidence of taxation by the method adopted. We must start by assuming equality of sacrifice, and that everybody pays in proportion to what he receives and can afford. That would be a fair basis for taxation, and, assuming this to be the case, I have put a few figures together, which, I think, will present a very fair estimate of what amount of taxation is paid by the wage-earning class, and how much by the class above them. For this purpose I shall first deal with the £82,000,000 of Imperial taxation raised by taxes, omitting the sums raised in other ways. Now, in the Budget statement for the year you will not find a sum of £82,000,000 raised by taxation, but only £75,000,000, the other £7,000,000 being collected by the Imperial Government, and handed over to Local Authorities. In 1885, Mr. Giffen made an estimate of the total amount of the earnings of the wage-earning classes, and he then placed it at about £550,000,000 per annum. Since then there has been an increase of 5 per cent. in the population, and we may take it there has been 5 per cent. increase in wages, bringing the total up to about £600,000,000. I am taking what I think is a very full estimate. I know that others have made lower estimates, but Mr. Giffen's figures are larger than others, and so I take them. Now, it is also estimated that the total earnings and profits of the United Kingdom are every year about £1,200,000,000 or £1,300,000,000 sterling, so, I take it, the wage-earners receive during the year a sum very nearly half the total earnings of the nation. In dealing with Imperial taxes, I shall assume that the wage-earning classes pay only on Customs and Excise, and I take Customs at the amount collected last year, say £20,000,000—I assume that the wage-earning classes pay half the duty on coffee, cocoa, and chocolate. I only take half, because, for some reason, the upper classes consume a much larger proportionate share of these three articles than do the working classes; but the latter I do not calculate pay any of the duty on brandy, Geneva, and similar liquors or that they ever smoke a cigar or drink a glass of wine. I know they do all these things, but to such a small extent that I leave them out. On the other hand, I shall assume that they pay the whole of the duty on rum, on dried fruits, on tea, and on tobacco, because the amount of these duties paid by the upper classes is comparatively trifling, as compared with that paid by the wage-earners. This estimate shows that £15,500,000 out of the £20,000,000 are paid by the working classes. Then I turn to Excise and the duties levied by that Department on beer, British spirits, and licences—£27,000,000 sterling, of which sum the workers pay five-sixths, or £22,500,000, and this amount added to the Customs amount gives a total of £38,000,000 provided by the working classes out of £82,000,000 of Imperial taxes collected. The proportion is very nearly the same in figures as the proportion to the entire income of the country—nearly one-half. Therefore, I think it is perfectly clear that the working classes contribute at least their full share to the Imperial taxation of the country. Now, in taking these figures, I have avoided all details; I have not included any of those taxes of which they pay a small amount, and, on the other hand, I have not deducted anything from those of which the richer classes pay very little. Besides this, I do not take any credit for what the working classes pay on stamps, although they contribute by receipt stamps, and in a large degree to the stamps for patent medicines. That item comes to about £225,000, and I must think that nearly all is contributed by the workers, as I never heard of the upper classes patronising "Beecham" or "Holloway." Nor have I taken any credit for their contributions to the Post Office revenue, although penny stamps give the Post Office a profit of £3,500,000 every year. Of course, other figures might be extracted from the accounts in various ways; but I care very little how they are stated by anyone—they must be more or less conjectural, and, instead of trying to establish the precise share each class pays of each tax, it is better to take the figures en bloc. Whichever method is adopted, I do not think my statement can be seriously assailed—that the working classes contribute at least their full share to Imperial taxation. And now let us consider how the working classes stand in reference to local taxation, and this is a much simpler question; and, as I have shown that they pay their share of Imperial taxation, I can show that there is no doubt that they contribute far more than their share of local taxation, because the working classes pay about 20 per cent. of their wages in rent, and as 20 per cent. of that goes in rates, these rates take 4 or 5 per cent. from the workman's income, which is a far larger percentage than is paid by any other class. Shopkeepers pay more in rates, but that is for trade and not for residential purposes. Considered in the capacity of resident occupiers, the rates paid by the working classes are higher than those paid by any other class. This is proved by the Return of the rates charged in different parts of London. For example, in the Division represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, St. George's, Hanover Square, the rates are 4s. in the £1, whereas in St. Luke's the rates are 60 per cent. higher, and in all the East End and other working-class Divisions the rates are much higher than in the highly-rented residential parts of the Metropolis. Now, I think I have established that the working classes pay too large a share of the total taxation, and that they are entitled to some relief; and, of course, that relief may come in two or three ways. Taxes may be repealed or they may be re-adjusted. One of these methods must be adopted, and probably both, until the working classes are put upon a taxpaying level with the richer members of society. Here I must admit at once that what the working classes contribute to Imperial taxation is, to a large extent, voluntary. If they did not drink and were non-smokers, they would contribute very little to Imperial taxation. On the other hand, the rich man's contributions are largely compulsory. But, nevertheless, this is no defence against an unfair state of things; we must look at facts as we find them, and consider the question on this basis. Now, I come to look at the several ways in which poorer citizens might obtain some relief from the inequitable position which they occupy in respect to taxation. On this point I am not going to say anything new. The facts I shall mention have been before the House and the country for many years, and have been considered. The first relief to which I think the working classes are entitled is the repeal of the taxes upon food. These duties return about £3,700,000, of which about £3,400,000 is on account of tea. I do not intend to say anything upon that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) may possibly have something to say, but I do desire to draw attention to the inequitable character of the duties on dried fruits. We allow all green fruit to come in free, and then we tax raisins, currants, figs, and plums, dried apricots if in bags or barrels, but we charge nothing on almonds, dates, dried apples or dried nectarines, and if dried apricots are mixed with sugar they come in free. It is idle to suppose there is any possible defence for these taxes. They were put on at a time when those who had to pay them had no voice in the taxation of the country. All they could do was to pay and complain. It was impossible for them to do more. But hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite must admit that that time has passed for ever, and the voices of those who are to be taxed must be heard in reference to the imposition of taxation. But the staring folly of these duties is still more indefensible when we look at them more closely. Valencia raisins used by the lower classes are taxed to the extent of 50 per cent. of their value. Every workman's wife who buys raisins pays more by half than she would pay but for these duties. On the other hand the raisins used by the wealthier classes pay on an average 10 per cent. in duty. Of course differences of this kind are inevitable unless differential duties were put on, and in the case of raisins no doubt differential duties would be very difficult to impose even if they were desirable. But does not this inequality furnish a strong reason why there should be no duty at all? I have not mentioned a worse case. There are quantities of figs, plums, and prunes taxed to the extent of 80 per cent. of their purchase price—that is to say the purchaser would pay little more than half of the price he now pays in the shop but for these duties. Of course very small quantities of these fruits come to this country; the tax is prohibitive; they are not worth the price this enormous tax imposes. Abolish the duty, and no doubt these fruits would be imported, and our citizens would have the advantage of the use of these fruits, and our commerce would benefit in freights and in other ways. On account of these duties these fruits cannot be discharged over the ship's side, and the expenses of landing and of transshipment are such that our ports do not become depots for the trade. The whole duties raised on dried fruits amount to little more than £300,000, and a large portion of this must be ex- pended in the cost of collection, and for this comparatively petty sum, we keep up these duties to the damage of trade and to the hindrance of our commerce, while we are depriving our people of the enjoyment of some of the best descriptions of food at a price such as the poorest could afford to pay. America has been importing large quantities of raisins from Europe, but the California raisin crop is now becoming so large that it is thought America will shortly cease the importation from Europe, and that we shall have an increased supply from Spain of about 18,000 tons a year, all of which can be consumed in this country if the duty were repealed. We have an illustration of the effect the abolition of duty would have on the consumption. Two years ago the duty on currants was reduced from 7s. to 2s. per cwt., and what has been the result? For many years there had been no increase in the consumption of currants, but immediately the duty was reduced the consumption of currants increased by 23 per cent. over any year for a series of years. Transhipments of currants also increased to the extent of 35 per cent., showing how our ports may become depots for the supply of foreign fruits. I have no doubt that if the duty were taken off raisins a similar result would follow. Canned fruits from California and Australia compete with these dried fruits, they are admitted free, and the trade has largely and rapidly developed. There are many reasons why these duties should be abolished, but I think I have amply demonstrated that there is no possible reason for maintaining them, or possible defence for them. But although the repeal of the dried fruit duties would be a great benefit to the working classes of this country, they are entitled to much more relief than this £300,000. It is but a small sum, and there are two other sources of relief which naturally suggest themselves as suitable for alteration and the re-adjustment of the incidence of taxation, and one of these sources is the Death Duties. Of course I know the stereotyped reply to this demand is that the land is at present assessed for Income Tax at a much higher rate than other kinds of property. The obvious reply is, let us have the land fairly assessed, and do notlet us continue with one system for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should re-adjust the incidence of the assessment of land to the Income Tax on a fair and intelligible basis, making it in principle the same in all three countries. The unfairness of the Death Duties is so notorious as to have become common knowledge. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about three years ago, introduced the Estate Duty Bill he said it was to meet the constitutional requirements of the National Exchequer, and that it would be free from the inequalities of the existing Death Duties. In the last, Report of the Commissioners of Income Tax I find that in the first completed year the tax has been imposed £1,125,619 has been derived from personalty, and £69,000 derived from realty; that is to say, personalty has contributed 15–16ths of the tax and land only 1–16th; and yet we were told that that was to be a tax which was to meet the constitutional requirements of the National Exchequer, and to be free from all the inequalities of the existing Death Duties. Besides the re-adjustment of the Death Duties there is no doubt that the larger incomes should be assessed to Income Tax at a higher rate than the smaller. When an income passes a certain amount, when it becomes enormous—when, in fact, it is ascertained to be beyond what I may call the power of personal effort of any man to obtain by any labour of his own, incomes of that kind—I am not going to define what sum it should commence at—should pay a higher rate of Income Tax than the smaller incomes. I will mention another source from which taxation ought to be derived, and that is the mining royalties. Although royalties are rated, they should likewise form the subject of special taxation. Then I come to the last point that I am going to mention, and that is the relief of the ratepayer. Now, there are two ratepayers—the urban ratepayer and the rural ratepayer; and, with respect to the rural ratepayer, his case is not anything like as hard as that of the urban ratepayer. And no one has stated the case of the urban ratepayer better than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who more than once in this House, and several times in other places, pointed out how necessary it was that the urban ratepayer should be relieved from the pressure of the excessive rates which he has to pay in our cities at the present time. Another reason why I shall not say anything about the rural ratepayer is that because it raises the question of the taxation of agricultural land, and any person who considers this will find it far and away the most intricate and difficult taxation question to deal with. Some other method of rating must be adopted from that which we employ at the present time, because, while some agricultural land is rated too high, there is a great deal rated too low. The present system is inequitable, and must be altered. But to return to the urban ratepayer. I think the source to which he must look for relief is the taxation of the land under our cities; and while the agricultural question is full of difficulties, the town question, I may say, is simplicity itself. The land is set apart for a particular purpose—for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of him who owns it, and cannot be made more or less valuable by the person who receives the rent. The only way in which it can become valuable is by the aggregation of inhabitants in its neighbourhood, and it can only become less valuable by the inhabitants going away. I wish to call the attention of the House to what the result of the last County Council of London election pointed, and to the question on which it was fought. No doubt there were the questions of the monopoly of gas, and tramways, and water, and other matters of that kind; but the real question which settled the election was the taxation of land values in order to relieve the occupying ratepayer. That is the reason why the Moderates were so badly beaten, and why the Progressives succeeded in being returned by such a large majority. It may be that this question is too large for Parliament to deal with in the last year of its existence; but there is nothing whatever to hinder or interfere with the Chancellor of the Exchequer rectifying the Death Duties, or putting a special tax on mining royalties, or repealing the duties on dried fruits. I therefore hope he will take an early opportunity of remedying the condition in which the poorer taxpayers of this country stand at present, because there can be no doubt that the incidence of taxation falls heavier on the working than on the richer classes. I beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the incidence of Taxation in the United Kingdom for both Imperial and Local purposes is inequitable, and ought to be readjusted as to fall with greater fairness on all classes."

In rising to second this Motion I must say that I do not agree with one remark made by my hon. Friend when he said that the last Session of Parliament must necessarily be a barren Session with regard to some of the most important questions any Parliament ought to deal with. On the contrary, we see evident proof, day after day, that no Session can be so open to conviction and so open to the pricks of conscience and a sense of coming revolution as a dying Session of Parliament. I think with regard to one of the questions on which this great Metropolis has expressed its opinion so decidedly in the last few weeks, and on which a Committee of this House—whose Report I do not wish to anticipate in any way except to venture to think that it will strengthen the position of this question—is sitting, Parliament in this Session might proceed very well to action in this the most important of all these questions. I think we have a right to ask at such a moment as this, when the sands are running out, what has been the record of this Parliament and what has been the record of the Government in dealing with this question? We have granted on all sides these two facts—that with regard to Imperial taxation there have been enormous increases made by Her Majesty's Government, and prospectively in the future ready to come upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. With regard to local taxation, there is also room for the consideration of the ever-increasing burden. The rates levied by Local Authorities during the last 15 years have increased from 20 to 30 millions, and the indebtedness of the Local Authorities has increased from £92,000,000 to £200,000,000. The question may be illustrated by the policy of the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the County Councils, I suppose the intention of the enormous subventions which were given to the County Councils was to relieve and lessen rates; but according to the latest Taxation Returns I see that the County Council rates were only lowered as compared with the preceding year by the sum of £76,000; so that the whole of these millions has not substantially reduced the incidence of the rates. Take again the great reform carried out by Her Majesty's Government with regard to free education. At that time 2,000,000 of money—probably 3,000,000 will soon be nearer the amount—had been assessed as the burden upon the taxpayers of this country. Where was that to come from? It was to come from the industry and from the enterprise of the country; from those who do the work of the country. To add that to the outgoings of the country and yet not to readjust the incidence of Imperial taxation is unjust. My hon. Friend has touched upon the change made with regard to the Succession Duty and Estate Duty, and has shown how light a touch has been given to the great problem on these questions. This Estate Duty was devised after the slight changes made in 1888. But it is obvious that its incidence is almost wholly upon personalty; and, even if these reforms were more thoroughgoing than they were at the time when this flick of a feather upon the landowning interest of the country took place, this slight addition to the Succession Duty and Estate Duty, half the whole Probate Duty of the country was being handed over for the relief of the rates. The whole of that vast sum having been handed over to the landowning interest, at any rate as regards agricultural land to a large extent at the time these alterations were made, it seems to me that this is a grotesque perversion of justice. Another point upon which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend is with regard to the rural ratepayers. I do not think there is any difficulty as to the value of agricultural land. The fact that the values are in some cases very high and in others very low has nothing to do with the question before us, which is whether the rates burdened upon agricultural land are to be paid by the owner or by the occupier, or whether either is to pay his fair share or more than his fail-share? I think even with regard to rural land we have a duty which the electors in rural districts will call upon us to perform—namely, of seeing that the promise often given them of dividing the rates between the owner and the occupier is carried out in the country as well as in the town. When we come to the Municipality of London we see that the farce that the Government asked the ratepayers of London to go through is monstrous. As they are very largely paying the whole burden of the rates and bearing the whole burden of improvements, the action of Her Majesty's Government in handing these subventions over to the London County Council and other Urban Councils is only very generously asking them to relieve themselves out of their own pockets. I think I am entitled to draw attention to the announcement made by Her Majesty's Ministry in those Debates. Last year we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming forward in a new aspect. I believe in the autumn he went down to Cambridge and spoke of himself as the only man who was in earnest in the whole country in this matter of the division of the rates between the owner and the occupier, and he described himself as the pioneer of the movement. Last year, when the hon. Member for Shoreditch put his Motion before the House, he practically came forward as the defender of the landowner in the Metropolis, and threw every obstacle in the way of carrying out the policy which would impose a taxation upon the land values of the Metropolis in aid of the improvements necessary in London. I would also draw attention to another point, which is even more important. In the discussion on the Local Government Bill in 1888, I had the honour of moving the insertion of a clause which was identical with the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself made some 17 years before; and I would draw attention to this as going to prove whether Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in dealing with this question. Both the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be impossible to touch this question of the division of the rates without interfering with the question of the direct representation of the landowning interest on the Local Boards, who would raise the rates. I would put this question to the President of the Local Government Board. Do Her Majesty's Government really intend to carry out any policy with regard to the division of the rates or not? Are they going to use this last Session of Parliament—if it is to be the last—or any portion of that time to carry out this policy? And, if so, I challenge them to say whether they are going to propose to introduce on the London County Council and other County Councils the principle of property representation? I challenge any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House to say that it is not a policy which is urgently demanded both by the rural and urban ratepayers.