Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Thursday, 24th May 1894.

Private Business

Truro And Newquay Junction Railway Bill (By Order)

Consideration

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Bill be now considered."

, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said, that he had information to show that all the Local Authorities in Cornwall were, opposed to the Bill, and he was willing, therefore, to give effect to the wishes of his constituents. He desired it to be understood that while he was opposing the Bill he had no intention of doing anything that would prevent more facilities being given for passenger and merchandise traffic. His point, however, was that if this Bill passed into law every one of the objects which he desired to sustain would be frustrated. The wishes of the whole county were against this Bill, and he thought that the expression of local opinion of so decided a character ought not to be overlooked. Two Bills were presented to the Committee upstairs. The North Cornwall Railway Bill temporarily received its quietus from the hands of the Committee, while the Truro and Newquay Bill passed the Committee. He might inform the House that when the decision of the Committee was made known there was extreme consternation and dismay throughout the County of Cornwall. Upon the face of the Bill there was no very ambitious scheme contemplated, but he assured the House that the measure as it stood would work most serious injury to the county, through which the line passed. So far as he was able to ascertain, there was nobody at all in favour of the Bill. He had the statement of the promoters of the Bill in his hand, and he must say that he considered that the case which they made out was very weak. The Great Western Railway Company was opposed to this Bill up to almost the last day, but towards the end of the proceedings that Company suddenly became supporters of the measure, and while he had no wish to say anything that might appear to be harsh of the Great Western Company, he was bound to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary action which they had taken in regard to this particular matter. He was perfectly ready to admit that within the last two years or so that Company had done a very great deal in the way of opening up communication between London and Cornwall, but he must say that with regard to this particular matter the Company had acted in a manner which was neither generous nor justifiable. In the interests of the agriculturists, the market gardeners, and the growers of vegetables in Cornwall he should ask the House to reject this Bill.

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

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

said, he hoped the House would agree to the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The people who were affected by the Bill had already suffered severely enough because of the monopoly of the Great Western Railway. Hon. Members of the House looking at a map of the County of Devon might be disposed to think that with the sea on both sides she might be practically independent of railways. That, however, was not the case. The main produce of that extreme western point of the country was of a perishable nature; it was impossible to convey it by sea, and it had all of it to be sent to London and the other great towns by rail. All the Public Bodies in the county had recognised the fact that the Bill would very seriously militate against the local interest. He would indeed make himself responsible for the statement that every Public Body in the county was opposed to the measure, and he should think that every Member of Parliament who knew the merits of the case would, irrespective of the Party to which he belonged, vote in favour of his hon. Friend's Motion for rejection.

said, he thought the House ought to pay attention to the fact that all the Corporate and Elected Bodies of Cornwall had petitioned against this Bill; and whilst he believed that the measure was inimical to the true interests of Cornwall, he was of opinion that the promoters of the North Cornwall Railway were not wise in trying to obtain running powers over the Great Western lines. Access to Penzance, Falmouth, and other places would be better obtained by what were generally termed facility clauses, rather than by running powers. Under all the circumstances of the case, he did not see that the House could do any less than reject the measure. Representations were made against the Bill of so strong a character that it appeared to him that the House had no alternative but to throw out the scheme. No doubt an important precedent was being created by the rejection of the Bill at this stage, but he thought the establishment of a precedent was warranted by the fact that in this case the passage of the Bill was opposed to the best interests of the county which it affected.

said, that the issue raised by the Motion before the House was not so limited as at first sight might appear to be the case. It was, in fact, a Motion of a very unusual description, hut the circumstances of the case were themselves very simple. The Committee of which he had the honour to be Chairman had before them two rival schemes. They approved of the one and rejected the other. In the ordinary course of things, it would be for the opponents of the scheme which the Committee sanctioned to carry their opposition to the other House, where in the ordinary course the Bill would be fully considered. This was the usual course when these Railway Bills were concerned. Sometimes a Bill was initiated in the one House, and sometimes in the other. And it was quite competent for the opponents, if unsuccessful in the House where the Bill was first dealt with, to go to the other House. It would be remembered that the Manchester Ship Canal Bill was initiated in one House, and thrown out in the other. In the following Session it was begun in the House of Lords and thrown out in the Commons. Only after three years did it succeed in passing both Houses. To attempt to deal with a Bill on the present Motion proposed was really an attempt to avoid the usual course of procedure. ["No !"] It was an attempt to constitute that House a sort of Court of Appeal. And with all respect, he wished strongly to say that that House had not the materials before them on which they could come to a decision, or even give a fair hearing to the case. There were plenty of cases on record wherein the House had re-committed Bills to the Committee which had sat upon them, but that was always because, in the interval between the decision of the Committee and the Bills coming before the House a compromise had been effected between the parties, and the opposition had been withdrawn, so that the conditions and circumstances were completely altered. He must express his regret that in this case a compromise had not been effected. He would not attempt to go into the merits of the case. It would take too long. The issue, he repeated, was one which in his judgment should have been a subject of arrangement and compromise. But his point was that, if there were cases on record such as he had stated, there was no case on record in which a Bill having been before a Private Bill Committee, and having been considered by the Committee for the prolonged period of a week— evidence being taken at length and counsel fully heard—the House had reversed the decision of the Committee. In view of this absence of precedent and the established practice of the House, he submitted that to do what was now asked would be a most retrograde act. They knew that there was a time—in the old days—when,, if objection was taken to the proceedings of a Private Bill Committee, the opponents could appeal to the House for a Court of Appeal, and then a Committee was appointed in a most laborious manner—seven Members being selected by ballot from the knights of the shires, and they had to sit day after day to review the decision which was called in question. They all knew, also, that it was not so long ago since witnesses were heard at the Bar of the House. But these were practices which the House in its wisdom had de- parted from, and now there was an attempt by a side wind—[Mr. CONY-BEARE: Oh, no !] Well, he would not say a side wind if the expression was objected to; but there was an attempt to return in some sense to the old state of things—an attempt by a most unusual procedure to upset the decision of the Committee instead of letting the Bill go forward to the other House, and carrying on the opposition there. What was the ground on which they were asked to take this course? He had listened to the arguments used by the hon. Member for St. Ives; but he had failed to hear anything that was not before the Committee which had the advantage of hearing the evidence the opponents chose to tender. There was nothing that fell from the hon. Member that was not before the Committee and fully considered by them. He readily admitted that there had developed a very strong force of local objection, and he must express his regret that the decision of the Committee was one to which such strong local objection had been taken. But he would point out that the stronger the local objection the stronger would be the case which would be made out if the Bill proceeded to the proper tribunal, the House of Lords. He did not pretend that this Committee, any more than any other Committee, was infallible; but there was only one proper course for the House to take, and that was to support the Committee, and let this Bill take its chance before a Committee of the other House. As he had said, he would not go into the merits of the Bill; but he might be allowed to say that the Committee were unanimous in their decision. Speaking from his experience as a Chair-man on various Committees, he must say that he never saw a Committee more intent on their work or more anxious to do their duty. Proceedings in Private Bill Committee were essentially of a judicial character. The whole of the modus operandi was judicial. They had counsel addressing them, witnesses examined and cross-examined, and after a full and careful consideration the Committee came to their decision as to what, on a balance of conflicting interests, was best for the public advantage. He ventured to say that it would be difficult to get Members of that House to devote them selves with the whole of their energies to this work, occupying days, and sometimes weeks, if, after giving their complete attention in a judicial manner to the matter before them, they were to find that their work was liable to be upset on an ex parte statement by the House of Commons which had not the evidence before it. He wished to cite an authority in this matter, that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, it would be remembered, once practised with success at the Parliamentary Bar. The right hon. Gentleman in 1872 told the House of Commons that over and over again he had known decisions of the House of Commons on Private Bills reversed in the House of Lords, but never recollected any case in which that reversal was not right. The right hon. Gentleman added that this was natural, because upon the second hearing the evidence might be strengthened, mistakes corrected, and the whole case better understood. He (Sir R. Paget) desired that the present Bill should go forward to the place where the evidence might be strengthened, mistakes corrected, and the whole case better understood. The existing system had grown up gradually. By degrees they had established a method under which Committees were the bodies to which they entrusted this work. They ought not to disturb that system without very good cause. There was a further consideration which he had yet to urge, and it was the danger they ran of introducing the practice of log-rolling, of lobbying, of canvassing for votes—a practice from which their Committees were happily free. The Committees were chosen because they were men with no personal local or political interests to serve; but if they allowed these matters to be considered by the whole House the door would be opened to log-rolling, lobbying, and canvassing—a class of evil from which Heaven preserve them ! His own years of Parliamentary life must soon come to an end, but he should be very sorry to find at the close of his career that the action of the House had been such as to introduce an evil from which they had hitherto escaped, and by the rejection of this Bill had set up a very bad precedent.

said, he had to support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The people of Cornwall were, of course, grateful to the Great Western Railway for what they had done in opening out the south coast, hut, unfortunately, the north coast had been almost entirely without railway service up to the present time. The London and South Western Railway Company had opened a branch as far as Launceston, and a local Company had been formed with an agreement with the London and South Western Railway Company to open out the north coast of Cornwall in a way for which they had been waiting this 40 years. The scheme was in process, but if this small Bill was passed it would shut out Cornwall from having two lines, as was desired. His own constituents in North East Cornwall naturally wanted an easy mode of access to Truro and to the west. This they would get by the extension of the North Cornwall Railway, and what they asked was that the House would throw out this small Bill, which was thoroughly inadequate to serve the interests of this part of the country, and instead leave the whole question open till next year, when it could be fully considered, and the schemes put forward by the two rival Railway Companies properly gone into. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wells had suggested that this opposition should have been brought before the Committee. But it was quite unexpected that the Committee would throw out the North Cornwall Railway Bill. Otherwise stronger means would have been taken. They had now on the one hand the decision of the Committee, and on the other the unanimous voice of Cornwall without respect to Party. He believed that all the seven Representatives from Cornwall were there that day prepared to vote for the throwing out of this Bill, and he asked the House to throw it out on the ground that the people might reasonably be assumed to know what was best for themselves. The hon. Baronet said that all the facts were not before the House. But all the facts were before the county. From one end of the county to the other the people understood this question, and were almost unanimous in desiring that there should be two large railway systems to open out the county instead of their being confined to one.

said that, as a Member of the Railway Rates Committee, he desired to say a few words and to show some general grounds for supporting the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. They all had a great respect for the hon. Baronet personally, and also for him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Committee, and when the hon. Baronet said that this was an unusual proceeding they must agree with him. But the circumstances were themselves unusual, so much so as to justify exceptional action. This Bill was promoted by the Great Western Railway Company, and its effect, if it were passed, would be to strengthen the monopoly of that Company, and it would place the local and noncompetitive traffic—which was a most important part of the traffic—more completely in the hands of a Company which had in the past dealt with such traffic in a manner which could not be defended, and which did not justify any increase of its powers. They had many complaints before the Railway Rates Committee against railways, but the chief offender was the Great Western. In their Report the Committee took the Great Western as a typical instance of what a great Railway Company was capable of doing in the case of local and non-competitive traffic. Parliament reduced they maximum rates, and the Great Western alleged that this would bring about a loss of £80,000 to the Company. What did they do? They immediately raised the rates universally to the maximum, and, instead of merely recouping themselves to the amount of £80,000, they thus actually charged an additional £130,000, and made a profit of £50,000 out of the action of Parliament, which was intended to benefit the traders. Their principle of action was admitted by them to be that they must be entitled to make the traffic pay all it would bear. They did not take into account that the ultimate bearing point might be the breaking point. What was the class of traffic with which the Company thus dealt? In the Report of the Committee they would see that the manager stated that the Company had not been able to raise the rates for traffic where there was competition with other lines or with canals, and that the increased charges had fallen wholly on the non-competitive traffic—that was, the local traffic, and largely, therefore, the agricultural traffic, with which the hon. Baronet the Member for Wells was himself in sympathy, and which was suffering from such severe depression. The action of the Company was, as a matter of fact, directed against those who could not help themselves. They could not be surprised that the Municipalities, which could give voice to local interests, and the whole of the Members for Cornwall were resolutely opposed to the Bill. The action of the Company in the past -had been such that it was the last that should be entrusted with any increase of powers of this description. The House should be jealous of enlarging a monopoly which had been adverse to the interests -of this district, and from his knowledge of what took place on the Railway Rates Committee he should most heartily, in the general and public interests, support the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.

said, that the Members for Cornwall agreed that the course which they were adopting was wholly unusual, but he thought that a few facts which he was able to place before the House would further emphasise the justice of their action. The hon. Baronet said that they had no business to come before the House and try to upset the verdict of the Committee, but he claimed that this House could not be deprived of its authority, right, and duty to consider Bills which had passed Committees. He might remind them of the course that was taken on the Employers' Liability Bill, which was considered last Session by a Grand Committee of the House. The Bill was considered in its main principles by the House, and the hon. Baronet's own Party was the most stringent advocate for reconsidering the principles of the measure. In connection with the present Bill they were there not to consider details, which were properly the work of a Committee. They did not ask the House to re-try this question, and go into the evidence, but they did say that the House should consider the principles which were at stake. The hon. Baronet referred to precedents. But principles were at stake more important than mere precedents. They asked the House to consider those principles and not to reject the unanimous prayer of the whole of the community whose interests were involved. But there was another reason why he demurred to the hon. Baronet's argument. They did not desire to rely upon the action of the House of Lords— ["Hear, hear !"]—they preferred to deal with the elected Representatives of the people. If they could not get justice from this House they might have to resort to the House of Lords. But speaking for a constituency which were not prone to recognise the legislative fitness of the House of Lords, he said that he preferred to appeal to the House of Commons. The hon. Baronet stated forcibly and truly that the Committees on Private Bills were mainly judicial in their character, and he pointed out what was equally true in theory, that these Committees were carefully selected, and that the Members were not supposed to have any interest in the matters at stake. He (Mr. Conybeare) had himself been pointedly refused by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University to be a Member of the Committee because, though he had no direct personal interest in the matter at issue, and his constituency was not affected by the scheme, he represented a portion of the county which was connected with the fortunes of the Bill. But, notwithstanding what was said on this subject, he held that they should look carefully into the question whether Members of the Committee were or were not interested in railways affected. If he were challenged on this point, he would show that in some of these cases the rule was not rigidly adhered to, as he thought that it should be. With regard to the subject of precedents, the hon. Baronet quoted from an ancient speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to this, it only went to show that the rejection of Private Bills which had taken place occasionally in the Upper House had always been a rejection which was justified. He held that a fortiori the rejection of a Bill by the House of Commons would be of a similar character. The hon. Baronet had gone on to say that nothing had fallen from the Members for Cornwall to-day which was not carefully considered by the Committee. Well, as to this, there were 36 witnesses heard. He would ask how many of them were in favour of the Bill — he meant the North Cornwall Bill—and how many in favour of the Bill which they asked the House that day to reject? There were not six witnesses in favour of the Bill last named. The whole weight of the evidence was, in reality, in favour of the North Cornwall Bill and against the Junction Railway. The hon. Baronet relied on precedent, but he had not uttered a single word in defence of his decision—it was practically his decision—when he declared that the Preamble of the North Cornwall Bill was not proven.

The decision was the unanimous decision of the Committee, and by no means the decision of the Chairman.

said, that he did not mean to suggest that the Committee were not unanimous, but, of course, the Chairman of these Committees always exercised superior weight, and they had no reason whatever, except the bare appeal to precedent—which did not weigh one jot with him—why the Committee should have declared that the Preamble was not proved. He wanted to know why it was declared that the Preamble of the North Cornwall Bill was not proved? The part of the Preamble which was rejected was this clause—because all the other clauses were really not vital—which was the vital clause:—

"And whereas it will be for public and local advantage that the Company should be authorised so make and maintain the new railways and works from Padstow to Truro and the junction in or near Truro with the Falmouth branch line and the West Cornwall line of the Great Western Railway Company and to exercise and enjoy the running powers by this Act authorised."

He said that was the only portion of the Preamble which the hon. Baronet could hold was not proved, but he wanted to know on what grounds the hon. Gentleman so held? The whole weight of evidence went to show that the whole public opinion of Cornwall was in favour of the Bill. If there was any doubt as to whether the North Cornwall line was for the benefit of the people of Cornwall it should be dissipated by the knowledge of the attitude of the people in the matter. They were not children in Cornwall; they were men of sense, and they did not want four Members of that House to dictate to them what was best in their own interests. They were perfectly competent to decide what they wanted, and they intended to decide it. There were 11 Municipalities which had petitioned in favour of the North Cornwall Bill, also eight Local Boards of Health, 14 Boards of Guardians, 30 District School Boards, seven District Burial Boards, most of the Justices of the Peace, Chambers of Commerce, Commercial Companies, and Mercantile Associations of all the principal towns, and other authorities. What were they told in answer to that? There was the statement which had been circulated in favour of the Bill, the rejection of which had been moved by his hon. Friend—

"It is submitted that it would be unusual, if not without precedent, for the House to reject a Bill so carefully considered by a Select Committee, and in favour of which so much evidence was forthcoming."

As to the point about the Bill having been carefully considered, he was not going to reflect upon the conduct of the Committee, but he did say it was not accurate to state that it was so carefully considered when they had the fact that the Committee committed a gross blunder by rejecting the whole Bill and having to re-commit it in respect of unopposed portions of the Bill, which they totally overlooked. In connection with the Junction Bill, the rejection of which was now asked for, there was a long argument as to the breach of the Standing Orders, but that was condoned by the hon. Baronet, and, in addition, the necessary legal notices were not served upon many of the landowners, and the notices could not be accepted as legal in consequence of this breach of the Standing Orders; therefore, he thought they need not trouble themselves much about the supposed unusual care with which this question was considered. He should like the House to understand who the promoters of these two rival Bills were. The promoters of the North Cornwall Bill were the most respected, influential men in the country. They (the Directors) were Mr. James Tremayne, Earl Wharn-cliffe, Mr. Lewis Charles Foster, Lord Halsbury, Sir Lewis W. Molesworth, Sir W. Onslow, Sir Charles G. Prideaux Brune, Mr. Charles Bambridge Rendle,, Mr. Michael Williams, and Mr. Arthur Mills—a stronger body of men could not be found. He admitted this frankly, though he did not suppose that there was a single one of them who were not politically opposed to him, but they represented the best interests of the county. Who had they got as promoters of the other Bill—which was really a one-horse tramway arrangement of six miles? They had a gentleman called Mr. Read, who might be known in the county as the liquidator of the Cornwall Minerals Line, but in no other capacity. He did not think that Mr. Read possessed an acre of land in the whole county, and the other promoter was a Mr. Loden, who was equally unknown. He said, on the one hand, they had two absolutely unknown men whose names would not get a farthing of capital in the county: and they were told that these men, to use an Americanism, were to boss the county in the matter of this railway question against those weighty names representing both Houses of Parliament and representing the best classes and best interests in Cornwall. He said these facts ought to be known to hon. Members who desired to give an upright vote on a question like this. He had it on the authority of the Secretary to the agent for the Duchy of Cornwall that the passing of the Bill now before the House would put the county back 50 years. They did not want to be put back 50 years. It was desired by competition to bring the county into cheaper and more speedy communication not only with London, but the manufacturing districts in the Midlands and the North; and if the Great Western Company's Bill were passed, the House would be bolstering up that Company's monopoly. He had intended to have given one or two facts with respect to railway rates, but the speech of the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit), to whom they were deeply grateful, had made this unnecessary. There were only one or two further points which he wished to lay before the House, connected with the general policy of the Great Western Railway. When the West Cornwall Railway Bill was passed in 1846, running powers over the line were reserved to any railway which might come into the county hereafter. Subsequently to this, in an Omnibus Bill, the Great Western Railway Company surreptitiously repealed these running powers, and thus a set-fight would be necessary before such powers could be obtained again. This only showed the general policy adopted in this case. There was a secret agreement between the South Western and the Great Western Railway Companies; but he contended that the County of Cornwall was not made for the benefit of either of these railways, but the railways for the benefit of the people of Cornwall. It would be an injustice to the people of the whole county if their interests should be postponed to any arrangement by which two great Railway Companies had chosen to farm out a county and say to the people, "You must take this or that, and we will not allow anybody else to trespass upon the sphere of action reserved to us." This little railway the House was asked to reject was pressed upon the Great Western time and again during the last few years, but they never thought it necessary to construct it; but now, when they saw a line proposed which was for the benefit of the whole county, they stirred themselves up and said this extended scheme was not necessary, and the money would never be obtained for it. Well, the requisite money for any immediate extension was already provided. The county had already provided the £600,000 capital to carry on the works so far, and it was not likely to be behind in finding the other £200,000. This was the policy which the Great Western had pursued in every other case. It was not right that the House should do anything to assist the monopolising policy of the Great Western or any other railway. What was demanded in the county was that there should be free and open competition in these matters. It was incomprehensible to him that the Committee upstairs should have rejected the Preamble of the North Cornwall Railway Bill which declared it would be for the advantage of the county that that railway should be constructed, and it would be still more incomprehensible to him if the House should support that decision.

said, that had he not been a Member of the Committee which considered these two Bills, he should not have ventured to trespass upon the time of the House on an occasion like this. What they had to decide was whether the decision of that Committee which had these Bills before them for six days, examined numerous witnesses, and had given the matter the most continuous and exhaustive examination, was to be supported and accepted by this House, or whether that decision was to be set on one side and the Bill they passed rejected; or, in other words, the way opened for the other Bill, which, after the most careful examination, they regarded as unsuitable to be passed. Let him explain what the real position of the question was. It was desirable that there should be a railway between Newquay and Truro, a distance of 13 miles. Already a line existed for six miles belonging to the Cornwall Minerals Railway, leased to the Great Western Railway, and the Company, the Bill of which they passed, proposed to construct a line seven miles in length, joining that short section with Truro, improving that short section and making it a working passenger line between Newquay and Truro, at an expense of under £80,000. The other Company—the North Cornwall —came forward with a proposal to construct a line from Padstow through Newquay to Truro, a distance of 25 miles, at the estimated cost of £450,000. They had already for 12 years had an Act enabling them to construct a line from Halswell to Padstow. Two-thirds of that line was constructed, a portion of it was in course of construction, and the last part, from Wadebridge to Padstow, was not as yet attempted. What was the position of the capital of that Company? Less than one-half of that capital had been subscribed by the public, and the rest of the money, as far as the line had gone, had been provided month by month by the Consolidated Bank of Cornwall. It was perfectly evident to the Committee there was not the slightest probability of the North Cornwall Railway Company within any reasonable time being able to raise the capital necessary to complete their own line, and still less to complete the 25 miles of additional line which they asked for from Padstow to Truro. The Committee, therefore, regarded it as in the interests of the districts concerned that the short line from Newquay to Truro should be constructed, and he appealed to the House to support that decision of the Committee and read this Bill a third time.

, desired to say a word or two, as this was a question which affected his own constituency in particular, and he admitted quite freely that they were asking the House of Commons to take a strong step when they asked them to reverse a finding of a Committee of this House, and he was quite sure nobody who knew him would accuse him of want of respect to the hon. Baronet the Chairman of that Committee or his colleagues. He was not making any reflection on those Members or on the manner which the inquiry was conducted, but he said they could make out in Cornwall an unanswerable case to show the House of Commons why they should reject the finding of the Committee upstairs. The County of Cornwall had shown by the Petitions sent to this House from every Electoral Authority in the county, from the County Council to every Burial Board, that the feeling was unanimous against this Bill. It was quite true, it might be, that the case for Cornwall ought to have been better presented before the Committee, but he was prepared to show that a large part of the local feeling had arisen since the decision of the Committee. He said, in his judgment that was caused by the fact that nobody in Cornwall, so far as he knew, ever dreamed that that Committee would pass this particular Bill and reject the other larger scheme proposed to them. It was only when the County of Cornwall awoke to the danger in which it lay through this Bill being passed that the people unanimously asked the House to deliver them from the gigantic monopoly and reject this Bill on the Third Reading. The Chairman of the Committee just now regretted that a compromise had not been arrived at on this question. He thought the hon. Baronet was right in that regret. It was obviously the intention of the Great Western Railway Company not to compromise on this question, but to continue their monopoly in Cornwall, and to prevent any other line as long as they could from making a through line from Loudon down to Cornwall. He said, therefore, this House had every reason to interfere in this matter. The House was not being asked to support a monopoly, but to defeat one. Everyone in Cornwall desired that the House should not force down the throats of the people a railway which they did not want, and which all their elected bodies had petitioned against. He asked the House to vote for the rejection of the Bill on the broad ground that when there was such local unanimity the House of Commons should not disregard it.

, as a Member of the Committee which considered these two Bills, said, that in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Camborne, he had to say that the hon. Baronet who was the Chairman of that Committee (Sir R. Paget) did not rely merely on precedent, but he thought the time of the House was too precious to go into the questions which occupied the Committee six or seven days. On the Committee they had no doubt that opinion in Cornwall was in favour of the North Cornwall Bill; but it was evident that what was hoped was that they would bring down the rates by having two railways—a result which could only be arrived at by granting running powers which it was impossible to grant. The Members of the Committee approached this question with open minds. For his part, although he was in favour of the North Cornwall Railway, he was, from the facts brought before them, converted to the other way of thinking during the progress of the Committee, and the decision they arrived at was the only one they could arrive at, and he asked the House to uphold it.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the House was prepared to come to an immediate decision.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 290.—(Division List, No. 50.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Consideration, as amended, put off for six months.

Questions

Overcrowding In London Board Schools

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that the statement, apparently on authority, that "habitual attendance" meant average attendance, is being interpreted to mean that in the Minute of the Committee of Council, dated 17th April, 1894, the words "habitually present at any one time" stand for average attendance; is he aware that most of the instances of overcrowding class rooms and congested classes in London Board schools, which have of late been made known, would be legalised, and to that extent justified, by the operation of Article 73, in its modified form, if the words "habitually present at any one time" may be taken to mean average attendance; and if he will state the exact meaning which the Department attach to the words in question, and will define what is to be the practice of the Education Department in deciding whether due effect is given by school managers to this portion of Article 73 of the Day School Code, 1894?

I presume the hon. Member has in his mind words incidentally used by Lord Playfair, in another place, on the 19th of April last, that "the expression 'habitual' probably meant average attendance." These words were not meant as giving any exact definition of the words "habitually present," and I am not aware that the phrase is being interpreted as equivalent to "in average attendance." The intention of the words is to enable Her Majesty's Inspectors to take cognisance of periods of congested attendance, though the average attendance for the year may be within the limit allowed. The expression is, therefore, stronger than that of average attendance. The general object of the Article is to discourage the continuance of overcrowded rooms and congested classes, which have been reported to the Department as existing in various localities.

Sheerness Naval Gunnery Establishment

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that of the sum of £3,000 voted by Parliament in the Estimates for 1893–4 for necessary works in connection with the Naval Gunnery Establishment at Sheer-ness, no portion whatever has been ex- pended thereon during the last financial year, can he state to what purpose was the said money devoted; whether the sums of £5,000, voted recently for erection of a drill battery, and £1,000 towards a rifle range, will be expended upon those necessary objects this year; whether he is aware that there is absolutely no latrine accommodation on the parade ground for the seamen drilling there, although their Lordships have approved of their being built and the matter is urgent; whether the men are sent to Gravesend in parties of 100, at an expense of 1s. 4d. each, by railway per week or fortnight, being absent three days or more, and have to be billeted in military barracks; whether urgent representations have been made to their Lordships on the various matters of drill, battery, and other necessary buildings to carry on the work of a gunnery school, for the past two years; why is this institution allowed to remain in its present condition, to the great injury of the Naval Service; and whether, pending the erection of a drill shed and other necessary buildings, arrangements can be made for the use of the ground floor of the large boat-house in the dockyard for drill purposes in wet weather?

)

(1) A sum of £3,000, on account of a total estimate of £9,000, was voted in 1892–3, not 1893–4, for gunnery establishment, including new rifle range, but the expenditure was deferred pending reconsideration of the scheme. The money remained surplus at the end of the year. (2) The sums of £5,000 and £1,000, taken on account of these works, will be spent in the present financial year. (3) Arrangements are being made for entering into a contract for the necessary latrine accommodation. (4) Until the rifle range at Sheerness is ready it is necessary to send the men to Gravesend to obtain the requisite practice. (5) As regards the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question, I am advised that it would not be practicable to use the boat-house for this purpose.

What has become of the money?

It is quite impossible to say. It was dealt with according to the Rule applicable to surpluses.

I have given ten days' notice of this question, and ought to be able to get a reply. Was it expended on behalf of the Naval Service, or was it sent back to the Treasury?

No answer can be given with respect to any item not expended for the purpose for which it was intended. It may have gone back to the Treasury, or it may have been spent.

May this money voted for Sheerness have been expended at other places?

The money was not spent on the purposes for which it was voted. It became surplus, and fell under the rule under which surpluses are dealt with. It may have gone to other items in the Navy Votes, or it may not have been spent at all.

If it has not been spent at all it must be somewhere. Will it be spent on Sheers ness?

Are we to understand that there is no record whatever of the expenditure of surplus money?

Money which is voted and not spent may form part of a sum used for other purposes in the Navy, or it may go back to the Treasury. It is quite impossible to give information as to any particular item.

Is there no record?

There can be no record.

Is no record kept of money transferred from one account to another?

The money is not earmarked in any way, and you cannot trace any particular sum. All you can say is it was not spent for the purpose for which it was voted. It may be applied to other purposes with the consent of the Treasury.

Does the Comptroller and Auditor General make any Report on it?

[No answer was given.]

I think the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that money voted for one purpose may be spent on another. Was the consent of the Treasury given in this case?

Yes; if the money was applied to other purposes.

Regimental Canteens In Ireland

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether it is by the orders of the War Office that Commanding Officers of regiments stationed in cities in Ireland do not get their supplies of articles sold in canteens, including beer, &c, from local traders?

I have already stated, on several occasions in this House, that canteens are managed by committees, and that those committees are free to obtain supplies from any source they may select.

Cavan Land Commission Appeals

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Land Commission in hearing appeals in Cavan acted on the Report of Mr. Bomford, whose connection with landlords in the county has been the subject off comment and who has had no experience of farming tillage laud, or whether they obtained any independent evidence; (2) whether he can say in how many cases recently heard in Cavan the rent was raised and in how many lowered; (3) and whether he has conveyed to the Land Commission any intimation of the general feeling against the employment of Court Valuers in places where they are connected with the landlord interest?

(1) The Land Commission inform me that on hearing the appeals at Cavan they considered the evidence produced on behalf of the tenant and the landlord and also the Reports made by the Assistant Commissioners or by the County Court Valuers, and the Reports made by the Appeal Court Valuers in each case. Every case in which a judicial rent had been fixed by the Commission was valued and reported upon for the rehearing before the two Appeal Court valuers—that is to say, either by Messrs. Bell and Grey or by Messrs. Bomford and Callan. Mr. Bomford states that it is not the fact that he has had no experience of farming tillage land; that, on the contrary, he held for a number of years as tenant a large farm in rotation tillage. (2) There was no case at the late Cavan Sittings in which the rent was reduced. (3) On the 26th of April I expressed the opinion that it was extremely and obviously undesirable that the Court Valuer should be sent to a district in which he has connections amongst the landlords. This opinion I. have communicated to the Laud Commission.

inquired whether those Appeal Court Valuers were not described as graziers and land agents in a Parliamentary Return, and whether persons so described were proper persons to be appointed to value tillage holdings?

asked in what county Mr. Bomford had a farm?

said, he was afraid he could not go into Mr. Bomford's history. He believed the valuers did describe themselves as suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and, judging from that description, he would not have thought persons so described were the best to be selected for the work.

Did the Commission act on the Report of Mr. Bomford?

I have given all the information I possess on the subject.

Canadian Cattle Trade

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in view of the fact that a Canadian animal landed at Dept-ford on the 22nd of September was pro-nounced by the experts of the Board to be affected with contagious pleuro-pneu-monia, if he still proposes to admit Canadian cattle into the country without being subject to slaughter at the port at the close of the further special examination which he has announced, if between that date and the present time no further cases of disease are discovered in cattle imported from Canada; within what period after a case of disease has been detected in animals arriving from any given country he considers that animals coming from the same country can be admitted with exemption from slaughter without exposing cattle in this country to the risk of contagious disease; and whether he contemplates that the examination in question will be completed before the expiry of the month of June?

I had, of course, given the fullest consideration to the fact to which the right hon. Member refers before making my recent statement on this subject, and, as I stated the other day, nothing has since occurred which leads me to modify that statement. It would be most undesirable that I should specify any particular period as being in all cases long enough after a case of disease has been detected to allow free importation to be resumed with the reasonable security required by the Statute. The length of time which has elapsed since the detection of disease is an important, but by no means the only, factor which it is my duty to take into account. I do not at present contemplate that the examination will be concluded before the date mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

Irish Fisheries

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries dated 20th April, 1893, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to establish a close season for herrings off the South-West coast of Ireland, as necessary for the protection of the mackerel fishery, from the 1st of April to the 16th of May in each year; whether he has observed that a great mass of evidence was tendered to show that the herring fishing carried on off that coast by Scottish fishermen is not at all injurious to the mackerel and hake which are fished for there during the same period by Irish fishermen; whether he is aware that the proposed close time would so shorten the season for herring fishing as practically to exclude Scottish fishermen from the Irish waters; and whether Her Majesty's Government will institute fuller and independent inquiries before taking any steps to bring into force the close season Order which is recommended in the Report above mentioned?

The recommendation made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries in their Report of the 20th of April, 1893, to the effect stated in the first paragraph of the question, can only be carried out by legislation. It is true that a large mass of evidence was given of the nature indicated in the second paragraph, but it is also the fact that a considerable amount of evidence in conflict with this evidence was adduced— amongst others by Scotchmen at Camp beltown. This rebutting evidence supported the contention of the Irish fishermen. The Inspectors carefully weighed the entire evidence, and having regard to the importance of the mackerel fishing, came to the conclusion that the views of the Irish, Manx, Lowestoft, and Camp beltown fishermen were, in the main, correct. With regard to the third paragraph, legislation in the direction referred to would, no doubt, shorten the time during which Scotchmen could fish, but by only four days, as by mutual arrangement the herring fishery has not commenced in recent years before the 12th of May.

Water-Tight Bulkheads On Battle Ships

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether extra water-tight bulkheads have been recently or are being now fitted to H.M.S. Sans Pareil, at Malta, above her protective deck, by special desire of her Captain, as additional protection against disaster from injury by ram or torpedo; and whether the ships of the Admiral class, now in the Mediterranean, will he also similarly fitted with these extra bulkheads to give them increased protection?

Extra water-tight bulkheads have been fitted at Malta in H.M.S. Sans Pareil above the main deck (top of belt), on the suggestion of her Captain, to give increased security under certain circumstances. The ships of the Admiral class do not resemble the Sans Pareil either in the disposition or in the number of the bulkheads between the main and upper decks, so that the suggestions made for the Sans Pareil do not apply to the Admiral class.

Bombay Agriculturists' Grievances

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition from the agriculturists of Panwel Taluka, in the Kolaba District of the Bombay Presidency, complaining of the enhancement of the Government demand at the recent revision settlement; whether he is aware that although it is a standing Rule of the Settlement Department that such enhancement shall not exceed 33 per cent. upon a whole Taluka, 66 per cent. on any one village, and 100 per cent. upon any individual holding, in the whole Taluka of Panwel the increase has been 44·8 per cent., in certain villages over 100 per cent., and in certain individual holdings over 1,000 per cent.; will he explain why it is that although under Section 107 of the Land Revenue Code, and Government Resolution of the 26th of March, 1884, the full benefit of improvements made by the owner at his own cost is secured to him, 7,000 acres reclaimed from the waste and converted into rice land at great expense have been charged the full assessment as arable land; whether the rural population of the Panwel Taluka has increased by 50 per cent. since the former settlement, without any proportional increase in the cultivated area; and whether, in view of the fact that the Petitioners allege that the enhancements are illegal and unjustifiable, he will direct an inquiry to be held by persons, official and non-official, unconnected with the Settlement Department, and pending such inquiry order the assessment to be collected at the old rates?

My hon. Friend has been good enough to show me a copy of the Petition to which his question refers. In 1892, the Secretary of State, after full consideration, concurred in a recommendation of the Bombay Government that the standing limit of enhancement should be set aside in the case of Panwel Taluka and other tracts similarly situated. It was held that Section 107 of the Bombay Revenue Code, as amended by the Bombay Act of 1886, did not bar the revision of assessment on lands converted from waste into cultivated lands yielding hay and other valuable crops. The facts are approximately as stated in the fourth paragraph of the question; but the value of the produce and of the land has risen greatly, and the rental of land in Panwel Taluka ranges from two-and-a-half to seven-and-a-quarter times the new assessment. In the circumstances, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Sunday Labour In Factories

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will undertake to instruct the Factory Inspectors under his Department to report how many men are employed in the factories and workshops they visit for an average of 12 hours a day in factories where the work goes on on Sundays as well as week days?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

(Mr. George RUSSELL, North Beds) (who replied)

said: The Secretary of State has given instructions for a Return to be prepared of the number of men employed in factories for an average of 12 hours a day where the work goes on on Sundays as well as week days.

Military Tensions

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the former service of a soldier, when restored to him by War Office authority, is considered as equivalent to continuous service in computing the amount of his pension; and, if so, if he will meet the cases of non-commissioned officers (as stated in his reply of the 15th of June, 1893) who were deprived of the right to reckon their former service towards pension, under the Royal Warrant of the 1st of July, 1891, by extending to them the advantages of the Warrant of the 4th of August, 1893, irrespective of the date of their re-enlistment or the good conduct badges in possession on date of first discharge?

The case of non-commissioned officers has been specially regarded in the Regulation recently issued. Having been allowed to count the whole of their former service towards making up the period to entitle them to a pension, they may be able to earn their full pension.

The "Sobriety" Fatality

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why no official inquiry has been held into the collision between the smack Sobriety of Grimsby and the steamship Basset Hound, sailing out of Hull on the 7th of April, 1894; whether he is aware that four out of five hands were drowned out of the crew of the smack Sobriety; and why no Board of Trade inquiry has been held into the cause of each man's death, in accordance with the law in such case as set forth in the Merchant Shipping Acts?

said: I am aware of the unfortunate loss of life which occurred in the ease to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. An inquiry into the cause of the deaths has already been held by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, and a preliminary investigation into the cause of the collision has also taken place. The Board of Trade have in addition ordered a formal official inquiry to be held, but this must stand over until the proceedings now pending in the Admiralty Court are concluded.

Why have not the relatives of these unfortunate men been informed of the result of the inquiry? Surely the matter is of importance to them?

I will look into that.

Irish Bankruptcy Administration

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that great inconvenience is experienced by the traders and the commercial classes in the North-West of Ireland owing to the absence of a Local Bankruptcy Court; has a Memorial been presented to the Lord Lieutenant by the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce praying for the establishment of a Local Bankruptcy Court in Londonderry, pursuant to the Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act; and will the necessary steps be taken for the establishment of such a Court?

The Memorial referred to in the question has been referred to the Lord Chancellor, who is now making inquiries into the matter, and will submit his recommendation with the least possible delay.

Postal Appointments In Dublin

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial signed by all the members of the Dublin Letter Carriers' branch protesting against the proposed appointment of an official from the Parcel Post branch to a vacant post in the Secretary's Department of the General Post Office, Dublin; is the person proposed to be appointed a junior official in the Parcel Post branch; and has it been the practice hitherto to appoint a senior postman from the Letter Carriers' branch; if so, what are the reasons for the departure?

A Memorial has been received from post-men in Dublin appealing against the recent appointment of one of their own number to the post of messenger in the Secretary's Office. This Memorial is signed by 65 postmen out of a total number of 162. The postman appointed has been five years in the Service, and at the time of appointment was employed on Parcel Post duty. It has not been the practice hitherto to appoint to be, messenger one of the senior postmen. Postmen, indeed, possess no stronger claim to the appointment than members of other classes; and the case is essentially one for selection.

Irish Resident Magistrates

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any Rule or custom limiting the time during which a Resident Magistrate may be allowed to remain in a particular district; and, if not, would he consider the desirability of limiting the continuance of Resident Magistrates in particular districts to a fixed term of years?

There is no Rule or custom of the nature indicated in the question, and I am not sure that it would be expedient for me to fix a time limit as suggested. A considerable number of Resident Magistrates have been five years and upwards at their present stations, and transfers are sometimes carried out at the request of Magistrates themselves for family reasons.

Pauper District Schools

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether pressure is being at present applied by the Local Government Board to any of the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis for the purpose of obtaining an extension of the accommodation in pauper district schools; and whether, in view of the proved inadequacy of the district school system for the proper education of pauper children, he will pledge himself that no extension of district schools shall take place until a complete and public inquiry has been held into the merits of the various methods of dealing with these children?

There are cases in which additional provision for pauper children of Unions included in school districts is necessary, and the question how such additional accommodation should be provided is now under the consideration of the managers and of the Board. I cannot admit that there has been any proved inadequacy of these district schools. At the same time, the Board do not favour the aggregation of very large numbers of children in the same building, and careful consideration will be given to the question as to how the additional provision can best be made in connection with the circumstances of each particular case.

Mischievous Soldiers

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to several cases of alleged damage committed by a detachment of Royal Artillery billeted at Tenterden, in Kent, on the 1oth instant, as described in a letter to The Times, of the 21st instant; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made, so that the persons who have suffered loss may receive prompt and sufficient compensation for all damage sustained?

No complaint of this damage was made by the landlords to the officer commanding the battery, who only learned what had occurred from a newspaper report. Some of the men have been punished, and are prepared to pay for the damage they have done. Any complaint addressed to the officer commanding the 20th Field Battery Royal Artillery, Aldershot, will receive attention.

Parish Council Register

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the new Registration Order, or in the Rules for elections, under the Parish Councils Act, paragraph 11 of the Registration Order of the 2nd March, 1889, could be modified so as to allow a copy of each Overseer's list being given to each accredited Party agent in each constituency?

Under the existing law any election agent can obtain a copy of the List on payment of a fee in accordance with the scale fixed by Schedule D to the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843. I am advised that what is proposed by my hon. Friend could not be affected without legislation.

Military Troubles At Agra

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government can give the House any information as to the recent mutinous conduct of Native troops at Agra, and generally with regard to the reports of disaffection in India?

With regard to the incident at Agra, I am informed that the insubordination was confined to two companies, was not of a serious nature, and was unaccompanied by violence; and that the Government of India attach no importance to the occurrence, which related to a dispute with Native officers, and was entirely unconnected with caste or religious feeling. I have seen in some of the newspapers conjectures and suggestions with regard to the existence of disaffection in India, but I have received no information which in any way confirms or supports them.

Marines At Foreign Stations

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any foreign stations have yet been garrisoned with Marines, especially the Falkland Islands, as suggested by the late Board of Admiralty; and whether a new South American Station has yet been formed out of the South-east Coast of America Station and the southern portion of the Pacific Station, or otherwise?

The Falkland Islands have not been garrisoned with Marines, nor any other Foreign Station, with the exception of Esquimault. So far as I am aware, the late Board of Admiralty did not make any such suggestion, as the question assumes. A now South American Station has not been formed.

Labourers' Cottages In Ireland

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when any portion of an improvement scheme under the Labourers (Ireland) Act is objected to, the Board of Guardians promoting the scheme and having complied with the requirements of the law must either abandon the portions objected to or postpone carrying out the unopposed part of the improvement scheme until the merits of the disputed parts are investigated and decided upon; and whether it would be possible to obviate this often very long delay, and empower Boards of Guardians who have promoted an improvement scheme to proceed with carrying out the unopposed part of a scheme pending the investigation and decision by the proper authorities of the merits of the disputed portions?

The facts are stated with substantial accuracy. I have already explained that it is not possible by administrative action to shorten the existing procedure connected with the carrying out of the Labourers Act, and I fear it would be quite? impossible for the Government to introduce a Bill having for its object the amendment of these Acts.

Ex-Inspector Ruff

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Report has been furnished to the Home Office as to the punishment inflicted on ex-Inspector Ruff, of the Metropolitan Police; and, if so, what is the general nature of that Report; and whether he proposes to take any, and if so what, action in the matter?

The Secretary of State has given the facts of this case his serious attention, and after full consideration he is obliged to decline to interfere.

Colonial Officers And Military Appointments

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that officers of the Colonial Forces have made excellent records in the "Long Courses," and that their names are honourably mentioned in the annual Reports of the School of Gunnery, if he would explain why it is that, notwithstanding the distinction thus achieved, such colonial officers are not eligible for appointment to ad-jutancies of Volunteers or Militia, while British Artillery officers, who go through precisely the same courses, are regularly appointed to such posts; is he aware that English Artillery officers hold highly-paid appointments in the Colonies; and does the present disqualification of colonial officers to hold appointments in England rest on Regulations that were framed at a time when the probability of colonial officers attaining high distinction in the Imperial School of Gunnery was not contemplated; if so, will he amend such Regulations in order to bring them into conformity with existing conditions, and place Colonial and British officers who distinguish themselves in the School of Gunnery on an equal footing as regards appointments in England?

It is very creditable to the officers of colonial forces that they have devoted their time and money to qualify themselves professionally, and I am sure that the forces to which they belong will derive great benefit from their zeal and assiduity; but the hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the colonial forces-are not technically a portion of the British Army. They are not under the Army Act, but are governed by their own local statutes, and consequently they have no power of command over soldiers or Volunteers in this country. British officers holding appointments in connection with colonial forces are sent at the invitation of the colonies in which they serve, and any powers of command which they exercise are conferred upon them by the Governments of those colonies.

Admiralty Tenders

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will inform the House of the amounts of the various tenders received by the Admiralty for the building (with engines) of the following ships:—Jupiter, Powerful, Mars, Terrible, Diana, Venus, Dido, Isis, Juno, and Doris?

It would be contrary to precedent, and undesirable in the public interest, for the Admiralty to publish the amounts of all the tenders received for the ships which are to be built in private yards. Unsuccessful tenders are always treated as confidential. But a Return of the estimated cost of all these ships will be laid on the Table when the contracts have been completed for auxiliary machinery, armour, gun-mountings, &c.

Will the figures of the accepted tenders be given?

They will be included in the cost of each ship.

Compound Householders' Grievances

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could lay upon the Table the statistical authority on which he based his argument as to the hardships inflicted on compound householder voters who have been disfranchised in consequence of the compounding landlord not having paid the rates compounded for?

Statistics have not been obtained as to the number of cases in which voters have been disfranchised in consequence of the compounding landlord not having paid the rates compounded for. But our attention was called to the fact that such cases did occur, and deserved to be provided against.

Are we then really to understand that there is no statistical information available for Members of this House?

No; that is so.

The Committee On The Manning Of Ships

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of adding two bona fide shipowners to the Committee on the Manning of Ships from the Opposition side of the House of Commons, seeing that only one of the four Members already nominated is a shipowner and three are supporters of the present Government?

said: I must remind the hon. Member that the Committee referred to is a Departmental one, and the hon. Members who have so kindly consented to serve were selected irrespective of their political opinions. Two of the four Members are interested in shipping, and there are besides three representatives of shipowners on the Committee. Indeed, an opinion has been expressed in some quarters that the shipowners have very full representation on the Committee.

Agrarian Riots In Assam

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the agrarian riots, arising out of the enhanced Government demand and the form of the new leases, which took place L December and January last in the Kamrup and Darrang districts of Assam; whether, in November, 1892, on the protest of the cultivators, the Chief Commissioner of Assam admitted that the proposed rates were too high, and recommended that the average enhancement should be reduced to 37 per cent.; that on the 27th of January, 1894, the Government of India decided that the enhancement should not exceed 32·7 per cent.; but that, nevertheless, the collections were commenced at the rate of 53 per cent.; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all the Correspondence on the subject, including Mr. Ward's note dated 29th June, 1892, the Re-settlement Rules, the Memorials of the cultivators, the form of the new leases, and the resolutions passed at a public meeting held at Sibsagar on the 15th of April last?

(1) Yes, Sir. The attention of the Secretary of State in Council has been called to the agrarian riots in Assam. (2) The facts are not precisely as suggested in my hon. Friend's question. The Chief Commissioner's proposals for reducing the rates of assessment were made in November, 1893, not 1892. He proposed rates yielding an increase of 37 per cent. in the revenue instead of rates yielding an increase of 53 per cent., as had been suggested in 1892. Collections began, when the revenue fell due, at the lower rates proposed by the Chief Commissioner, and the people were informed that, if the Government of India made any further reduction in the rates, the full effect of such reduction would be given when the second instalment of the revenue was collected. The Government subsequently decided that the increase should not exceed 32·7 per cent. (3) I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, as the incident is now closed, it is hardly worth while to incur the trouble and expense of printing the Papers, The resolutions of the Sibsagar meeting have not yet reached me.

Mr John Dillon's Ballybrood Speech

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a speech made by the hon. Member for East Mayo on Sunday last, at Bally-brood, near Limerick, in which he recommended that the occupant of an evicted farm in the neighbourhood should be boycotted; whether it was with the knowledge and consent of the police that the meeting was held about a mile distant from the farm referred to; and whether the Crown authorities propose to prosecute any of the persons who took part in this meeting?

I have seen a report of the speech referred to. The meeting was held at Ballybrood with the knowledge of the police, and the Government were advised that there were no reasons for interfering with its being held at this place. The speech contains nothing that would furnish sufficient ground for a prosecution, nor was it directed specially against any particular individual.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman has he read the report of the speech in The Freeman' s Journal in which the hon. Member for East Mayo is reported to have advised the people not to deal with, buy for or sell to persons on boycotted forms? And I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has asked his Law Advisers if that is not an offence sufficient to warrant a prosecution? ["Order, order !"]

No law here.

I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary if any instructions have been given to the police not to permit meetings of this character to be held at a nearer distance than a mile from the boycotted holding?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, might I ask him if he has seen a letter from the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, advising persons not to deal with the house of Causton and Company because of a vote given in this House?

No, Sir, I have not seen that letter, but I will refer to it. In answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, I have to say this meeting was not held within a mile of the holding referred to. The promoters were informed that no meeting would be allowed to be held within a mile of the evicted farm, and the meeting was not held within a mile of it. I read the report furnished to me, and it was taken from The Freeman's Journal, or some other paper. At all events, the words that were used were, as I understand, used in a general sense, and would not subject the hon. Member to a prosecution. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not notice that the Member for East Mayo added that "They were to leave them severely alone, and at the same time to abstain from all illegal means and from violence." In the opinion of the Government there were no grounds for a prosecution.

Might I ask if he considers that if a person incites to crime— ["Order, order!"]—and at the same time—

That is a mere matter of opinion.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a person incites to crime— ["Order, order !"and interruption] — and at the same time states that it is to be committed—

Order, order!

The Royal Academy

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now in a position to inform the House the terms and conditions of the tenancy of Burlington House by the Royal Academy?

The main building of Burlington House is held by the Trustees of the Royal Academy on a lease from the Commissioners of Works for a term of 999 years from Christmas, 1866, at the rent of £1 per annum. There are provisions in the lease involving its forfeiture in the event of the Academy dissolving itself, or in case of the premises being disposed of without the consent of the Government, or used for any purpose inconsistent with the existing objects of the Academy. The Academy undertook to erect an additional storey and other buildings, and to keep the whole of the premises in repair and insured against fire. It was decided by the then First Commissioner of Works (Lord John Manners) not to insert any definition of the objects of the Academy, but hon. Members will understand the circumstances and conditions under which the grant was made by referring to Sessional Paper 227 of 1866. I may, however, call the attention of the House to the fact that, under a guarantee given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1835, the Government were bound, on calling upon the Academy to vacate the eastern portion of the present National Gallery, to provide an equivalent for the Academy elsewhere.

Coed-Y-Pain School

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the cloakroom erected in 1891 at Coed-y-Pain, Monmouthshire, on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Inspector, and verbally approved by him, has now been condemned; and whether, under the circumstances, he will re-consider the case?

Her Majesty's Inspector states that this cloak-room was only accepted by him in 1891 under the late Government as a temporary ex- pedient, and as some improvement on a very bad existing state of things in the school, and that this was made abundantly clear by him at the time to the late rector. I do not see any sufficient reason for considering the case.

Postal Conference In Canada

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the decision arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the representation of the Mother Country at the forthcoming Conference at Ottawa in June, to consider the question of improvements in the commercial, postal, and telegraphic communications of the Empire?

No representative has yet been appointed, but the matter is engaging the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Munster Square Schools

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the St. Mary Magdalene, Munster Square Schools have, during the last 17 years, been examined by three or four different Inspectors, and in each case pronounced satisfactory; whether he is aware that the Report of the Education Department of the 17th of March, 1894, finds such fault with the ventilation and lighting of the infant school as would make it impossible to continue the school in the same locality; and whether, under these circumstances, he will make inquiries with the view of a reconsideration of the matter by the Department?

After the inspection of this school in November last Her Majesty's Inspector reported that the lighting and ventilation of the infant room was very unsatisfactory. The matter was gone into with great care, and the Senior Chief Inspector visited the school in January. He reported that, in his opinion, no part of the room was properly lighted, and that some parts of it must be very prejudicial to the children's eyesight. It appears that owing to the breadth of the room and the arrangement of the windows, less than one-third of the floor area can receive a proper supply of light. The managers were informed on the 17th of March that unless some satisfactory proposal as to the lighting were made the room could not be recognised after the current year. The matter has been so very fully and carefully considered that I am unable to undertake any revision of the decision arrived at.

Cordite

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether contracts are being obtained from private firms for the supply of cordite; whether he hopes to secure any economy by this means'; and whether he would consider the desirability of establishing an alternative Government manufactory apart from Waltham Abbey, and so preserve the secret of the process of manufacture and secure a constant supply, notwithstanding any accidental or other dislocation of the machinery?

Tenders are about to be invited from private firms for the supply of cordite. It is hoped that as private firms gain experience in the manufacture their prices may approximate to the Government factory prices, but, as the latter contain nothing for interest or profit, It is not anticipated that private firms will ever supply at factory prices. It is considered that sources for the supply of cordite should exist in the private trade of the country, which should effectually prevent the possibility of any inconvenience arising from accident. There is no secret in any of the processes of the manufacture.

Would it not be better to have another Government factory for it?

No, Sir. I do not think it would be desirable to have the manufacture entirely in the hands of the Government.

Will the Government supply special machinery for the manufacture of cordite?

No, Sir.

The Seizure Of The"Bluejacket"

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information respecting the seizure of the Hull steam trawler Bluejacket by a German torpedo boat on the 27th of April last; whether it is true that the skipper, Mr. W. Sorrensen, has been detained in prison and put upon black bread for nearly a month without being brought to trial; and whether he will take steps to require his trial without further delay?

Is Mr. Sorrensen a British subject?

I believe he and his family live at Hull, and he has command of a British trawler. I conclude, therefore, that he is a British subject. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that the facts of the case were reported to the Foreign Office directly the seizure was made. The charge against Mr. Sorrensen is one of fishing within German territorial waters. As the case has not yet been tried, I can- not express any opinion upon its merits. The British Vice Consul at Brake visited Mr. Sorrensen whilst under arrest, and afforded him all assistance in his power. No complaints of ill-treatment or bad fare are known to have been made to the Vice Consul. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been instructed to bring the case to the favourable consideration of the German Government with a view to the trial taking place at an early date.

Scotch Inspectors Of Secondary Education

On behalf of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will lay upon the Table of the House the names of the Inspectors of Secondary Education in Scotland who have been acting during the past 12 months, stating their usual occupations, and the remuneration paid to each; whether the Inspectors for the next year have yet been appointed; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House the same information regarding them also?

There are no appointments to the post of Inspector of Secondary Education; but I have no objection to lay upon the Table a list of the gentlemen employed as occasion arose last year, with their designations and the remuneration paid to each. The arrangements for each year are not complete, but there is no objection to the issue of such a list at a later date.

The Saltcoats Crofter Settlement

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state whether the inquiry promised on the 13th of November last into the case of Alexander Young, a crofter settler, residing near Saltcoats, Assa, Canada, who complained that he and his family had received ill-treatment from the agent of the Imperial Colonisation Board has not yet been made; and, if so, will he state the result of the inquiry?

The case of Alexander Young has been inquired into. It appears that in August, 1892, he left his wife and family in Saltcoats to obtain work elsewhere. In November the colonisation agent saw him at Killarney, and was informed by him that he had no intention of returning to Saltcoats. In the meantime, his family was being supported by the generosity of their neighbours, and he was also assisted by the agent of the Board. The Inspector of Police brought their destitute condition to the knowledge of the agent, and Mrs. Young applied to him in writing for assistance to join her husband. As Young, like all the other crofter colonists, had received advances from the Colonisation Board, and had given the agent a lien on his chattels and stock, the latter took them over to enable Mrs. Young and her children to join her husband. Finally, he returned to Saltcoats last June.

Dunphail Railway Accident

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the result of the inquiry by the Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade into the accident to a night passenger train on the Highland Railway, near Dunphail Station, on the 27th of April last; and whether all the carriages of the train referred to were fitted with automatic continuous brakes, in accordance with the instructions of the Department to the Highland Railway Company last year?

said: The hon. Member will obtain all the information he requires from the Report on the accident which was yesterday presented to Parliament.

Fishing Licences In Scotland

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the fact that the Government on the 28th of March, 1893, had it in contemplation to arrange for licences being granted to fish salmon and other fish of the salmon kind around the coast of Scotland, he will state if such an arrangement has now been decided upon; and, if so, how many licences have been granted, the cost of each licence, and whether public notice has been given that such licences may be obtained by fishermen?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. Mr. Stafford Howard, the Commissioner in charge of the Land Revenues of the Crown in Scotland, is about to invite applications by public advertisement for licences at certain places in the Counties of Argyll, Ayr, Inverness, and Ross. He is also about to visit the East Coast of Scotland, in order to ascertain by personal inquiry and inspection what should be done in regard to granting licences to fish for salmon in the sea. No licences have yet been granted, and in regard to the East Coast district the fishings are at present held under leases which do not expire until Martinmas next.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of giving County Councils in Scotland control over these licences?

I will consider it, but I may point out that Mr. Stafford since he has been at the work has shown a great desire to adopt a wide and generous policy in this matter.

Danish Smokeless Powder

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any information since 11th of September, 1893, as to the action of Danish smokeless powder cartridges, containing no nitro-giycerine (hard metal-covered bullets), on the barrels of Maxim guns; if he has yet ascertained whether erosion of the regulation barrel is attributable to the shape of the nickel-covered bullet, the character of the rifling, or to cordite; and whether a better class of steel has been introduced in the manufacture of the regulation barrel since the 11th of September, 1893?

No information as to the action of Danish smokeless powder on the barrels of Maxim guns has been received at the War Office. Recent experiments appear to point to the desirableness of a change in the character of the rifling of the barrels of Maxim guns. As regards the steel for the barrels, an amended specification was adopted in November last, modifying some of the tests formerly required.

The Curatorship Of The Scottish National Gallery

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how long the office of Curator of the Scottish National Gallery has been vacant; and when the necessary steps will be taken for making a new appointment?

Mr. Gourlay Steell, the late Curator, died on the 31st of January last, and the vacancy was reported to the Board of Manufacturers at their first subsequent meeting, held on the 1st of March. The Curator has to be appointed by the Board of Manufacturers, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. An appointment has been postponed pending consideration of a Report by a Committee of the Board, which will be brought up on the 31st instant, and the question of making a new appointment will be considered at the Board's ordinary meeting on the 7th of June.

The Forres Borough Auditorship

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that upon a Petition from the Magistrates and Councillors of the Royal burgh of Forres, acting under "The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892,"for the appointing of an auditor to audit the burgh accounts, the Sheriff of the Counties of Inverness, Elgin, and Nairn, passed over the Sheriff Substitute of the district, who usually makes such appointments, and nominated his son, Mr. James Ivory, chartered accountant, Edinburgh, for the office; if the Sheriff may, if he chooses, make a similar appointment in each of the 10 burghs within the counties of his Sheriffdom, and may, in the event of any dispute as to the auditor's salary, fix what the amount shall be; and whether, in view of the fact that the Royal burgh of Forres is 200 miles distant from Edinburgh, and that there are many local men fully qualified and ready to do the work, he will take steps either to cancel what has been done, or to prevent its recurrence when the auditor comes to be appointed next year?

This was the first appointment under the Burgh Police Act of 1892, but similar appointments have in the past been made by the Sheriff and not by his substitute. The Sheriff has complete discretion in appointing an auditor. There was a provision in the Burgh Police Act of 1862 giving the Sheriff power to settle the auditor's remuneration in case of dispute; but that Act is repealed, and there is no corresponding provision in the Act of 1892. The Sheriff informs mo that, in his opinion, no fully qualified local men were available. With regard to this statement, I can only say that the Town Council, on the ground, among other considerations, that there were competent local professional men available, passed a unanimous vote protesting against the action of Sheriff Ivory in appointing his own son who is resident in Edinburgh. It is difficult to believe that, in face of such a vote, the Sheriff will persist in the appointment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of introducing a Bill transferring the power of making these appointments from the Sheriff to the Local Authorities?

said, that was a matter which he had under consideration.

The Australian Mail Conteact

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now in a position to state the cause of the delay in calling for tenders for the Australian mail contract; whether it is true that he has extended the present Australian mail contract; if so, on what terms and for what period; whether any representative of the British Post Office attended the New Zealand Conference, or whether the negotiations are being carried on entirely with the Agents General; whether it is the intention of the Postmaster General to hold a special Conference on the question with the Representatives of the Australian Governments; and whether he has any objection to state the date when official communications were commenced with the Australian Governments regarding the terms of the proposed new contracts?

The resolutions of the Brisbane Conference on this subject were communicated to the Imperial Post Office on the 5th of June, 1893, since which date I have been in direct communication with the Colonial Post Offices and the contractors, and have arranged, with the consent of the Wellington Conference, expressed through the President, to prolong the existing service for one year on present terms, that is up to the 31st of January, 1896, in order that full time might be given for the consideration of all the points raised by the colonies. I am now awaiting the arrival by post of the full text of the resolutions of the Wellington Conference, at which I was not represented; and until the full text comes I cannot say whether a Conference with Australian representatives will be necessary.

Imported Meat

In the absence of the hon. Member for Wigton, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when he proposes to introduce the promised measure dealing with the importation of foreign and colonial meat?

I propose to introduce the Bill on Monday next.

The London Cab Strike

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the intimidation by the Association of Cabowners of certain proprietors who had entered into a lawful arrangement with the Cabdrivors' Trade Union as to the price they should charge for their cabs, whereby these proprietors were compelled to withdraw from the said arrangement; and whether he will instruct the police to afford protection to cabowners who are disposed to accept the rates suggested by the Trade Union?

said: Instances of the sort of conduct described in the first clause have been submitted to the Home Office, but we have not yet been able to investigate them. We believe that the police are alive to their duty in this regard.

Police Evidence Of Drunkenness

I beg (1) to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of two miners, Simms and Broadhead, of Cawthorne Basin, who were arrested on the 3rd of March, detained all night in the Barugh Green Police Station, and charged before the Barnsley Magistrates on the 7th of March with being drunk and disorderly; (2) whether he is aware that although evidence in support of the charge was given by Sergeant Humphries and Police-constables Rollinson and Walker, yet the Magistrates preferred the evidence for defence, which prove that they were perfectly sober and orderly, and dismissed the case; (3) whether he is aware that abundant evidence is forthcoming to prove that Police-constable Walker was at Darton at the time when in his evidence he swore that he saw the defendants at Claycliffe, a distance of nearly two miles from Darton, and cautioned them; and (4) whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to this evidence, and also make further inquiry into the conduct and evidence of the above-mentioned police officers?

said: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Justices have informed the Secretary of State that in dismissing the case they were giving the prisoners the benefit of the doubt to which the evidence in their favour had naturally given rise; and the Chairman, when stating the decision of the Court, said that—

"There was a strong conviction in the minds of the Bench that the prisoners were not sober at the time, and that they were not conducting themselves properly."

(3) No. The Secretary of State has made inquiries, and sees no reason to doubt the truth of the constable's evidence. (4) The Justices found that the police had acted properly.

Insanity In Ireland

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has observed that the Special Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics on the alleged increase of insanity, recently presented, conflicts with their statutory Reports, annually laid before Parliament, on the subject of increase, and whether any explanation of the difference can be given; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Reports of the Resident Medical Superintendents of the several district lunatic asylums, upon which the special Report in question has been founded, for the information of hon. Members who take an interest in the subject?

I am informed by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums that in their statutory Reports, annually presented to Parliament, they expressed the opinion that the increase of insanity in Ireland was absolute as well as relative, and they founded this opinion on the increasing number of first admissions to asylums, and the larger number of cases brought under official cognizance. Upon fuller inquiry, and having regard to the special information obtained in the Reports from the different lunacy districts, the Inspectors, in their special Report to which reference is made, have now expressed the opinion that, as at present advised, the absolute increase of insanity is not large, and is limited to certain districts. The Reports referred to in the second paragraph of the question will be published in full in the next statutory Report of the Inspectors to be laid on the Table in the course of a couple of months.

Labels On London Cabs

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of the molestation of cabmen at Islington, engaged in the lawful pursuit of their calling, in The Standard of the 21st instant, and will he instruct the police to give more efficient protection; whether his attention has been called to the proclamation, issued by the London Cab Drivers' Trade Union, in which it is stated that, on and after the 16th of May, no cabs are to run on the streets unless bearing the label supplied by the Secretary of the Union, at the offices, at Long Acre, St. Martin's Lane, W.C., and that any cabs running on the streets after this notice, and not bearing the Union label, will be blacklegs, and as such to be treated; and whether, after a driver has paid 5s. for his licence, and the cab proprietor £2 for a licence, and 15s. Carriage Tax, it is an infringement of the Hackney Carriage Act to compel a driver to affix a label to his cab before being allowed to pursue his calling; and, if so, will he take steps to require the removal of the labels now in use?

Is it the fact, as is generally reported in the London newspapers, that the number of licences granted to drivers is in excess of the requirements of the Metropolis; and will the Chief Commissioner of Police be instructed not to grant more licences until the matter has been inquired into?

I will submit that point to the Home Secretary when he returns. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Marylebone, I have to say that the statements referred to in the first paragraph are reported to us to be incorrect. I can only assure the hon. Member that the police are fully alive to their duty to repress intimidation, by whomever practised. The statement made in the second paragraph I believe to be correct. I am advised that the action described in the last part of the question does not constitute an infringement of the Hackney Carriage Acts.

Is a cabman, then, entitled to put any label he chooses on his cab?

Latet dolus in generalibus. I cannot undertake to answer that question.

Ordnance Survey Maps

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state what proportion of the sum of £90,860, estimated for the general revision of the 6-inch and 25-inch maps of Great Britain for 1894–5, will be required for the completion of town scale maps already in hand; what has been the total amount expended by the Ordnance Survey upon the production and publication of town maps on a scale larger than 1–2,500th; what is the number of such maps; what has been the average amount annually spent on the revision of such maps; and what is the proportion of town maps that have been made on a scale less than 1–2,500th?

The proportion of the sum of £90,860 provided in the Estimates for 1894–5 for the completion of the re-survey of Scottish counties and for the general revision of the 6-inch and 25-inch maps of Great Britain, which will be required for the completion of town maps on the 10-foot scale already in hand, is £56,000. The estimated expenditure on the production and publication of town maps on a scale larger than 1–2,500 is £550,000. The approximate number of such maps is 14,000. The average amount annually spent on the revision of such maps since 1870 is £3,800. No maps of towns have been made on a scale less than 1–2,500 since the commencement of the Cadastral Survey, and our present proposals do not involve any alteration in this respect.

inquired how much of the money would be set aside for Scotland?

said, he would inform the hon. Member on Report of the Vote.

Cultch

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Bill relating to cultch?

said: A Bill on the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has been drafted, and is at present under con- sideration. It will be pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

The American Mail Route

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the meetings in the Mansion House, Dublin, with reference to the American mails via. Queenstown; and whether he can state when a reply will be given to the requests of the deputation to the Chief Secretary of Ireland on this subject?

I have received copies of the resolutions passed at the meeting held at the Mansion House, Dublin, on the 18th instant, and reports of the deputation which waited subsequently on the Chief Secretary. I am happy to be able to say that the Government has decided to terminate the existing contract, and the necessary steps will be at once taken for inviting new tenders.

Dublin Mail Cart Drivers

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has made any arrangements to have the Fair Wages Resolution of this House carried into effect by the contractor who employs the mail-cart drivers in Dublin and elsewhere over Ireland?

Yes, Sir; I have given directions to that effect in Dublin and in every other case of a new contract.

Government Contracts

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government deem themselves to be bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons of the 13th of February, 1891, as to rates of wages to be paid in carrying out Government contracts; whether the rate of wages referred to in the Resolution is the rate demanded by the spokesmen of that section of working men who are Trades Unionists; and whether he will state what proportion of wage earners in the United Kingdom belong to established Trades Unions and what proportion do not?

The Government holds itself bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons passed on February 13th, 1891, which requires the Government—

"To make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."

I have no authority to limit or add to this definition. I am informed by the Board of Trade that, roughly speaking, there are about 1,500,000 members of Trade Unions, but they are unable to give any exact figures as to the other class.

Military Service In South Africa

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been made that British citizens resident in the territories of the South African Republic have recently been ordered to join in an armed expedition against the natives of the Northern districts of the Transvaal; whether such residents enjoy franchise rights or have any other constitutional voice in the government of the country; and whether in any other civilised State foreign residents are liable to compulsory military service?

Such a representation was received on the evening of the 22nd by telegram, and is engaging the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

Liverpool Boundaries

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has yet come to a decision on the Report of the Local Government Commissioner who, on the 10th of April, held an inquiry as to a re-arrangement of the ward boundaries of Liverpool; and when a Provisional Order dealing with this matter and the extension of the city boundaries is likely to be introduced?

The Local Government Board communicated their decision to the Town Council of Liverpool on the 22nd instant. The Board do not propose at present to proceed with the Order for the incorporation in the city of the districts which were proposed to be added.

I shall raise this question on the Vote on Account.

Weather Forecasts For Farmers

:.I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to repeat the experiment of telegraphing the weather forecasts to telegraph offices in rural districts for exhibition during the time of harvest; and, if so, what are the arrangements to be made for the purr pose?

Yes, Sir, we propose to repeat the experiment of last year, and we have selected for the purpose the counties of Cambridge, Somerset, Carnarvon, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Haddington, and Ayr. The forecasts will be dispatched to rural telegraph offices at such periods as will suit the agricultural conditions of hay and corn harvests in the respective counties, and I trust that those interested in the matter will be willing to supply in- formation as to the results of the experiment, so that we may be able to determine whether the system is of sufficient utility to justify its continuance and extension.

Killybegs Harbour

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if any steps are being taken to prepare Killybegs Harbour for a mail packet station by making a pier or otherwise adjacent to the railway on the water's edge, so that full access to this deep-water harbour would at all times be assured; and is he aware that if this harbour was thus made serviceable for large steamers 100 miles of sea would be saved to transatlantic passengers?

I am not aware of any such steps, nor can I say whether the owners of transatlantic passenger steamers would be prepared to use Killybegs Harbour if made serviceable.

inquired what had been the result of the communication addressed by the Board of Works to the Treasury with reference to the erection of this pier, which was promised a long time since?

I have no information on the subject.

Agricultural Depression In Essex

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is considering the Report of Mr. Hunter Pringle to the Royal Commission on Agriculture upon the corn-growing districts of Essex, recently printed; if his attention has been directed to that portion of the Report which refers to the increasing: average of derelict farms, and to the deplorable facts of farm houses, farm buildings, and labourers' cottages falling into ruin in many parishes; and if he can hold out any hopes of action on the part of the Government with the view to remedial legislation?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Pringle is correct in stating that the tithe per acre in land in Essex under all crops is 6s., whereas in Lancashire it is only 1s. 9¼d., and that if the tithe is taken on the basis of population it represents 6s. 4½d. in Essex and only 4½d. in Lancashire?

I must ask for notice of that. In reply to the hon. Member for Harwich, I have to say that I hope it is unnecessary for me to assure the ho… Member that I have watched the agricultural position in Essex with the greatest attention and sympathy for some time past; and with regard to Mr. Hunter Pringle's Report upon particular districts of the county, I am sure that the Commissioners to whom that Report is addressed will give the statements it contains their most earnest consideration. The concluding question of the hon. Member is identical with that addressed to the Leader of the House by the hon. Member for the South-Eastern Division of the county, to which my right hon. Friend will subsequently reply.

Do the Government intend to grant a day for the discussion of this question?

I cannot answer that question. It should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of the Government has been called to the concluding paragraph of the Report of Mr, Hunter Pringle, Commissioner to the Royal Commission on Agriculture, with reference to the County of Essex, in which it is stated that so serious are the complications involved that it seems as if the district might well become the subject of distinct and special Government supervision and assistance; and whether the Government are prepared to adopt Mr. Pringle's proposal; if not, whether they will give a day for the discussion of the matter, in order to lay before the House and the country the ruin of the agricultural classes in the County of Essex?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the figures in Mr. Pringle's Report to which I have alluded are correct?

No Sir. The attention of the Government has been directed to the evidence given before the Royal Commission, including the Report referred to in the question; but they cannot announce any action upon it until the evidence and the Report have been considered by the Commission, and their recommendations have been brought under the view of the Government.

As the right hon. Gentleman cannot immediately assist us, will he allow the map attached to the Report—a map which shows 60 miles of derelict farms in the County of Essex—to be exhibited in the House, so that hon. Members may appreciate the agricultural situation in the county?

That would be a very unusual proceeding, but I will consider if it can be done.

When is the Commission expected to report?

I am not in a position to say.

Results Fees In Scotch Schools

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, under Article 17 (b) of the Scotch Code, 1894, the managers of a school will be allowed to pay a teacher partly by a fixed sum and partly by share of the Parliamentary Grant, after paying assistants and pupil teachers; and, if not, whether sufficient time will be allowed to the managers to make such arrangements for the payment of the teacher as will satisfy the new conditions of the Article referred to before the grant is in any case withheld?

The practice of farming a school to a teacher is one which the Department has uniformly discouraged, and the present Code gives more distinct expression to the objection taken to it. Each case must be judged by its own circumstances, but generally the Department thinks that the payment of assistants and pupil teachers ought not to affect the salary of the principal teacher. The Department will be prepared to make a reasonable allowance where the managers have hitherto followed an arrangement which cannot be approved, but which they are prepared to modify. But here also each case must be judged on its own merits.

The Balfoue Companies

I beg to ask the Attorney General how long is it since the Board of Trade sent to the Public Prosecutor the Registrar's Report and other necessary documents relative to the officials and directors of the various Balfour Companies; and whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the desirability of instituting further proceedings?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer for my right hon. and learned Friend. The question of instituting further proceedings has been and is under consideration, but it would not be for the public benefit that any further statement should now be made.

Irish Church Temporalities Fund

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now aware that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt are charging the Irish Church Temporalities Fund interest at 3½ and 3¼ per cent. on loans amply secured, the excess of the interest over 3 per cent. amounting to £19,000 a year; whether he is aware that other Irish Public Bodies under popular management, especially the Dublin Corporation, have been able to borrow in the open market at a lower rate of interest; and whether he will take steps either to induce the National Debt Commissioners to reduce the rate of interest to 3 per cent. or, in the alternative, empower the Land Commissioners to raise a loan at 3 per cent, to pay off the debt owing to the National Debt Commissioners?

The money advanced by the National Debt Commissioners on Terminable Annuities to the Irish Church Fund is an investment made by them out of the money of the Savings Banks, and it would be impossible to interfere with that investment by the course proposed in the question without injuriously affecting the Savings Banks Fund.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that answer would not apply to all loans made by the Public Debt Commissioners?

Yes, Sir; so far as it relates to the Savings Bank Account. At present the Savings Bank Account is dealt with at a rate of interest which is barely paying its own working, and I do not see how that rate could be reduced, and therefore we are obliged to be very careful with respect to receipts on the Savings Bank Account.

Do I understand that, this Irish Account has to make up the interest for English investors in the Savings Banks?

You are not to understand that at all. At the time this loan was made it was made at a rate of interest which was considered a proper rate, and we cannot interfere with it until the end of the time for which it was issued, or we should be interfering with the Savings Bank Account for the purpose of benefitting other people.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this loan is repayable at any time that the Land Commission choose to repay it, and that they are empowered to call for money in the open market for that purpose, and whether it would be any breach of their contract with the National Debt Commissioners if they paid the money at once?

[No answer was given.]

Income Tax On Labourers' Cottages In Ireland

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Income Tax assessed on cottages built under the Labourers (Ireland) Act in the Clona-kilty Union has been remitted; whether there is any difference in respect of right from exemption of Income Tax on rent of labourers' cottages between Clonakilty and all the other Unions in Ireland; and whether steps will be taken to relieve all the other Unions in Ireland from this tax?

In the case of the Clonakilty Union, the tax has been, after investigation, remitted. With regard to other Unions, the title to relief must depend on the special circumstances of each case. Applications should, in the first instance, be made to the Inland Revenue Office, Dublin.

The New Estate Duty

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the revenue that he estimates would accrue from the new Estate Duty would be derived from property situated outside the United Kingdom, in foreign countries and British Colonies or Dependencies respectively?

I am afraid I cannot give any figures; they are too uncertain.

Cabinet Ministers' Salaries

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have considered the question of the re-arrangement of the salaries attached to the principal Ministerial Offices as promised both by him and the Secretary to the Treasury in the Debate last Session, on the Vote for the Salary of the Lord President of the Council; and, if not, whether the Government would agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire and report thereon?

SIR W. HARCOURT: I have referred to the Report of the discussion on September 8, 1893, mentioned in the question, and I cannot find that either the Secretary to the Treasury or I myself gave any promise on this subject.

Was not the Motion withdrawn on the understanding that the Government would take up this question?

I think not.

I will raise the question again on the Vote on Account.

Public Trustees

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the responsibilities thrown upon executors and trustees by the pro- visions of the Finance Bill, the Government will consider the urgent necessity of introducing a Bill for constituting public trustees and executors, and passing it through all its stages during the present Session?

I should be very glad to see such a Bill, but I cannot undertake to pass it this Session.

Welsh Disestablishment Bill

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Established Church (Wales) Bill?

I cannot at present name a day. I hope it will be an early day.

Will it be before or after the Evicted Tenants Bill?

That I cannot say.

Lighthouse Illuminants

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the Correspondence between Shipowners, Chambers of Commerce, Mr. John R. Wigham, Members of Parliament, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Trinity House, the Board of Trade, and others, on the subject of Lighthouse Illuminants, which has taken place since the issue of the last Return on the subject (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 92, of Session 1893–4)?

said: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 12th of December last, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield said that the Correspondence had been published up to the end of February, 1893, and that that which ensued had not been such as to justify the cost incident to the printing of it at the public expense. There is very little which has occurred since that reply was given.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware there has been some additional Correspondence?

Yes; but I understand it would involve considerable expense to print it, and it is not thought the outlay would be justified. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member see the additional Correspondence.

The Late President Of The Board Of Trade

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I shall not appeal in vain for the indulgence of this House to grant me that which is never denied to Members who desire to make an explanation in connection with their personal position. When this House rose for the Recess, Sir, I had the honour of holding a responsible Office in Her Majesty's Government and the privilege of sitting with my colleagues on the Ministerial Bench. As hon. Members are aware, that Office I no longer hold and that privilege I no longer enjoy. While it is not within this House that I can deal with personal considerations affecting this change in my position, I cannot allow it to pass entirely unexplained. When, some weeks ago, my name was first mentioned in connection with certain legal proceedings, I thought it right at once to place my offcial position entirely at the disposal of the Prime Minister. For the generous consideration extended to me by him I desire to make the fullest acknowledgment, and I wish it were within my power to express my sense of obligation and to repay the debt I feel I owe to those with whom I have been recently associated. But, Sir, as time passed on, I recognised that, in the interests of the Office over which I presided, it was necessary that I should reconsider my position. I felt that the public had a right to be assured that the administration of the duties attached to my Office should be free from the slightest suspicion that any conflict might arise between personal and public considerations, and so it was I determined to cease to be the President of the Board of Trade. It may be, some will say, that I should have urged the acceptance of my first resignation. I will not dwell upon the friendly reluctance of the Prime Minister to consent, but I will make one personal confession. Few know how much attraction the discharge of the duties of my Office had for me. I was able to deal with subjects with which throughout my life I had been associated, and to attain results for which I had worked long and hard. To leave unfinished the task a man has set himself to accomplish is a sacrifice I can scarcely exaggerate, and certainly I was reluctant to make it. Having done so, I trust the House will not misunderstand me when I say that, however much I regret the severance from official life, I still enjoy some consolations. My colleagues can no longer be attacked through me, and suspicion, for which there was never the slightest foundation, can no longer attach to my Department. It will be my effort, thus freed, as a private Member of this House, to strive for the same objects and to labour for the same principles in the future as those with which my past life has been identified. One word more. Conscious of right, my mind is fully assured that when all I have done in connection with my personal affairs shall be fully and fairly ascertained, my friends and the public will know, as I know now, that I am entitled to declare that throughout my life, which has been dependent upon my own exertions, I have preserved my character free from stain or dishonour. I thank the House for having allowed me to make this statement.

Breaking A Pair

I do not wish to intrude upon the House a personal matter, and I am tenfold more reluctant after the touching statement of the right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade. But honour to every man is dear. Charges are made against every man—some great and small. My name has been trumpeted abroad, together with that of another hon. Member, in connection with what is called a "broken pair." Newspaper paragraphs on such a matter one gets accustomed to; I feel that newspaper men are perfectly entitled to make criticisms, and one does not complain. But my hon. Friend behind me, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mildmay)— whose name has been associated with mine in this affair—went down to his constituency the other day and made a speech. Someone there appears to have accused him of breaking a pair, and he seems to have been defending himself; but in defending himself he attacked me. The statement of an hon. Member of this House, when he impugns a brother Member's character, is, after all, a rather serious matter. My hon. Friend said—

"Unfortunately, Mr. Storey applied to Mr. Anstruther, the Liberal Unionist Whip, for a pair. Mr. Anstruther offered him Mr. Austen Chamberlain as a pair, and Mr. Storey accepted the pair and left the House. The next day Mr. Storey telegraphed to Mr. Anstruther to say that he had seen in the newspapers that Mr. Austen Chamberlain had been injured, and he intended to break his pair. Mr. Anstruther protested strongly against such an unprecedented action."

And then the hon. Member for Totnes added—

"It appeared to him that the man who was entitled to blame was Mr. Storey, who deliberately broke his pair."

It is no part of my business to make any attack upon the hon. Member. I am perfectly sure of this—that if he voted on the Thursday evening, from all I know of him, he felt that he was honourably entitled to do so. But I think I have— and I hope he will agree with me—a right to complain a little that, without ever notifying me, or without being personally cognisant of one of the facts, he went down to his constituency, and in defending himself accused me as the person who was guilty of dishonourable conduct. I wish to tell the hon. Member and the House that the statement that I accepted the pair and left the House is not founded on fact; the statement that the next day I telegraphed to the hon. Member for St. Andrews is not the fact; the statement that the next day the hon. Member for St. Andrews remonstrated with me is not the fact; and that the statement that I broke the pair is, I think, utterly outside the fact. I was in the Lobby on Monday, May 7, asking everybody for a pair. The hon. Member for St. Andrews said, "If you want a pair, I can give you one." I inquired, "Who is he? Do not give me a dead one." He replied, "Mr. Austen Chamberlain." I said, "That's all right." But, being old-fashioned, I added, "Can he come?" The answer was, "Well, he wants to come; he is only at home." I said, "All right." I went into the smoke-room; I took up a paper, and I read there that the hon. Member (Mr. A. Chamberlain), to the regret of all of us, had been gored by a bull. I felt that, if the hon. Member for St. Andrews knew that fact, I would not be bound by the pair; but, if he did not know it, I should feel myself bound by the pair. I immediately came back to the House—indeed I did not leave it until 12 o'clock. I sought the hon. Member for St. Andrews; and when at last I found him I continued the conversation. Turning round to him, I said, "Did you know when you paired me with Mr. Austen Chamberlain that he had been gored by a bull?" He replied, "No; I knew he had met with a slight accident, but had not the particulars." I said, "But you did not even tell me that. Understand now, I am not bound by that pair"; and I added, "and I do not think you treated me quite fairly." That was on the Monday, and the voting was to be on the Thursday. I, therefore, gave ample opportunity to the hon. Member to get another pair. But that is not all. When I said that, the hon. Member made no remark within my hearing. On the Tuesday I went north, where I was bound to be. I did not receive, either in person or by letter, from the hon. Member for St. Andrews, or from anybody on his behalf, any remonstrance or any suggestion that I was to be bound by the pair. I returned to the House on Thursday night. While I stood at the Bar, the hon. Member for St. Andrews passed me, and, turning to me, he said—and this was the first communication I had with him from the moment I had spoken to him on the Monday—"Are you going to vote"? Upon which I replied, I fear rather sharply, "Why do you ask? Why not"? He made no reply, and walked into the House. When the Division bell was rung, I walked into the Lobby and voted. Up to that moment I did not know that the hon. Member for Totnes was paired, nor had I from anyone the slightest intimation that I was bound on the Thursday to a pair which I had repudiated on the Monday.

I am very glad that this question has arisen, because it affords me an opportunity of defending my position. For some considerable time before the Division on the Budget, one of the Government Whips offered me a pair in the week beginning Monday, the 7th of May. Before I accepted that pair, I stipulated that if I was able to be in London in the latter part of the week I should be at liberty to transfer that pair to some other Unionist Member. That stipulation the Government Whip accepted. Before I left the House on Monday, the 7th, I explained to the hon. Member for St. Andrews the circumstance under which I had made the pair. On the following day, Tuesday, I wrote to him to say that, as I could be in the House in the latter half of the week, he was at liberty to transfer my pair to some other Unionist Member. On the following day, Wednesday, I got an intimation from him to the effect that I should be required to vote in the Division, as my pair had been transferred to the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. J. A. Chamberlain). I came up to the House, like the hon. Member for Sunderland, on the Thursday evening, and on learning that the Government Whips objected to my voting, I, before going into the Lobby, ascertained, on the authority of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, that so far from being incapacitated the hon. Member for East Worcestershire was prepared to come up to town and to record his vote had he not been informed that he was paired. After consideration it appeared to me to be distinctly my duty to record my vote. I thank the hon. Member (Mr. Storey) for the courtesy with which he has alluded to this matter, so far as I am myself concerned, and I, of course, accept his correction that his protest was made on the same evening as that on which he was asked to pair, and not on the next day. I acknowledge that I was wrong in that detail, though I do not think that is material. I understand, however, that the hon. Gentleman objects to the terms in which I alluded to his repudiation of the pair. I acknowledge, as he says, that I was not in the House during the greater part of the week, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. Anstruther) will speak directly on that point. But I can assure the hon. Member for Sunderland that, however much we may have questioned his action, I feel convinced that in pursuing that action he was impelled by a desire to do his duty to his constituents. The hon. Member has been in the House longer than I have, and his reputation for integrity and honesty of purpose cannot be questioned. I can, further, assure him that if any words I have used have caused him pain I am sincerely sorry. On the other hand, I hope that he will remember that I had been accused by the leading organ of the Government in London of deliberate, dishonourable conduct. That accusation had been disseminated throughout my constituency, and I think the House will agree with me when I say that there is little wonder that, in the face of such an accusation, I repudiated with considerable warmth a charge under which, I think, no Member of this House would be inclined to sit quiet.

I am very reluctant to obtrude myself upon the House; but as reference has been made to me, I think it is only courteous that I should say a word or two upon the subject in question. As regards the two hon. Members who have spoken, I think the explanations they have given must be perfectly satisfactory, and I need not say anything further with regard to them. But with reference to the version which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has given of what passed between us on Monday evening, I may say —and my recollection on the subject is, I think, as clear as his seems to be—that when the hon. Member came to me in the Lobby I told him everything I knew with regard to the slight accident that had occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. J. A. Chamberlain), and it is in my recollection—although I am quite certain that he will not bear me out—that I said to him, "I don't know whether you will think that good enough." I do not think frankness could have gone further—and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman, after this explanation on my part, will acquit me of any intention to deceive him or to misrepresent the facts of the case. I will only say, on behalf of us who undertake these somewhat delicate operations for the different Parties in this House, that it is a practice not for the convenience of the House, nor for our convenience, that these matters should be brought before the House. When personal questions between Members arise, it is, no doubt, their duty to make explanations in the House in order to set aside any reflections that may have been cast upon them; but as far as slight discrepancies between us are concerned, I do feel strongly that those are matters which should not he brought under the cognizance of the House, as the House can take no official notice of them, and the operation, therefore, becomes futile. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any intention to misrepresent the facts of the case. MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.): Affecting this delicate question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Chamberlain) will give us the nationality of the bull referred to.

[The subject then dropped.]

Motion

Irish Education Bill

Motion For Leave

I rise to ask the House for leave to bring in a Bill to amend and explain the Irish Education Act passed by the late Government in 1892. I trust the House will allow me to read the Bill a first time to-day, but it is not without importance, and I will take care that it is not put down for Second Reading until ample time has been allowed for its consideration, both in this House and in Ireland. The Act of 1892 has been found by experience to contain two defects. The first is administrative, and the second relates to expenses. By the Act of 1892 the School Attendance Committees have to be chosen half by National Boards and half by Local Authorities. Half of each Attendance Committee is to be chosen from Managers or Trustees of schools. Owing to the legal interpretation put upon this provision of the Acts, it has been found to be impossible to get a proportional representation of the Religious Denominations upon these committees. This Bill will make it discretionary for the Local Authorities and the National Board to say what proportion of each committee shall be School Managers or Trustees. The second defect in the Act affected the expenses of its administration. The draftsman used the expression "local rates"—a phrase which has no particular application in Ireland—and we propose by this Bill to enact that the Local Authority shall be able to devote to the expenses for carrying out of provisions of the Irish Education Act any local rate or funds it may have under its control or to levy a special rate for the express purpose of the administration of the Act. The Bill itself is very short and very plain. The need for it is urgent if there is to be a carrying out of the intention of Parliament expressed in the Act of 1892. With the promise that gentlemen from Ireland shall have ample time for the consideration of the Bill, I hope the House will now allow me to introduce it.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and explain 'The Irish Education Act, 1892.'"—(Mr. J. Morley.)

said, he wished to raise a strong protest against the introduction of the Bill. When the Education Act of 1892 was passed, it was on the distinct understanding that the schools of the Christian Brothers should be included in the national system of education. The object of this Bill was to bring the Act into operation in those places in Ireland where the strong feeling of the people had prevented it from coming into operation on the ground that the schools of the Christian Brothers had not been included in the system of national education. He failed to see where the obstacle for the inclusion of the Christian Brothers' schools in the system of National education lay, unless it were in the Chief Secretary himself. The pledge given by the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) when Chief Secretary on the passing of the Bill in 1892 was that this matter would be referred to the National Board. It had been referred to the National Board, which had decided in accordance with the feelings of the vast majority of the Irish people; but the Lord Lieutenant had put aside the decision of the National Board, and had refused to include the Christian Brothers in the national system of Education. He (Mr. Knox) could not refrain from raising a protest against what was, on the part of one Party or the other, a breach of faith with the Irish Members. The Christian Brothers had already, by the operation of those clauses of the Act which were in force, been put to very great difficulty. There were many places in which they were now carrying on their work under much greater difficulties than any other people who were engaged in elementary education in the United Kingdom. Members above the Gangway complained because their voluntary schools in England had to raise about 5 or 10 per cent. of the total cost of education by means of local subscriptions, but the Christian Brothers had to raise the whole cost of their schools by means of subscriptions from the people. He confessed that he looked at this matter as much from a secular educational point of view as from the point of view of the Christian Brothers. The Christian Brothers had built up what educationalists in this country had long been striving for—a bridge between the elementary system and the University system. Boys of poor parentage were enabled to pass by degrees from the elementary stage in the Christian Brothers' schools through the secondary stage to the Universities, and he protested in the name of education against this effort to strangle the attempt of the Christian Brothers to give to the poor children in Ireland the means of bettering themselves in life. He believed this Bill was not justified by the circumstances in Ireland, and, therefore, even at that initial stage, he raised his voice against it.

rose to continue the discussion.

Under the Standing Order I can only allow an explanatory statement to be made on behalf of the different sections of Members.

May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Order does not apply to Thursdays? Otherwise, how could we have debated the Welsh Disestablishment Bill as we did?

That is specially provided for by the Standing Order relating to matters at the commencement of Public Business.

I have not the Standing Order by me, Sir; but surely the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was brought in at the commencement of Public Business and was debated?

The Standing Order I am referring to relates to the introduction of Bills at the time of Public Business. That is a technical term which refers to the period before the Orders of the Day are entered upon.

asked whether he would be in Order in inquiring of the Chief Secretary whether he could hold out some hope that the pledge given by his predecessor in Office would be fulfilled?

was understood to say that he could make no statement on that point.

I must altogether deny that there was a pledge.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. Morley and Sir J. T. Hibbert.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 247.]

Orders Of The Day

Finance Bill—(No 190)

Committee

Order for Committee read.

, rising to a point of Order, said, he desired to take the ruling of the Speaker upon a very simple, but rather serious, point, the importance of which the House would appreciate when he stated it. He charged the Finance Bill with having gone beyond the Resolution upon which it was founded. Standing Order 58 laid down that the House would not proceed upon any Bill for granting money except upon a Resolution passed in Committee of the whole House. Accordingly, Resolutions had been passed, and the Preamble of this Bill set forth that the Commons had "freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant the several duties hereinafter mentioned." But on examination it would appear that one of the several duties imposed by the Bill had not been resolved upon by the Commons—he alluded to the increased Succession Duty embodied in Clause 15. That clause provided for a very great extra charge on real property by way of Succession Duty, since it provided that the value of the succession should be taken for the purpose of tax, not, as at present, on the value of an annuity of the net annual value, but on the principal value of the property. Taking as an illustration the average age of suc- cessors at 44, their interest would, under the present law, be represented by 14 years' purchase or thereabouts, and the charge would be on £14,000 odd; but if the same succession were to be taxed, as the Bill proposed, on its "principal value," that would be represented by 24 2–5th years' purchase, or £24,400, an increase of charge on over £10,000, and the duty payable would be, under Clause 15, far heavier than at present. But that was not all. This duty at present was paid by half-yearly instalments, and the successor practically got 4½ years credit. But Clause 15 required that the duty should be paid within 12 months, or else that interest should be paid on the unpaid balance at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. His position was that the clause did make a great increase in the duty, and that no Resolution had been passed in Committee of Ways and Means upon which the clause could be founded. If objection were made that this point should have been taken before Second Reading, he would point out that the practice was to allow errors which could be cured in Committee to be so remedied. But this was an error which could not be cured in Committee. It was a vice of origin. The defect was that Clause 15 had not the foundation to stand on— a Resolution—which it should have. It might be held that the House could not, under the words of the Standing Order, proceed with this Bill, inasmuch us it did not originate in Committee of the whole House, and that it might be necessary to discharge the Order for going into Committee, and to withdraw the Bill. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would take a more merciful view of the Standing Order and would rule that the House might proceed with the Bill from Clause 1 to Clause 14. He submitted, however, that when the House reached Clause 15 it would find itself without the necessary Resolution required by the Standing Order, and that before that clause was reached, therefore a further Resolution would be absolutely necessary. He desired to obtain the right hon. Gentleman's ruling upon this important point of Order.

It is important that the Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means should cover exactly all the provisions of the Bill subsequently introduced, and the hon. Gentleman has done right in referring to the importance of the matter, and also, I think, in drawing attention to that particular clause, Clause 15. In my opinion, the original Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, upon which this Bill is founded, did not contemplate the extra imposition of duty which may be involved by the operation of Clause 15. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary not to withdraw the whole Bill, as the hon. Member seems to contemplate, but, before we come to the clause, to go into Committee of Ways and Means and adopt a new Resolution which will cover the particular clause. But as the hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of withdrawing the whole Bill, I may say that in 1881 in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill of that year there were two clauses which were not covered by the original Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means—namely, those which related to the Stamp Duties on the transfer of property and to the Stamp Duty on the transfer of Stocks and Shares; and the consequence was that, before considering those two clauses, the House went again into Committee of Ways and Means and passed two sub-sequent Resolutions covering those clauses. Therefore, when Clause 15 is reached, the House will take no cognizance of it, unless a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means authorising the additional duties imposed by the clause has been previously agreed to. It will be necessary for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means and pass a Resolution that will cover the additional duties before the Committee can consider the clause.

I thank you, Sir, for the clear explanation you have given to the House upon this point. The hon. Member was perfectly right in calling attention to what was certainly an oversight. The view taken by the Government when this Resolution was drawn up was that, as the Succession and Legacy Duties were not interfered with in the way of raising the rate, it was not necessary to deal more specifically with them in the general Resolution which was passed. But the fact was overlooked that, although the duties were not raised, the result of the method of assessment would be to raise, in many cases, additional sums. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary to have the general Resolution made more specific, so as to apply to the Succession Duty and covering and providing for the alteration in the method of assessment and the levying of that duty. I will take care that at the proper time that matter shall be brought forward in Committee of Ways and Means, and that the Resolution shall be so drawn as to remove any doubt upon the subject and make the clause regular.

Sir, I rise to a point of Order. It is necessary that the matter should be brought forward as soon as possible, and I therefore desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will be able to bring on the Resolution. Until we know whether the Resolution will be carried it will be difficult for us to estimate the full effect of the Succession Duty. That Resolution is necessary to the Government proposal as a whole, and though it may not be necessary to withdraw the Bill, I venture to urge that it is desirable to bring the Resolution forward at the earliest possible moment, in order that we may be in possession of the decision of the House in Committee upon a point which it seems to me is of very considerable importance.

I will consider when the Resolution can be brought before the House.

moved—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, and in the first place to report to the House the portion relating to Customs and Inland Revenue."

He said, the course proposed by the Government would establish a bad precedent, and deprive the House of Commons of its just right to have every distinct subject presented separately for debate and decision in a distinct Bill. To find a real precedent they must go back more than 100 years. If hon. Members would look at Clause 37 and compare it with the Preamble of the Bill they would at once see how incongruous it was. The Preamble recited that certain provisions were to be enacted—

"Towards raising the necessary Supplies to defray the public expenses and making an addition to the Public Revenue;"

but Clause 37 had nothing to do with raising Supplies or with making an addition to the Public Revenue; it did not grant any Revenue, nor was it covered by any part of the Preamble; it dealt with a totally different subject, and one of great importance. It dealt with the Suez Canal shares and the interest on the loans for Imperial and Naval Defence in a way which had no relation to the Preamble. That was under Sub-section 3. With regard to Sub-section 4 there was nothing to constitute a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. Then the next Subsection 5 was a repealing section. None of those sub-sections had anything whatever to do with the Preamble of the Bill. He did not say that the Bill was actually out of Order, because he presumed it was covered by the ruling of the Speaker that this was not a question exactly of Order, but one of policy which it was desirable for the House to adopt. What were the precedents? In 1787 Mr. Pitt included in one Bill the provisions for raising new duties consequent on the Treaty with France—those to effect the consolidation of the duties of Customs and Excise, and a provision relating to the Debt. As regarded the Treaty there were considerable differences of opinion, and Mr. Bastard moved an Instruction to divide the Bill into two, because it was unconstitutional to combine two separate objects in one Bill, and by that means deprive Members of their undoubted right to discuss and vote on each subject separately. To put the Commercial Treaty under convoy, so to say, of the part relating to the consolidation of duties, was a most pernicious example of coupling distinct considerations which ought to be kept separate. He was supported by a man whose words ought to carry great weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for Scotland. Mr. Fox, in supporting the Motion, said—

"Not only had their constituents a right to know the reason that governed their votes upon each separate and distinct measures, but they, as Representatives, had a right to insist that their reasons for voting upon every distinct measure should be known; and in the present case it was impossible for their reason to go to their constituents. They might be called one day to vote for the Bill on account of the consolidation of dutes being approved, and the next day to vote against it on account of the Commercial Treaty being disapproved."

Then, quoting from Hansard, Sir Grey Cooper, in the course of the Debate, referred to several precedents of cases from 1680 to 1774, and averred that whenever two distinct matters had been combined in one Bill, an Instruction for separation had never been refused. Those earlier precedents were not available in Hansard, and he had not been able to obtain them, but the statement of Sir Grey Cooper was not challenged as inaccurate. Mr. Pitt, however, he need not say, carried his point. It seemed, however, to have been generally felt that the course taken was unconstitutional, and there was no repetition of the precedent until the year 1861, if, indeed, that could be called a precedent. In the previous year the abolition of the Paper Duties, which had been carried in that House on the Third Reading by a majority of nine only, was thrown out in the House of Lords, and in 1861 the repeal of the Paper Duties was voted in Committee of Ways and Means, instead of being inserted in a separate Pill. On the Second Reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, Mr. Pope Hennessy raised the point; but the Speaker, without expressing any opinion on the policy, ruled that, though the proposals of the Government went in some respects beyond the service of the year, they were all required for the service of the year. It would, however, be observed that the course now proposed went far beyond the case of 1861, because, after all, the provisions of that year referred to duties, while the present Bill dealt with questions having no relation whatever to duties. The only other case approaching to a precedent which he had been able to find was in 1877, when a provision of minor importance relating to savings banks was introduced into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He was not sure whether in that year any proposal was made to divide the Bill. He would not pretend to say that there might not be some other precedent, but, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer could cite some, it would seem that the precedent of 1787 was the only one since 1680. Surely the fact that there was only one precedent in 200 years, and that more than a century ago, was a strong reason against the course which the Government asked the House to adopt. But if there were no precedents for the course taken by the Government, there were plenty the other way. He would refer only to two. In 188o, when Mr. Childers thought it necessary to suspend for a year the Sinking Fund, he introduced his proposal in a separate Bill; and in the following year, 1886, when his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer held the Office he now held, he also suspended for a time the Sinking Fund, and thought it necessary and right to do so in a separate Bill. If it was right that those matters should be dealt with in a separate Bill when the Budget proposals were simple, it was surely far more important in the case of a Budget which contained matters much more complex, much more doubtful, and much more debateable. Moreover, the present proposal made a permanent change, while that of 1886 affected only the year itself. He maintained, then, that there was only one precedent in 200 years, and that more than a century ago; that the clause dealing with the income of the Suez Canal shares and the two Defence Acts had nothing to do with imposing taxes or levying duties, which was the proper function of the Committee of Ways and Means; and that they could not be fairly described as raising supplies or making an addition to the Public Revenue. In fact, Clause 37, which raised questions of great importance, was entirely out of place in a Ways and Means Bill. If they allowed the Bill to go on as it was, following obsolete precedents, they would be setting a bad example, and for those reasons he begged to move the Instruction which stood in his name.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, and in the first place to report to the House the portion relating to Customs and Inland Revenue."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)

I have some difficulty in understanding the object of the Motion of my right hon. Friend, because, as regards the actual proposal as to the Sinking Fund, there is, as far as I know, no serious opposition in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, in his criticisms of the other parts of the Bill, took care to invite me to adopt the course of treating the moneys under the Naval Defence Act as part of the Debt, and therefore, so far as the substance of that proposal is concerned, it may be taken as agreed upon by all Parties. My right hon. Friend says, "Oh, but it is right and proper that every separate subject in finance should be discussed in separate Bills." I take issue with him on that. As a matter of fact, the rule is exactly the opposite. It is very remarkable that my right hon. Friend should have found it necessary to attack the financial policy of Tory statesmen for the last 100 years. He attacked Mr. Pitt's Budget—the greatest ever known. I will read to the House what the title of that Budget was, and then the House will judge how far we have departed from traditions and established principles of finance in this country. Now, the title of the Budget Bill of Mr. Pitt was this—

"An Act for repealing several duties of the Customs and Excise, and approving other duties in lieu thereof, for permitting the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise into this country, and for applying certain unclaimed moneys remaining in the Exchequer for the payment of annuities on lives in reduction of the National Debt."

My right hon. Friend denounced Mr. Pitt. I have not the courage to do that.

I beg pardon; I did not denounce Mr. Pitt.

At all events, my right hon. Friend disapproved of Mr. Pitt's proposals. If my right hon. Friend will allow me to say so, I prefer to err with Mr. Pitt rather than be right with my right hon. Friend. There grew up, no doubt, afterwards a practice under which different taxes were placed in different Bills. In 1860 the House of Lords took advantage of that situation to reject the Paper Duties Bill, and to, in fact, destroy in that way the financial proposals of that year. During the Administration of Lord Palmerston a Committee was appointed to consider how to deal with that action of the House of Lords. There were many recommendations made upon the subject, and among them one which specially commended itself to the House of Commons. And here again my right hon. Friend comes into conflict with a Tory statesman. Having disapproved of Mr. Pitt's, he now disapproves of Mr. Disraeli's plan. Mr. Disraeli said, in July, 1860—

"I come now to the second method of defending our rights,"

—that is, the rights of the House of Commons, which had been imperilled and injured—

"the second method suggested by my right hon. Friend, and, I take it. adopted in the Resolution;"

—that was, a Resolution of the House of Commons in defence of their rights against the House of Lords—

"that is, by insisting that the whole of our financial scheme shall be embodied in one Bill."

—that was condemning the principle for which my right hon. Friend contends—

"We do not—at least I for one and the Prime Minister for another do not—question the right of the House of Lords to reject such a Bill; but, of course, the responsibility for such a step would under these circumstances be greatly enhanced, and the difficulty of disturbing the financial arrangements of the House of Commons proportionately increased. For my own part. Sir, I have no objection to such a course; I should have liked, for example, that that course should have been pursued this year; I should have liked to have had the whole scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one Bill."

That was the course approved by Mr. Disraeli in 1860, and that was the course adopted in 1861, when the precedents were fully discussed. Lord Russell made a statement then with reference to Mr. Pitt's action in 1787 in the great Budget referred to. This is what Lord Russell said on May 13, 1861—

"Next year came the memorable Act to which my right hon. Friend has alluded. It was a year in which Mr. Pitt accomplished very great public objects. By means of a Commercial Treaty he settled our relations with France upon a footing likely to tend to the benefit of both countries, and by an elaborate and minute investigation of the Customs and Excise he framed 3,700 Resolutions, by which the various Excise and Customs Duties were reduced under a single and separate head. A Bill was introduced and sent to the House of Lords embracing the Commercial Treaty; and, likewise, a measure of consolidation. He also-imposed a tax by that Bill. When that Bill went to the House of Lords it was argued by Lord Carlisle, 'There are three different objects: We may approve the Commercial Treaty; we may not approve the consolidation; above all, we may object to the tax. Let the Bill be divided, and do not let the House go into Committee.' But he was answered by Lord Sydney, who at that time was Secretary of State, All these matters belong to one arrangement, and tend to one end.' That is, in fact, the question in the present Bill. These different matters all form part of one arrangement, and tend to one end—namely, the settlement of the finance of the year."

From that time to this that has been the accepted doctrine, and it must still be accepted if the House of Commons intends to preserve its rights over the finance of this country. I begin to suspect why it is that the right hon. Gentleman, with the support of hon. Members opposite, wants to go back to the system under which the House of Lords was able to overthrow the finance of the year. Hon. Members opposite want to go back to a system which was condemned by a Committee of this House, by Mr. Disraeli, by Lord Palmerston, and by Lord John Russell—the principle of not putting the whole of the financial proposals for the year into one Bill. The right hon. Baronet said that the case of M. Pitt is the only precedent, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian quoted cases previous to that where such powers have been given. He quoted the Act of George I., in which the granting of the taxes was based on the Act itself, with full authority to levy Exchequer bills; and there are a number of other instances with which I need not trouble the House, in which measures relating to the Debt have been put into a Bill with the same Preamble as that the right hon. Baronet has referred to as being inconsistent with treating different financial proposals in different Bills. It is a remarkable thing that in 1861 the very Motion that is made now by the right hon. Gentleman was made by Mr. Newdegate, who was not fortunate enough to get the support of the responsible Opposition of the day. He moved—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill so that each of the taxes to which it relates can be treated separately."

That is the view that was taken at that time The right hon. Baronet having the same Motion, I may mention to him that Mr. Newdegate—

That is not the same Motion as mine. I propose that all taxes should be taken together, but that the part of the Bill that has nothing to do with taxes should be taken separately.

The right hon. Gentleman's arguments were against that. What does the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman suggest? Why, that whether the matter referred to is a tax or a question like this, dealing with £2,300,000, this House should place in the hands of the House of Lords the power of ruining the, whole of the financial arrangements of the year by rejecting one of the Bills into which it is proposed to divide the proposals contained in the Budget Bill. This, of course, is the object to which the Motion of the right hon. Baronet is directed. I have shown how the right hon. Gentleman has disapproved the conduct of Mr. Pitt and the words of Mr. Disraeli; and, as I have said, Lord John Russell declared:—

"These different matters all form part of one arrangement, and tend to one end—namely, the settlement of the finance of the year."

A little later on there was an Act passed relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and in this Act Savings Banks were included. Savings Banks cannot be said to have anything to do with taxes, and yet the two came under the same Preamble. The Preamble of that Act. says that Her Majesty's faithful Commons have resolved to give and grant unto Her Majesty the several duties mentioned in the measure, and under that Preamble there is found a whole section dealing with Savings Banks, and therefore affecting the Debt. In this case we have again an instance of a Conservative Minister bringing in a Bill relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, and including proposals relating to Debt in the form of Savings Banks. That is a complete answer to every argument that has been used by the right hon. Gentleman. His argument from the Preamble disappears altogether. Before I framed this Bill I took great care to ascertain that it was founded upon sound precedents, and I have not yet exhausted the list of them. In 1880 (on March 11) Sir S. Northcote introduced a Bill relating to the Probate and Administration Duties which had not formed part of the Budget and which had not formed part of the Financial Statement, and he, having the Budget Bill and this Bill in existence, said—

"What I would now propose to do would be to read the new Bill a second time concurrently with the Budget Bill, and then to move that there should be an Instruction given to the Committee to amalgamate the Bills into one, so that the practice, the very proper practice, of this House having all its financial arrangements in one Bill and sending them up to the other House in that form may be preserved."

Here, then, you have a Conservative statesman who amalgamates two Bills in order that the financial arrangements of the year might go up to the House of Lords in one measure. But now you are proposing to upset the whole practice and the principle established in 1787 by Mr. Pitt, and maintained in 1880 by Sir S. Northcote, in order, apparently, that you may give the House of Lords control over the finance of the country. You seek to separate the Bill in order that with impunity the House of Lords may reject part of it; yet every precedent, every authority, is in favour not of separating, but of amalgamating all the measures relating to the finance of the year. I have indicated one object which may be aimed at by this Resolution; but there is another, and that is, that it would waste a great deal of time. If you could succeed in having two Bills you would have two separate Statements, two Committees, two Reports, and two Third Readings. You could waste a number of days by this process of separation. I confess that one of the great: objects of the procedure which we have adopted is to economise the time of the House. I think that it is for the public advantage that the House of Commons should keep absolute and entire control of the finances of this country. It was found necessary to establish that principle in 1860 when it had been violated in the case of the Paper Duties. But there are special reasons, in my opinion, in the case of the present Budget why we should not place the Bill and the finance of the country at the mercy of the House of Lords, and there are special reasons also why we should make such arrangements as will prevent any unnecessary waste of the time of the House. My right hon. Friend says that the House ought to be able to deal with each of the items contained in the Bill individually and separately. Well, so we can. Hon. Members who disapprove of the contents of any clause can move its rejection or propose some modification of it. No practical evil can arise from the manner in which this Bill has been put together, and I am glad to-know that the plan which we have followed of combining in one Bill the whole financial arrangements of the year has the entire approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. That being so, I do hope that hon. Members will reject this Motion for an Instruction, which, if adopted, would imperil the financial supremacy of the House of Commons and lead to a great waste of public time.

I do not know whether any Member on either side of the House remembered when the right hon. Gentleman was declaiming as to the motive at the bottom of this Instruction and dealing with what he considered to be the precedents, that he himself on a similar occasion, before he was as orthodox as he is with regard to the Sinking Fund, suspended the Sinking Fund and took the course of dealing with the National Debt in a separate Bill instead of combining it with the Budget. That was in 1886. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in an undertone when he said there were precedents the other way, and he was evidently too modest to speak on the precedent he had himself established. Is it not preposterous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Motion is introduced for the purpose of enabling the House of Lords to obtain more power? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it? If so, did he think it when he took the course I have mentioned—in 1886? It has been invariably the custom, without a single exception, since 1787, that when the Sinking Fund or the National Debt has been dealt with it has been dealt with in a separate Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) approves of bringing the whole finance of the year into one Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) sanctioned the principle of the Sinking Fund being dealt with separately in 1885 (in the time of Mr. Childers), and he again sanctioned that course in 1886, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer set the example of suspending Sinking Funds. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman "was serious in those passages in which he referred to the House of Lords. In these later years of democratic government, whenever the right hon. Gentleman can find an opportunity of flaunting the red flag of the House of Lords before his Party he never misses it, and so wrapped up is the right hon. Gentleman in his favourite pursuit that he abandons that function he performs with much greater ability and dignity—namely, that of a Constitutional lawyer. I think that anyone who has studied the Constitutional precedents with regard to the National Debt would, not on account of the House of Lords but on account. of the privileges of the House of Commons, have taken the course taken by the right hon. Member for Midlothian during the whole of his career. The right hon. Gentleman quoted precedents, and how well they must have sounded to his own friends and to anyone not acquainted with the other side ! In the celebrated case of 1787 no allusion was made in the Debates to the comparatively small point of interest on Annuities being devoted to the reduction of the National Debt. I have read carefully much of what has been written on the subject. The point is that Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Carlisle, and all the other authorities the right hon. Gentleman has quoted as speaking of bringing the whole finance of the year into one Bill were simply dealing with taxes or the repeal of taxes upon the people, and there was no question whatever of dealing with the National Debt. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman was scarcely candid in endeavouring to induce the House to believe that this was covered by the phrase "the whole financial business of the year." The context shows distinctly that it was a question of taxation or the repeal of taxation or matters connected with Inland Revenue, and that the National Debt was not in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days, and I challenge any colleague of the right hon. Gentleman to find in the Debates any sanction for the course now pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with the National Debt in a Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to produce any precedent since 1787. There is no other precedent. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the case in which Sir Stafford North-cote amalgamated his taxation Bills in one measure. In that case, however, a dissolution had been announced a few days previously, and it was thought desirable to make as much progress as possible. On hurried action under such circumstances as those the right hon. Gentleman wishes to build a precedent. I must warn the House against being misled by the phrase, "The whole financial arrangements of the year." Is that which he introduces into this Bill—this repeal of the financial parts of the Imperial Defence Act and the Naval Defence Act—part of the finance of the year? Is it part of the financial arrangements of the year? No. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman repeals the financial arrangements of these two important Bills, and for that he ought to find a precedent. The right hon. Gentleman treats the matter in the lightest possible way and jokes—because he cannot, I am sure, have meant it seriously—about our making this Motion in the interest of the House of Lords. But is there not a serious side to the precedent the right hon. Gentleman is setting? Hitherto dealings with the National Debt have been considered sufficiently important to be dealt with in separate measures. I say that the House of Commons have a right, and hon. Members opposite will in future wish, I am sure, to retain that right, to maintain the whole of their privileges with regard to action relating to the Sinking Fund and the National Debt. I put it to supporters of the Government whether, if they were in Opposition, they would be glad to see such questions hidden away in the very last clauses of a complicated Bill such as that before the House? The right hon. Gentleman says we have got the Second Heading. No, we have not got the Second Reading. But supposing we had, the right hon. Gentleman could not assume that we should have assented to this proposal, and we could only dissent from it by voting against the whole of the Budget, part of which we might have approved. This shows the difficulty that is occasioned by putting the two subjects into one Bill. What I wish to put very seriously to hon. Members is this: Are they going to depart from the precedents which have been followed with regard to the National Debt since 1787—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, as much as by anyone else? As for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman about the House of Lords getting their powers increased in consequence of the steps we are taking, such a notion never entered into the thoughts of the Opposition for a moment. We were bound to take the course we have taken, and I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in our place he would have taken the same course. I have had to deal several times with the National Debt, but I never ventured to include it in a Budget Bill. Such a course would have been very convenient, but I am sure that the great constitutional lawyer who now leads the House would have seen in it a departure from constitutional precedent, and would have made quite as strong a speech as he has done this evening, but without introducing the spice of the House of Lords. In the interests of precedent and of preserving to the House of Commons full opportunity of dealing with measures affecting the National Debt and the Sinking Fund, I shall support the Motion of my right hon. Friend.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had used very strong language about the special merits of having the whole financial arrangements of one year in one Bill. But how had the right hon. Gentleman managed to scrape up his small balance of last year? He had done it by introducing a special Bill by which he was enabled to take a sum of £300,000 out of the Treasury Chest. The right hon. Gentleman allowed that Bill to run the gauntlet of the House of Lords. It came very badly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dilate with such virtue on his past history when last year he broke the very rules which he now laid down. There appeared to be something more at the bottom of the matter than the putting of the whole of the financial arrangements of the year into one Bill. He fully agreed that it was desirable to put the whole of the taxation of the year into one Bill. The present Bill, however, did a great deal more than provide for the finance of the year. He was by no means inclined to be entirely bound by precedent, but he thought that when precedent went back as far as it did in the present case it should receive some attention. The clauses concerning the Suez Canal, the Naval Defence Act, and the suspension of the Sinking Fund were in no way a necessary part of the Budget Bill. He himself most emphatically objected to the suspension of the Sinking Fund. Ever since 1886, when the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) was in Opposition, there had been no stauncher opponent than he of any attack on the Sinking Fund, and he (Mr. Bartley) had always supported the right hon. Gentleman even in attacking the late Government for interfering with the Sinking Fund. There were a great many Members in the House who protested against any interference with the Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman last year departed from the high principle which he now laid down. If it was necessary last year to have a special Bill to enable the right hon. Gentleman to appropriate £300,000, without which he would have absolutely had a deficiency in the last year's revenue, why should he assert that those Members who were arguing that there should be a separate Bill for touching the Sinking Fund were simply doing so because they wished the House of Lords to throw it out? That was an insinuation that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have made. It might sound very well on a platform at Derby or elsewhere, but it was not the remark of a statesman in any sense. Of course, it was desirable that all the taxation for the year should be included in one Bill; but this present Bill did a great deal more than provide for the finances of the year. The clause concerning the Suez Canal, the Naval Defence Act, and the Suspension of the Sinking Fund, were in no way taxation, or a necessary part of the Budget Bill. No doubt it would be possible to include anything in it by making reference to the clauses in the title; but the principle was thoroughly unsound. He trusted that, as the question involved was a constitutional one, the Committee would go to a Division on it. They ought to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why he had changed his position, and why he did this year what last year he declared it would be wickedness to do. They had a right to think that there was something behind this Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he and his friends should certainly resist the attempt to override the judgment of the House.

I think some answer should be made to the right hon. Gentleman, who, the House must feel, demolished entirely the only excuse the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to put forward for the course he has taken this Session. The precedents he cited show clearly enough that the course taken on this occasion is without precedent. The right hon. Gentleman has not only dealt with the taxes for the year, but, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, he deals also with the National Debt in the same Bill. I venture to say that even the title of the Bill, which is

"to grant certain duties and customs and inland revenue, and to make other provision for the financial arrangements of the year,"

shows that it will make financial arrangements which have no reference to this year whatever. They will extend far beyond the present year. Among other things, what does the Bill do? It repeals three separate Acts of Parliament that were passed at three separate times in three separate Bills, and which have no reference whatever to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill of the year. I remember the indignation of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer against my right hon. Friend when he proposed to deal with the Beer Duties, and I know how my right hon. Friend was forced to commit himself to a statement that the money was to be dealt with within the financial year in the Bill passed that Session. It was ruled against him that he could not hang up a certain sum of money it was proposed to set aside. The right hon. Gentleman will admit it was necessary to bring in a separate Bill to call in aid the balances of the Treasury Chest.

It was not necessary.

Then the right hon. Gentleman took a very unnecessary course. We may at all events conclude that he thought it was desirable to bring in a separate Bill in order to avoid the raising of the question which is now being raised. I think the Government might have attempted to offer some defence for departing from all precedents since 1787. I think they have treated my right hon. Friend with scant courtesy in leaving without any reply whatever the very serious indictment he brought against the Government.

said, he wished to ask, as a private Mem- ber, if the Government would not give some explanation? It was obviously necessary that the control of the National Debt should be kept as a separate arrangement from the other Budget proposals of the Government. Strong arguments had been urged why that should be done, and yet no kind of reply had been offered by the Government. This conspiracy of silence could not answer. An explanation would have to be given by the Government either on this or on some other occasion.

The point that has been raised is not a large or important one. I think everything that could be said has been said on both sides; and that is the only reason why there has been no reply to the speech referred to.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 161.—(Division List, No. 51.)

The following Instructions also stood on the Paper:—

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach,—On Order for Committee on Finance Bill being read, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill altering the Composition Duty so that it shall be made to correspond with the Death Duties chargeable under the Bill upon property belonging to individuals.

Mr. Grant Lawson,—On Order for Committee on Finance Bill being read, to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions in the Bill to enable existing settlements of property affected by the Bill to be modified.

There are two more Instructions on the Paper, but they are not in Order, inasmuch as they are not covered by any Resolution adopted by the House in Committee of Ways and Means. The first raises a charge on property, and that can only be done by Resolution sanctioned in Committee of Ways and Means. The second, dealing with settlements, is not, I think, within the purview of the Bill, and it has not been covered by any previous Resolution sanctioned in Committee of Ways and Means.

Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

rose to move, in page 1, line 16, after "every," to insert,

"person who may receive any property real or personal from any."

said, this Amendment was out of Order. It would increase the existing Legacy Duty, and change the nature of it and the persons who paid it, and there had been no preliminary Resolution passed empowering the House to make what would he equivalent to an increase of Legacy Duty.

Whether it would increase the Legacy Duty would surely depend upon a subsequent part of the clause to which we have not come as yet.

The matter has been carefully considered, and that is the conclusion I have come to.

I need hardly say that I do not desire to dispute your ruling, but it throws the whole discussion of the Bill into a form never contemplated by any gentleman on this side of the House, and makes it absolutely imperative that the Government should without further delay bring forward the terms of the Resolution which is required, as the Speaker has ruled, for Clause 15 of the Bill. I think I shall prove what I have to say on this point, and I hope the Government will take into account the special difficulties and circumstances in which we find themselves. Our view has been—and we expressed it upon the Second Reading of the Bill—and is, that the proper and equitable way of dealing with the question of the Death Duties is by making this portion of the charge fall upon the person who receives the money, and not to charge the duty upon the corpus of the person who had the money once, but who, being dead, has it no longer. We have always maintained and still contemplate bringing forward Amendments to carry out that principle. As I understand the ruling of the Chairman, it will be difficult, if not almost impossible, to raise this question by way of Amendment, and our sole resource in dealing with the situation will be to discuss and to divide against every clause in which the corpus of the property is dealt with; but that is not a very convenient way of proceeding, nor is it consistent with the dignity of the Committee. This is a most important point. The Government bring in their Bill without even a sufficient number of Resolutions to cover the Bill itself, and they announce their intention of com- pleting the work of bringing in the necessary Resolutions at some late and at present undefined date. We want to know whether they will not bring in the Resolution at once, so that we may be able to draft our Amendment to cover this alteration of duty? The right hon. Gentleman will see that if we are precluded by the Rules of the House from converting his duty on the corpus of the property into a duty on the amount of the legacy received by the individual legatee we are practically reduced to a voting machine for one of the main principles involved in the Bill. We may vote against the Government, but we are incapable of amending their proposal. That is not consistent with the dignity of the Committee nor with the carrying on the business of the Committee in a business-like spirit. I quite feel, Sir, that you had no choice but to give the ruling you did upon the point; but how are we to get out of the difficulty we are thereby placed in? The only way is that we should have some opportunity of having a Resolution brought forward by the Government to enable us to raise this point. We can hardly ask them to do that; but at all events let them bring forward their own Resolutions, which they must bring forward, and which will enable us to discuss the Amendments down on the Paper on this very point. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us in what terms he means to move the subsequent Resolution, and I propose we should adjourn the further discussion of this matter until we know the terms of the Resolution of the Government and until we see whether we cannot move an Amendment to the Resolution which would enable us to deal with a subject which everybody in the Committee, whether he agrees with our view or not, must admit to be germane to the Bill, intimately bound up with the whole principle of the Bill, of a character which every Opposition has a right to discuss, and which, so far as we can see, not only have they a right to discuss, but to press on the Government as being the logical conclusion of their own theory of finance. That being so, feeling the position in which we have been placed by the unexpected ruling made from the Chair, and feeling the position is one which makes further discussion almost useless to-night, I beg now to move that you report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. A. J. Balfour.')

On a question of Order, I wish to ask whether a Motion to report Progress can he made without any Question being before the Chair? In order that a. Debate may be adjourned there must, I submit, be some Question before the Chair.

The right hon. Gentleman has concluded his statement by moving to report Progress, which is the Question now before the Chair.

Sir, any pretext to waste time seems to be sufficient for some hon. Members; but of all pretexts to waste time, in my opinion, the most mischievous is when the Leader of the Opposition, in order to attack the Chairman of Committees' ruling, moves to report Progress because he does not approve of it. The most injurious course to the conduct of the House of Commons is that which the right hon. Gentleman has just set the example of taking. What is the case? Every man acquainted with the Rules of the House must know that the proposal which has been ruled out of Order was obviously out of Order. The plan of the Bill is to charge the duty upon the corpus of the property, and all the Resolutions in Committee were founded upon that principle. Then the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with a totally different plan. It is not an Amendment to the plan of the Bill, but the rejection of that plan, and the substitution in the Bill of a totally different plan, having no relation to it, and being in contradiction to it; and the right hon. Gentleman pretends to be astonished that it was ruled out of Order. The A B C of Order in this House would show such a proposal to be out of Order, but because the ruling does not suit the book of the Leader of the Opposition he moves the adjournment of the House. I hope the country will note the way in which the right hon. Gentleman wishes the business of the House to be conducted. The Opposition have never dared to face this Budget fairly and frankly. They have never dared to oppose its principles or attack it, but they have endeavoured by a side wind and by every subterfuge to escape from it; but of all the methods of wasting the time of the House of Commons and of defying the authority of the Chair, I venture to denounce this as the worst instance with which I have ever been acquainted.

If the art of Parliamentary debate consisted in imputing motives to opponents the right hon. Gentleman is one of the most distinguished Parliamentarians of our time. If bluster and misrepresentation are to be the methods adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in the conduct of this Bill through the House, I can only tell him that the task which must under any circumstances have been a difficult one will in his hands be almost impossible. The elementary duty, I will not say of a Member, but of a Leader of the House, is to show some slight courtesy to those who have not done anything of which he has a right to complain; and unless the right hon. Gentleman can approach this subject in a very different temper and spirit he will find himself confronted with a task which it will be difficult even for him to surmount. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough among the imputations which he contrived to compress into the brief space of five minutes to include the suggestion that I intended by the Motion that I made to make a covert attack upon the occupant of the Chair. Nothing was further from my intention. The ruling came upon me as a surprise, hut I saw the great force of the argument by which the ruling was supported, and it never occurred to me to dispute it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we dare not meet his Budget by a direct attack. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely hard to please. We voted against the Second Reading, which the right hon. Gentleman carried by a majority of 14, and we mean to vote against a good many of the provisions in the Bill, and to meet him directly, because we think the proposal bad and unjust. All we are asking for is to be allowed that liberty of debate without which Committee of the House will become a farce. I, therefore, earnestly impress upon the House the propriety of letting the Opposition discuss a Resolution which will enable them to bring in Amendments which, after the ruling of the Chairman, we could not propose at the present stage. Otherwise our deliberations will be reduced to a farce, and we shall be turned into a mere voting machine—a machine not for altering or modifying the Budget, but for saying whether we will take it as a whole or not. That is the function of the House on the Second Reading or the Third Reading; but it is not the function of the House in Committee. It is in order that the House may perform its proper function in Committee that I press the desirability of now adjourning and giving the Government time to do that which they ought to have done three weeks ago— namely, laying on the Table the Resolutions necessary to cover the provisions of their own Budget.

said, that unless the adjournment of the subject was now agreed to, so that the Government should have an opportunity of bringing in the Resolution which they admitted to be necessary, the Opposition would be precluded from discussing this most important part of the Bill The Opposition were placed in a most unfair position by this action on the part of the Government. And when the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that in putting down this Amendment he must be ignorant of the A B C of Parliamentary procedure, he must tell the right hon. Gentleman that before putting down the Amendment he consulted the recognised authorities on Parliamentary procedure, who gave him to understand that it was in Order. That fact only showed what great difference of opinion there might be as to whether a Resolution was in Order or not. Under present circumstances they really could not discuss the Budget fairly, and he thought, therefore, that the Government were bound to adopt the course suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

said, he regretted that any heat should have been introduced into the Debate. The matter in dispute was really for the convenience of the House. At any rate, it was a question whether the convenience which the Government proposed to take to themselves was to be extended to the Opposition. Early in the evening it became apparent that sooner or later the Government would have to adjourn the proceedings on the Bill in order that they might bring in a Resolution. That Resolution the Government was prepared to bring in at a time to suit their own convenience, but when it was suggested that the Resoution should be brought in at a time to suit the Opposition as well as the Government it was said the proposal was of the most revolutionary character, and should be met only with denunciations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University had said that before ho put his Amendment on the Paper he had consulted a high Parliamentary authority—

Order, order ! That is not the matter before the Committee. The hon. Member must not advance reasons why the Amendment was put down.

said, he had no desire to oppose the authority of the Chair, but he thought he was entitled to show some reasons why Progress should be reported, for the purpose of making in Order, on some future occasion, the Amendment which by the ruling of the Chairman was now out of Order. He submitted that it would not defeat the whole scheme of the Bill if the Motion were accepted and the matter considered on a subsequent occasion. From the way the measure was introduced it was obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to shut out Amendments of that nature, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to avail himself of a technicality in order to avoid discussion upon a matter of such great importance. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill he said its object was to impose taxation according to the ability to bear it. All the Opposition desired was a fair opportunity to show how the burden of taxation might be placed on the right shoulders.

said, he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University was desirous of moving was one for the discussion of which an opportunity should be given. But if the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not taken no opportunity for the discussion of that Amendment would be available. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had complained of obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman could at once remove all obstruction—if there was obstruction—by undertaking that the subject of the Amendment should be discussed at some other time. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse to allow the Amend- ment to be discussed. It could not be that the proposal was indefensible. The question was whether a rate of duty should be established that would fall with crushing effect on a certain class of poor property owners—

I rise to Order, Mr. Chairman. I wish to know whether a discussion as to a rate of duty falling with crushing effect is in Order on this Motion?

No; I do not think it is. I think the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the limits.

said, the hon. Gentleman had not allowed him to finish the sentence. He contended that the Leader of the House had a responsibility thrown upon him to provide an opportunity for the discussion of what was admittedly a most important proposal, and it was desirable there should be an adjournment in order that such opportunity should be found. If the object of the Government was to avail themselves of the Forms of the House in order to force this Bill through without adequate discussion he could understand their action, but he could not understand that action if they had a bona fide desire that the principles embodied in the measure should receive a full and fair discussion.

I have no desire to prolong this discussion. I am sorry that some hon. Members opposite should think that I spoke with too much heat, but I confess that I regard this Motion to adjourn the Debate at 9 o'clock on the first night of the discussion as being rather a strong measure for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken. The reason why I am unable to consent to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion is this: Supposing that some hon. Members opposite who object to the imposition of the duty upon spirits moved to report Progress in order to enable the Government to bring forward a Resolution imposing a duty upon tea, the Government would in that case, as we do now, have declined to accept such a Motion. We are asked to consent to the Motion for reporting Progress in order to enable us to introduce a Resolution which will overthrow our whole scheme. I feel that in the position I occupy I am responsible for this Bill, and for—what is of even more importance—the disposal of the time of the House. I am bound by the Rules of the House, as other hon. Members are, and I cannot allow these Rules to be departed from. The course which is proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is one which I must decline to take, and, therefore, I must oppose this Motion.

said, that he also had no desire to introduce any heat into the discussion, but he trusted before this question was decided hon. Members would thoroughly understand the position in which the House was placed by the action of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the course taken by the Opposition was equivalent to asking the Government to report Progress in order that the latter should bring in a Resolution to impose a duty upon tea instead of upon spirits. There could not be a greater travesty of the proposal of the Opposition. This Bill proposed to abolish certain duties— namely, the Probate Duty, the Account Duty, and the Succession Duty which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out, had hitherto been levied upon the capital value of certain property. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed in this Bill to increase the area of the description of property upon which the duty fell, and to bring within it realty as well as personalty. That being so, the right hon. Member for the University of London, who certainly was not given to obstruction, moved an Amendment upon the 1st clause of the Bill which would have raised the whole question whether this new tax should be levied upon the capital value of the property in the hands of the dead man or in those of the persons who received it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that could not be done. The question must be discussed at some stage or other of the Bill, and what was desired by the Opposition was that that discussion should not be precluded by decisions of the House on clauses coming before Clause 15. That clause involved a part only, and not the whole, of the question which it was desired to raise, and the consequence would be that when they came to Clause 15, and attempted to raise the question of the Succession Duty, all that they could do would be to raise it with regard to a limited portion only of the subject. What the Opposition desired was that a full and fair opportunity should be given them for discussing the question not upon the clause relating to Succession Duty, but on some clause which governed the whole principle. They were entitled to ask the Government not that some Resolution should be moved to put into the Bill something that was not in it, but that they should have a fair opportunity of challenging the Government on the question whether the new principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a gross injustice, and whether it was not right and just that, to adopt his own words, the tax should be borne by the person who had the ability to pay it.

said, he desired to say a few words on the present position in order to assist the Committee to come to a conclusion how to vote on the matter. The Bill now under discussion was a measure containing the whole financial scheme of the year. That being so, that whole financial scheme must be considered with reference to all its parts. If he had rightly understood the ruling of the Chair, it was that, as regarded one particular portion of the financial scheme, the Bill proposed that which was not justified by the Resolutions which had been passed. If that were the case—if it were one scheme, and a portion of it were not justified by the Resolutions which had been passed by the House, could they consider the scheme as a whole until another Resolution had been passed? Was it or was it not possible that by passing the first clause of the Bill they might be depriving themselves of the right of moving Amendments to the new Resolution? He was entitled, he thought, to ask for a ruling on this point, as upon the answer received would depend the justification of the Opposition in moving to report Progress.

It is utterly impossible for me to give an answer. How can I answer a question in regard to a Resolution I have never seen, or respecting an Amendment with the terms of which I am wholly unacquainted? When any practical question is raised on the point before the Chair, that will be the time for the Chair to give its decision.

said, he would ask the Chairman's ruling as to whether, should the Committee pass the first clause of the Bill, it would be competent for hon. Members to move Amendments to the new Resolution in the same way as they could have moved them but for the passing of the clause?

I cannot possibly answer—I must absolutely decline to answer any hypothetical questions.

said, he knew how differently things presented themselves to hon. Members, looking at questions from different sides of the House; and he was glad not only to make allowances for difference of view, but to put the case against himself so far as he could; and yet it did seem to him that they had got to a point in this discussion at which difficulties narrowed themselves to a plain issue. How did they stand? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight asked them if it was fair to shut out the discussion of whether the duty should be incident on the estate in the hands of the dead man or whether it should fall on the interest taken by the successor. Of course, it was fair that that should be raised, and no one on that (the Ministerial) side of the House would desire that it should be shut out. They had discussed the question already. ["No, no !"] Yes; the incidence of the new tax on the estate of the dead man was the very principle and essence of the Bill. They were not dealing with the duty which it was proposed should fall on the interest of the successor. That was before the House when the Bill was brought up for Second Reading and had already been discussed and decided, and he apprehended that that would rule out many of the points in connection with Amendments which might be raised. The Government proposed—to cure a technical defect—to bring in a Resolution to deal with an isolated portion of the Bill dealing with the quantum of the estate on which Succession Duty was to fall. That was consistent with what they had done on Second Reading, but it would not be consistent if by way of Amendment to the Resolution they were to branch out into a wholly new field of inquiry which was precluded by what they had done on the Second Reading. They had settled the principle which ruled out certain Amendments, and they would not go backwards. They would deal with real estate and Succession Duty as raised by Clause 15 taken by itself, but that was another and separate matter to which they had entered upon, and it could not now be raised, especially in the form of an Amendment which they were not at all anxious to accept.

said, he should like to know when the House had come to a definite decision on that question?

On the Second Reading of the Bill. [Sir J. LUBBOCK: Oh !] If he was not mistaken the right hon. Gentleman had himself raised the point on the Second Reading. That being the state of affairs—having had the full opportunity for discussion that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight desired—it would be unfair to ask the Government to go back.

said, the refusal of the Chairman to give a decision on the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Byrne) and also the speech they had just heard went to show more than ever the absolute unfairness of the position the Government had taken up in this matter. The whole speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman had gone on the assumption that this matter had been discussed already. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cut away that argument by saying, "All this is due to the ignorance of the Opposition. You ought to have known that it would be impossible for the Committee to discuss that matter at all." That argument as to ignorance came badly from the right hon. Gentleman, because his own ignorance had been so clearly demonstrated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, who, though only a new Member, had succeeded in tripping up the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the ignorance of the Opposition in the same way that he claimed to have his own dealt with they would be satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman claimed the right to bring in a Resolution to do away with the ill effects of his own ignorance. The Opposition did not ask to have a new Resolution. All they asked was that the Resolution should be brought in at once, and that the ignorance of the Opposition should be remedied at the same time as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The course the right hon. Gentleman attributed to them was not entirely their own fault. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight had pointed out certain words in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer which misled him and possibly many other Members on the Opposition side of the House. Undoubtedly they had thought when the right hon. Gentleman had talked about "the burden of the duty falling on the persons interested" that he referred to the legatee as well as to the testator. Their ignorance, therefore, was largely the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said that, after the ruling of the Chairman, they did not know where they were. He did not wish to question that ruling, but it had materially altered the situation. It was now a question of very great difficulty to know whether any of their Amendments were in Order or not. If there was one principle in the measure more objectionable than another it was that of aggregating together from every portion of the globe the corpus of a dead man's property and then charging an Estate Duty upon it instead of proceeding on the old principle. [Cries of" Order !"] The Chairman would call him to Order when he thought it right to do so. He did not believe that anyone thought that the bringing together of the whole of a dead man's legacies into one corpus and putting them forward for taxation was fair and practicable. If his right hon. Friend's Amendment were ruled out of Order, there were a large number of other Amendments which might also be ruled out of Order, though the Chairman said that he was not in a position to decide on them at once. There was, therefore, every reason in the world for an adjournment of the Debate. The hon. Member for East Lothian said that the question had been decided, but the decision to which he had referred had only been given by a majority of nine, made up of a surplus number of Irish Members. [Cries of "Order!"] The Whips did not cry "Order !" It would, under the circumstances, be absurd to go on further to-night without knowing whether Amendments would be in Order or not. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was a financial Bill to be taken as a whole—as the settlement for the financial year. Was it a settlement for the financial year? It was nothing of the sort. Either this Bill was to settle the finances of the country for ever or only for a year, in respect of Income Tax and Sinking Fund, as well as of Death Duties.

rose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was justified in pursuing this line of argument?

called on

, who resumed. He said, that he was the last person in the world to be out of Order if he knew it. He had come down to the House without the slightest knowledge of what was about to take place, and he was anxious now to know where they were. He had a number of Amendments on the Paper—

When we come to those Amendments I shall have to give a ruling upon them. But the Question at present before the Committee is simply to report Progress.

said, the object of the Motion to report Progress was to secure time for them to consider where they were and to enable the Government to remedy the bad drafting of their Bill. The Government were to blame for the delay. Having had six months in which to prepare the Budget they still brought in a Bill imperfectly drafted. The Opposition had a right to have an adjournment, because they did not know where they were. [Laughter and interruption.] He cordially supported the Amendment, because the Government were in such a mess that they had better adjourn the Debate and get on with some business which they more perfectly understood.

My right hon. Friend thinks it desirable that we should know where we are, and I personally am very anxious that we should. I hope the House will come to a decision now, whether we shall go home to bed or proceed with the business of the nation. Reasons have been given on the other side why we should report Progress, and the Government have given reasons on the other hand why we should not, and I trust that we may be now allowed to come to a decision on the point. As to bringing forward a Resolution dealing with the Succession Duties I would point out that the first 14 clauses of the Bill deal with the Estate Duty alone. The Succession Duty clauses are quite separate, and come in as a matter by themselves. It is quite true that there has been a miscarriage with reference to the Resolution on the Succession Duty, but there has been none with respect to the Estate Duty. Clause 1 refers to the Estate Duty, and nothing in the Resolution on the Succession Duty can give hon. Members any assistance in discussing the Estate Duty. I hope that, under the circumstances, the Committee will do one of two things—adjourn, or go on with the business of the country.

In an almost empty House an hour and a-half ago the right hon. Gentleman and I had a somewhat vivacious passage of arms, which might have led to a stormy scene had there been more auditors present. Luckily, there were few auditors present. A more peaceful tone has descended since then over our Debate, and I do not mean anything I may say to disturb the more amicable relations that have been established between the two sides. But I cannot allow the Debate to come to a conclusion without laying before hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have not heard the beginning, the case on which the Opposition rest their request or demand for an adjournment of the Debate. The hon. and learned Member for East Lothian, in a speech of great fairness, told us that he quite agreed that a more important or relevant-subject could hardly be raised in this Debate than the one which we desire to raise on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for the London University; but he contended that it is a subject which the House has already discussed and pronounced its decision upon on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said that it was the essence of the Bill that the duty should fall on the corpus of the property of the deceased, and not on the amount of the legacies, and that the Second Reading decided that. But my hon. Friend is a great metaphysician, and knows that metaphysicians quarrel a great deal as to what the essence of a thing consists of. If we are to follow the doctrine that the essence of a Bill is for ever determined by the Second Reading, a great change will come over all the proceedings which have hitherto governed the House. When the Government determine what is the essence of the Bill, does it lie in their months to say that the essence of the Bill is never to be raised in Committee, to be modified or divided upon? That is a doctrine which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will not support with serious argument. It would create an absolute novelty in procedure to which the House ought never to consent. Let us consider more particularly what that doctrine amounts to. We had three days in which to discuss the Second Reading of a Bill, the most complicated and controversial since the great days of financial reform of Sir Robert Peel. I do not think there has been anything like it since the Budget of the right hon. Member for Midlothian in 1863. We had at the stage of Second Reading three evenings for the discussion of the Beer Duties, the Spirit Duties, the whole question of graduation, the burdens upon land, local taxation, Income Tax exemption, and other subjects, for the discussion of each of which separately three whole days would not be too much. Yet, because on the Second Reading a speaker here and a speaker there used an argument on a certain point, the hon. and learned Member for East Lothian declares that the point has not only been discussed but decided, and that the Committee is to forego the usual privilege of debate.

was understood to say that the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman was hardly a metaphysical question. What he had said was based on the Chairman's ruling, given after the essence of the Bill had been ascertained.

A Chairman's ruling would be very inconvenient in metaphysics, and the great advantage we have over philosophers is that we have our questions decided by those decisions. The Chairman felt himself bound by the technical Rules of the House to make that ruling. He was precluded by the Standing Orders from looking at the broad merits of the case. It was on the technical issue raised and not on the broad issue, as to what is the essence of the Bill, that the Chairman gave his ruling. The question for consideration now is by what means we can be enabled to discuss the subject, which, according to the Chairman's interpretation of our Rules, we are debarred from discussing at this moment. How is the opportunity to be gained? One way is for the Government to bring in their Resolution at a stage when Amendments raising the vital and important question which we wish to discuss can be moved.

The Resolution will not apply to the Estate Duties.

It is unnecessary to say that the Resolution can be amended. I hope that when the Resolution appears it will be possible to find means of discussing the question. If we had the slightest idea that the question would be excluded from the consideration of the Committee we would have moved an Instruction for the purpose of bringing it forward. It is simply because we omitted to bring it forward as an Instruction, thinking, naturally, that we could debate it in Committee, that we are now precluded from dealing with it. I ask the Government therefore, as the guardians of the privileges of debate in the House, to help us in this matter. If the Government will promise to bring on their Resolution without delay the present controversy may be brought to an amicable conclusion. Not a single word has been heard from the Chair to the effect that it would be contrary to precedent or Order to bring forward the Resolution at once. We are-placed in a position of unexampled embarrassment through no fault of our own, but by a technical conclusion drawn, no doubt correctly, from the Rules of the House, and in the circumstances I trust; that the Government will show a spirit of conciliation.

said, the Government were asked to bring in a Resolution not for the sake of the Opposition, but in order that the Government might carry their own Bill. The Opposition simply asked the Government to bring forward that Resolution as soon as possible, so that they might have an opportunity of putting down Amendments, and not have to wait until they came to Clause 15 to discuss this very important question.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire suggested that because the House had read the Bill a second time therefore the Committee was bound to endorse every proposal in the Bill. That was quite a novel principle. He had often heard it stated in Debate on Second Reading that though Members did not approve of the whole Bill, though there were clauses in it to which they objected, yet there was enough in it meeting with their approval to enable them to consent to the Second Reading. It was a new principle, therefore, to say that when a Bill was read a second time Members were bound by every proposition in the Bill. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the first 14 clauses dealt with the Estate Duty only, and that Clause 15 raised a new and separate question. Clause 15, according to the ruling of the Speaker, was only a hypothetical and possible clause, only a clause which might in the fulness of time appear on the Bill —a clause in the eye of imagination and in the voice of prophecy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was the duty of the Government to make all the arrangements of the year in one Bill. But only part of the arrangements of the year was made in this Bill. Many years ago Mr. Disraeli spoke on the Budget of Sir Charles Wood, and ironically congratulated him with having liberally presented not one Budget but three. He could now compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on having given the House three Budgets, but on having parsimoniously given it half a Budget. The right hon. Gentleman had said he desired that the conduct of business should be according to the Rules of Parliament. He ventured to say that whether or not the Rules of Parliament enjoined, the spirit of Parliament, at least, did enjoin, that the whole scheme of the Government should be submitted. The Government ought to develop their whole policy, and whether it was submitted in one Bill or in many Bills was a question of detail. He would point out that by adjourning the Debate they would be able to deal at once with other business of an important character—

Order, order ! The hon. Baronet is not now in Order.

said, he wished only to point out that by adjourning the Debate they might, for instance, read the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill a second time, and in that way they would spend their time in a far more profitable manner.

rose to contiune the Dohnte—

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

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 221; Noes 176.—(Division List, No. 52.)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 239.—(Division List, No. 53.)

moved, "That Clause 1 be postponed." He thought that it would have been a perfectly legitimate course for the Opposition, which had been treated with so much unfairness at the hands of the Government, if they had taken the course which an Opposition generally took in such circumstances—namely, to move the adjournment of the House. But they were anxious to proceed with business. The Opposition were giving the best proof of their intentions, because they were anxious, at any rate, to proceed with the first business possible for them to discuss, which would not be affected by the new Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman was going to move. Clause 2 could in no way be affected by the Resolution which the right hon. Gentleman intended to move. Hon. Members did not know the nature of that Resolution, and it seemed doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman himself knew what it would be, and he maintained they were entitled to have it placed on the Table of the House before proceeding to the discussion of a clause which might be largely affected by it. The right hon. Gentleman had said it would be impossible for the House to discuss that Resolution, but that was not the ruling from the Chair, which he would rather take than the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Resolution came before the House, if the Opposition found it could be framed in such a way as to meet the difficulties arising, they would move Amendments to shift the duty from the corpus to the legacy. As it was desirable to proceed with the discussion of clauses which would not be affected by the Resolution, he moved the postponement of Clause 1 in order to proceed with the Debate on Clause 2.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed."—( Mr. Hanbury.)

I certainly shall be no party to this waste of public time. The House of Commons is met to dispose of the financial business of the year, and such an example of treatment of a Budget Bill has never been seen before in this House. Whether gentlemen opposite think they are going to derive any advantage in the country from the conduct they have exhibited to-night is for them to determine. We are quite satisfied, and we will be no parties to assisting proceedings of this description.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken in his usual style when he found by chance that he had got a majority behind him. This policy of blustering and bullying his opponents when he happened to have a majority— ["Order !""Question !"and "Withdraw!"] Hon. Members had better themselves keep Order, and he would not withdraw. He was going to say exactly what he thought was suited to the situation, and the more hon. Gentlemen interrupted him the more they would make him speak at length. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not so proud or so inclined to tyrannise over his opponents on the night of the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, when this wonderful Budget could only command a majority of 14. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that his majority would never dwindle to 14, or even less, in Committee.

rose to Order. The Question before the Committee was the clause. He begged to ask whether the noble Lord was speaking to the clause?

said, the Question before the House was not the clause, but whether the clause should be postponed.

said, as his hon. Friend had pointed out, the Question was whether the clause should be postponed. He must protest against these ignorant interruptions when hon. Members addressed themselves to the Question. He could not congratulate the hon. Member on his knowledge of Parliamentary Rules or on Parliamentary courtesy, in which he seemed equally deficient. He was alluding to the majority of 14, on which the right hon. Gentleman could not have asserted the power which he had exerted that night. But he proceeded to a far more serious charge against the right hon. Gentleman, which he would adhere to. There was an understanding, a bonâ fide, genuine understanding, that if the right hon. Gentleman were allowed to get the Second Reading of his Bill in a three nights' Debate, a Bill which ought to have taken at least 15 nights if the Opposition had chosen to discuss it at length—there was an understanding that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were allowed to get the Second Reading in three nights without a Division, every clause and every line of the Bill might be discussed when the House got into Committee. That was the broad and unqualified statement upon which the right hon. Gentleman got his Second Reading. He got it in that way. He held that, in so far as that understanding was believed to be genuine by the Opposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been guilty of a breach of faith. He said that deliberately, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to deny it. He had watched the proceedings on the Budget Bill silently up to now, and he had watched the Chancellor of the Exchequer's actions, and he had listened to his speeches, no matter how inordinately long they might be, no matter how highly prepared they were. He had listened to all the uncomplimentary interruptions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he also fully understood the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman got his Second Reading—by telling the House that they could discuss every line in every clause of the Bill in Committee, and he told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he thought that, against an Opposition which on certain occasions showed that they could when it were necessary muster very strongly, these manœuvres and this sharp practice were likely to assist him in carrying this Bill rapidly through Parliament, he was very much mistaken. It had been shown how little the right hon. Gentleman had been able to do up to now with a comparatively large majority, and the proceedings of the Government that night showed that the time for such tactics had passed. The Opposition knew their strength when they chose to exert it—["Question !"] That was the question—he was arguing on the postponement of the clause, and he said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were wise he would not continue proceedings of this kind. They could only lead to most bitter controversy and sow the seeds of much more opposition to every line of the Bill than would have been offered if he had met the Opposition in a proper manner.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they would waste time if they went on with Clause 2 instead of Clause 1, but he had not told them how this time would be wasted He saw no objection to proceeding with Clause 2. It was a common practice to take clauses in the order in which convenience suggested. The ruling out of the Amendment showed that Members of the Opposition had been under some misapprehension, and the Government had also laboured under a misconception, as was shown by the fact that Clause 15 of the Bill was not authorised by the Resolution. The Opposition only wanted to be put into a fair position, and not to have all their Amendments rejected. By the time that Clause 15 was reached the Government would have got their Resolution, and the Amendments of the Opposition would be fruitless. It was idle to talk about a waste of time by the substitution of one clause for another in order to facilitate discussion. There was no reason why they should not make progress with Clause 2, or even with Clause 3. At all events, the responsibility for the waste of time did not lie with the Opposition, but with the Government.

Let us see what it is that the Committee is being asked to do. We are asked to postpone Clause 1 and to go on with Clause 2. What is Clause 2? It is a definition of the words in Clause 1. I hope the House and the country will understand what is the real meaning of the Motion. It would be absolute nonsense to proceed with the second clause. [Mr. AMBROSE: Take Clause 3.] The House sees the position in which it is placed. I hope we shall take a Division at once, in order that we may ascertain who are the hon. Gentlemen that will support a proposition of this description.

As I understand the matter, no one is suggesting that it would be a wise course to take Clause 2. What we have to consider is, which is the less convenient course to pursue? What we want to do for the moment is to discuss some clause under which no controversial matter may arise. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out that Clause 2 presupposes Clause 1, and no doubt he is in the right; but inasmuch as he will not give us what we ask for, which is an immediate discussion of his Resolution, we have to propose a plan which, although it may be inconvenient, at all events will have the effect of giving the Government time to reconsider their position, and to see how they can afford to us the opportunity for discussion to which they do not deny we are entitled. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is always appealing to the country, but I notice also that his appeals to the country are always confined to the speeches which he makes in this House. If the country is competent, as I do not doubt it is, to understand the value of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, it is competent to understand also that the Opposition have no other desire than the perfectly legitimate one of discussing in a proper degree an Amendment which is perfectly relevant to this Bill, from which discussion they are precluded because of the obvious disposition of the Government to prevent any discussion taking place upon it. That the country thoroughly understands the issue we shall, I have no doubt, discover when the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is of a more substantial character.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 222; Noes 258.—(Division List, No. 54.)

said, he wished to move to amend the wording of the first part of the clause, which said that—

"In the case of every person dying after the commencement of this part of the Act, there shall, save as hereinafter expressly provided, be levied and paid upon the principal value of all property, real or personal, settled or unsettled, passing on the death of such person, a duty called the Estate Duty," &c.

He proposed to insert, after "every," the words "succession to property arising upon the death of," so as to make it clear that the Bill imposed a "Succession" Duty instead of an "Estate" Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his object was to place the duty upon the dead man's property; but how could a dead man possess property? The duty was to be levied not upon the property of the dead man, but upon that which the living successor came into. It was, therefore, a misnomer to call the duty an "Estate" Duty, because, in fact, it was a "Succession," or if the word were preferred, an "Accession" or "Transmission" Duty. When they came to the subsequent clauses it would be found that every method that would hold water embodied in the Bill was a method of exactly the same kind as that for recovery of Succession Duties at present. But when the Government put before the Committee a Budget with two great principles of graduation and aggregation, and embodied them in a new tax, they should give it a proper name. This was a tax on the transmission of property from the dead man to the living man, and it was, therefore, proper that by such words as he had suggested the true nature of the tax should be marked, and that it should be affirmed to be a tax on the succession to property.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, after the word "every," to insert the words "succession to property arising upon the death of every."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles)

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

said, that he stated in his Budget speech the distinction between the two taxes. In the case of Legacy and Succession Duties they looked after the person who took the property, and the duty was taken before the successor took any money at all. The hon. Gentleman said that he had borrowed his idea on this matter from the Treasury. The Treasury had nothing to do with the matter at all. His knowledge had, in fact, been derived from gentlemen who knew more of this matter than the hon. Member for King's Lynn. [Cries of "What person?"] He would tell them what persons—the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, with whose concurrence this Bill had been drawn. Of course, the Government could not accept the Amendment, which would absolutely destroy the clause as it stood, and would substitute for it something entirely new.

I have listened with considerable surprise to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exche- quer, which naturally divided itself into two unequal parts. In the latter and smaller part the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to deal with the merits of the Amendment, while in the early and larger part he attacked the Member for King's Lynn. Into the personal controversy I do not desire to enter. My hon. Friend has already given the Chancellor of the Exchequer one serious fall, and nobody would deprive the right hon. Gentleman of such small revenge as he has been able to take. Unless I misunderstand my hon. Friend's knowledge and experience, and power of debate, there will probably be other occasions on which to test the depth of his knowledge. Leaving that personal matter to be discussed at a later stage, I pass to the few sentences which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought were sufficient to dismiss this Amendment. It now appears that a properly drawn Amendment like that drawn by my hon. Friend can avoid the difficulties which the Chairman found in the earlier Amendment, and it is clear that we can discuss, and ought to discuss, the very important problems raised by the particular form in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented his measures. Those points can-not be set aside by telling the Committee that the Government have drawn their Bill on a different principle. The business of the Opposition is to reform the Government Bill. We do not desire to raise the subject of graduation, but, if graduation is just, it is just because it touches the property of those who enjoy it, and not that of those who have enjoyed it in the past, and are in no position to enjoy it, being, in fact, dead. That is a matter which cannot be put aside by the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he approves of one principle and not of the other. We have to discuss the question upon broad principles, and I put it to hon. Gentlemen whether they think that duty should be imposed on the amount of property which was enjoyed by the dead man or the property of his successors in the proportion in which they enjoy it? I cannot conceive a simpler question or a plainer issue, or one on which men who desire to do justice in matters of taxation can hesitate. The right hon. Gentleman will probably tell us that the existing Probate Duty is not levied on an equitable plan. There are two answers to that. The first is that in the existing system there is no graduation, and the second is that the existing Probate Duty is relatively small in amount. The injustice, therefore, as far as it goes, is relatively insignificant. But when you raise the amount of the duty, and in addition make it a graduated duty, every injustice and small inequality becomes magnified and transformed into immense importance. I hope that the Government will deal with this as a question to be argued seriously. I hope that we shall be able, if this question is not decided to-night, to raise it upon a later Amendment which even more fully carries out the object my hon. Friend has in view. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to debate the question in a serious spirit and to explain why he prefers the inequitable, unjust, and irrational method of taxation he proposes to an equitable, just, and a rational method, how can he expect us to discuss this Bill? To simply tell us that the Government have framed their Bill on a different plan to that which we support is not to treat this Committee with respect. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer most sincerely that if he will argue the points we raise in a fair spirit he will find no desire whatever on our part unduly to prolong discussion. I appeal, however, to every man who is listening to me whether, in the first place, this is not an important question, and whether, in the second place, it is not a question which has never yet been argued by the Government? I do not recollect that the right hon. Gentleman gave us a single argument on this point in the two elaborate speeches he made on the earlier stages of the Bill, and I am quite certain that he has not yet condescended to give us a single shred of reasoning in Committee. I hope he will feel that something more is necessary. It is rather late for a discussion of the kind tonight; but if the question be not argued to-night it can be argued on some future occasion. I hope he will give us either now or then that full and fair explanation of the views of the Government, and the reason why he has adopted the plan proposed in the Bill, which will justify the Committee in proceeding to questions equally important but of a less far-reaching character which we are prepared to raise upon the first clause.

I hope that, in view of the altered tone which the Debate has taken since the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), I may be allowed to say a few words upon a subject in which in past times I have taken a very great interest. This Amendment, which was introduced as an amicable attempt to improve slightly the phraseology of the Bill, has been transformed by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer into an Amendment raising the important question of the character of the graduation to be provided by this Bill. I see by the morning papers that I was referred to last night by the most important Member of the Government as having been in past times an advocate of graduated duties, and even of graduated Death Duties, and it was made an accusation against me by the same distinguished personage that I had voted against this Budget Bill. Of course, in voting against the Budget Bill I was not voting necessarily against the principle of graduation, which is only one of about. 30 different principles that are combined in this omnibus measure. The Prime Minister was good enough to recognise this fact, because he said that possibly my opposition to the Budget Bill, as a whole, was due to other causes than any change in my opinions in regard to graduation. But he proceeded to say that he supposed that my views had changed on the subject of graduation, because I had taken no part in the discussion in favour of the proposal. But why should I have taken part in a discussion of that kind when no one, as far as I know, has contested the principle on either side of the House? [Cries of "Oh !"] The Leader of the Opposition has certainly not contested it, and he is good enough for me. It is not necessary for my friends and myself to get up and raise this question unless, unfortunately, we should find ourselves in opposition to those with whom we are in constant alliance. As far as I know, there is no such opposition, and, therefore, there has been no need for me to interfere. If I had interfered, I know what would have been the result—the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have denounced me for talking against time and obstructing the Bill. But I think the time has now come when I may be allowed to explain my personal position in relation to this subject. I do hold that as a principle the principle of graduation is right, and I am very glad to see it so generally accepted in all parts of the House. On the other hand, the question of the details of any provision for carrying this principle into effect are matters for amicable discussion, and I was very sorry when, at an earlier period of the evening, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed inclined to prevent any such discussion. I wish, however, to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I recognise in his more recent conduct ample compensation for his earlier course, for whilst for about three hours he endeavoured to prevent this discussion from coming on, he has now, in a speech of five minutes, introduced the whole subject to the consideration of the Committee. But, admitting that the principle of graduation is right, let us see upon what it is based. It is based upon the theory that those who are well-to-do should pay more towards the taxation of the country than those who are less fortunately situated. [Cheers.] That is the principle, but that is not the principle of the proposal in this Bill, for it may happen that under that proposal a man who receives £100, and has no other means whatsoever, will have to pay £18 for the privilege of receiving that legacy, simply because the man who has left it to him happened to be a millionaire. Was ever proposal more absurd than this one, under which the wrong person is being whipped? Hon. Members on this side of the House cheered me when I explained—and perhaps I have some justification for laying down first principles in this matter, since I was the first who advocated them publicly—that the right principle was that those who were rich should pay more than those who were poor. But exactly the opposite may result under the scheme of the Government. You may have a rich man paying less than a poor man simply because the former receives his money from a small estate. You may have a poor man paying £18 out of £100, and a rich man who receives £4,000 paying only 4 per cent. because the £4,000 represents the whole estate. I only accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of having failed to see the consequences of his own proposal; but if he and his friends are going to appeal to the country on this subject, let me warn him that he will have to meet our arguments, and that we shall contend elsewhere, as I do here, that this is unfair to the poor. This is not a legitimate proposal based on the theory which I supported in 1885, and which I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported then. I hope I am not doing him an injustice, but I do not recollect any speech of his made in favour of what was then, I admit, called the doctrine of ransom, although it now has the sanction of very serious economical authorities. In any event, I say that the principle is not carried out by this Bill, and if the Prime Minister has an opportunity of speaking again—I have no doubt he will speak about me, because it appears that he cannot speak of anything else—I hope he will do me the justice to believe that, while I do not go back one jot or one iota from the principle I laid down in 1885, I think this Bill a most inadequate representation of that principle; and I am prepared to vote for every Amendment which will bring it more clearly into accord with that principle.

said, he felt bound to refer to one remark which had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who had views on this subject with which he (Mr. Lowther) did not entirely agree. The right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, had shown the extreme absurdities to which the Government had been carried in their attempts to give effect to the views which to some extent his right hon. Friend shared. His right hon. Friend had said that the principle of graduated taxation had never been repudiated in the House.

I did not say it had never been repudiated in the House. I said I was not aware that it had been repudiated in the course of these Debates.

said, his right hon. Friend was quite right, but he appeared to be under the impression that the principle of graduated taxation had been unanimously accepted by the present House of Commons. He (Mr. Lowther) could not be a party to any silence upon this subject, and he ventured to say that the great mass of the Conservative Party had always repudiated as utterly and radically unsound the monstrous doctrine of graduated taxation. That was his view, and he should be prepared to repeat it at any time in that House or on any platform in the country. He could quote in support of that view so high a Liberal authority as Mr. John Stuart Mill, and he could further raise the question whether any financier of eminence had ever supported the principle of graduated taxation. That principle was entirely rare in this country, and, as he had said, it was radically unsound. That being so, he should always protest against it. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that the proposal of the Government did not equitably carry out the principle which it professed to enforce. As he understood the proposal, a person in humble circumstances who received a legacy of a paltry £100 would be mulcted to the extent of 18 per cent.

was understood to deny that this was the case.

said, if that were not so he had certainly failed to understand the Bill, and he had not been alone in misunderstanding it. Certainly as he read Sub-section 3 of Clause 7 and Clause 12 that would be the result, because every legatee, be his legacy however infinitesimal, would have to pay his proportion of the Estate Duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to introduce words to remove this gross anomaly, he (Mr. Lowther) would very cheerfully acquiesce in such a proposal. As it was, the Bill was apparently to be forced upon the House without any adequate explanation, and Members were absolutely in ignorance of what the Bill meant.

said, he wished to ask for the Chairman's ruling on a point of Order. He had regarded the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson Bowles) as very harmless and as merely fixing the time at which the Estate Duty should be levied. Until he heard the two last sentences of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it had never occurred to him that the Main Question could not be raised upon it. He had intended in a later portion of the clause to move an Amendment raising the whole question; and he wished to know whether, if the construction he had mentioned was put by the Chairman upon the harmless Amendment of his hon. Friend, his (Sir R. Webster's) Amendment would not be rendered out of Order?

It would be very unfortunate to discuss a question of this magnitude on an Amendment which is not intended to raise it, and I think we had better dispose of this Amendment as one which is incidental and which does not raise the Main Question. I would suggest that it would be more convenient that the present Amendment should be withdrawn so that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) could be discussed.

said, he declined to withdraw his Amendment. He had explained why he had introduced it, and he could not conceive any reason why it should be opposed. It raised a different question from that which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Webster) desired to raise. It raised the question of the true name to be given to the new duty. The duty to be imposed by this Bill was a duty on succession to real and personal property, and consequently it was almost necessary that the proper term should be applied to it to show what it was. He should be prepared to argue that the term proposed by the Government was unjustified. They could not make their charge—their Estate Duty did not exist unless the exact condition of circumstances arose that constituted the succession to property, either real or personal. What he was doing by his Amendment was simply to put the dots upon the is that had been left out by the Inland Revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them he had acted upon the advice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. He knew those Commissioners, and he would like to make the Committee know something of them, having been a clerk in their service. On one occasion he met a very nice gentleman at a table d'hÔte, and they made an acquaintance. After dinner this gentleman said, "I am a Commissioner of Inland Revenue; I have lots to get, and nothing to do," and he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) replied, "I am a junior clerk in your department and have lots to do, and nothing to get." He knew those gentlemen; but had the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Controller of Legacy and Succession Duties— did the Controller of Legacy and Succession Duties think this was a sound and remarkable Bill? No, he concluded the Controller did not; and he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was quite certain that no one who had any experience of the extraor- dinary complexity of Legacy and Succession Duties who would think so. [Cries of "Divide !"] Of course, he was only replying to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and surely he might be allowed to do that. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted him with want of knowledge of this part of the matter, and he taunted the right hon. Gentleman with most, complete and absolute ignorance of the whole subject. The right hon. Gentleman had confounded two subjects which it was absolutely necessary to keep distinct, and if he wanted money he had taken the right way to get none at all. Having replied to the innuendoes and the invective of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he came back to his Amendment, and he said that his Amendment imported the necessary word "succession" into this matter. He had considered the subject, and he thought it was necessary to have the word "succession" put in, and had it been possible be would have moved the introduction of the word into the title, but that, he understood, had been held to be out of Order. That the word should be introduced into the body of the Bill he was perfectly convinced, and although he would do much to oblige the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was not inclined to withdraw this Amendment, and he would not withdraw it.

I now think, as the hour is late, that we might come to a Division and an agreement that would be satisfactory to all parties. I understand my hon. Friend attaches great importance to the Amendment, though he is clearly of opinion it does not touch the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General. I understand that if it was not withdrawn but divided upon we should not be precluded from discussing the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. If you, Mr. Mellor, confirm that view which the author of the Amendment has himself given to us, we should be able to divide at once on the Amendment, and it would be open to us to discuss on Monday the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, which raises a point which all Parties in the House recognise as important, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has practically endorsed that suggestion. I, therefore, venture to say that we should dispose of this Amendment and get to bed in reasonable time, which would be a great advantage, and we should then be fresh for the important discussion which my hon. and learned Friend will initiate.

I should like to know if that is so.

Order, order ! At an early stage of the Bill I called the attention of the Committee to the position in which the Chairman is placed by manuscript Amendments being brought to the Chairman at the last moment. This is one of the most difficult and technical Bills that could be considered, and yet I have brought to me at the last moment an Amendment which I am expected to construe and pass a decision to guide the Committee. I most respectfully protest against that system. In order to properly discharge the duty I owe to the Committee, I ought to have notice of any Amendment to be moved. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) brought this Amendment to me, and on reading it I came to the conclusion, as he did, that it was not intended to raise this important question. But I had so short a time to consider it that I might easily be wrong, and I think that in taking the view that he did the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be wrong for the same reason that he had no time really to construe it. Giving it the best consideration I can, I think that this Amendment does not raise the question referred to, and I think it may be divided upon at the present time with safety.

said, that in his opinion he would have been precluded from moving the Amendment by the inconvenience of interpolating it either before or after the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Sir J. Lubbock), and he would point out that it was not always possible to put down Amendments, for this reason—that they might have been forestalled by another Amendment which might subsequently disappear. He need not say that he and all hon. Members on that side of the House would do all they could to render the task of the Chairman less difficult.

I merely called attention to a practice which I have found extremely difficult.

I should like to know whether it is an arrangement, after settling this Amendment, that we adjourn? [Cries of" No, no !"] Then I beg to move that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

I move "That the Question be now put."

I hope we may be able to finish to-night, for everybody is agreed that we want to go to bed, and if, after the Division on this Amendment, we should adjourn—— [Cries of "No !"] Do you wish to go on? [Cries of "Yes !"] Very well, if you want a row, I cannot help it.

We do not want any row.

I rise to Order. I wish to know if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in speaking after he has moved the Closure. Let him withdraw the Closure.

The hon. Gentleman, before the Closure was moved, moved to report Progress, and I was about to put that Question.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. Hartley.')

The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 217.—(Division List, No. 55.)

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 212.—(Division List, No. 56.)

said, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill in the House would not misinterpret his motive in rising to make a suggestion. The next Amendment was a very important one, and as a general rule it probably would not be found expedient during the necessarily prolonged discussions in this Bill very much to overpass the usual practice of this House in regard to adjourning at 12 o'clock merely as a matter of general convenience and regard for the health of Members of the House. The next Amendment was not one which could be disposed of very quickly, and he ventured to think that this was a stage at which it might be desirable to stop further discussion so far as the present sitting was concerned.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—( Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

said, that he had every desire to consult the health as well as the temper and time of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and he had no wish to commence a contest which might exasperate the House. At the same time, he would point out, if the right hon. Gentleman meant that it was not desirable to continue discussion on future stages of the Bill after 12 o'clock, that this must depend on the sort of progress that was made. He wished to call attention to the fact that not one single Amendment standing upon the Paper had yet been disposed of. This was not the sort of progress they had a right to expect, but he would now consent to report Progress.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Supply—Report

Resolutions [21st May] reported.

Civil Services And Revenue Departments (Estimates), 1894–5

Class I

1."That a sum, not exceeding £314,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."

, drew attention to the Liverpool Post Office, which, he said, seemed to be neglected year after year. No less a sum than £175,000 had been expended for purchasing land for a site which now for several years had remained actually bringing in no interest whatever to the public. In addition to that, an Estimate had been entered into to the tune of £180,000, and yet only the small sum of £10,000 had been expended for the last two years up to April last. The previous year the House voted £6,000 to be spent in the prosecution of the work, but this year the amount had fallen to £3,000. It was surprising that after such a large sum had been spent in purchasing a site, and a large expenditure of money contemplated for providing a new building, so very little should have been done". The Liverpool Post Office had been condemned as sanitarily unsuitable by the Medical Authorities, but yet this unsanitary state of affairs was allowed to continue, and it was time some more serious effort was made to meet the local wants. He thought, contrasting the Act of the Secretary to the Treasury towards Liverpool with his action towards other towns, the right hon. Gentleman would have some difficulty in justifying the course he had pursued. In Cardiff £53,000 was to be expended in rebuilding the post office, and of that estimated ultimate expenditure the Government were this year taking no less than £18,000. In Nottingham there was to be an expenditure on similar buildings of £40,600, and this year no less than £15,000 was to be spent. How was it these towns were thus advantaged and Liverpool left out in the cold? It was a singular fact that within the last 12 months the President of the Local Government Board had written to the Corporation of Liverpool urging that, having regard to the lack of employment in the district, they should do what they could to push on any local works which it was desirable should be executed. But here was an Imperial work which it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the health of the Post Office officials should be proceeded with, which would afford work for many artizans, and yet the Government wrote down to the Local Authority asking them to find work for the unemployed. This was a pressing case, and inasmuch as this vast expenditure of £175,000 in land was bringing in no return whatever to the public it was desirable that a commencement should be made at once, and that they should push on to completion this most necessary building at an expense sanctioned by the authorities.

said, that, as the hon. Member was aware, money was: not very plentiful this year, and the comparative claims of localities had been examined with special closeness. There had been no favour extended to one place at the expense of another, but the claims of each locality had been considered on the merits. The case with regard to Liverpool stood thus:—The foundations were in and the quantities were now being considered. That was an operation that would take some time, but he thought he could assure the hon. Member that the work on the superstructure would be taken in hand almost immediately after Christmas and pushed forward vigorously.

complained of the disproportion of the expenditure in London and in Edinburgh and Scotland in various post and telegraph services, and urged that any surplus funds should be devoted to the work of telegraphic extension in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

said, that the complaint made with reference to the Liverpool Post Office applied to more than that particular office. Many similar post offices were reported to be in an unsanitary condition, and yet nothing was done until long after they were so reported. They had a Bill before the House at the present time requiring the owners of factories and workshops to find a definite space of air for the workmen employed in them, and the principle had been laid down that the Government ought to be model employers, but here they had the Government time after time employing persons in post offices under conditions entirely unsatisfactory. The excuse given was that there was very little money at their disposal; but that excuse would not be admitted in the case of a private employer, who would be at once compelled to comply with the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

Resolution agreed to.

2."That a sum, not exceeding £187,975, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."

3."That a sum, not exceeding £185,210, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, for the Suvey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."

Resolutions agreed to.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No 6) Bill—(No 194)

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 1) Bill—(No 163)

Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Pier And Harbour Provisional Orders (No 2) Bill—(No 203)

Reported with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No 6) Bill (No 191)

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No 7) Bill (No 192)

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No 8) Bill (No 193)

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Building Societies (No 2) Bill (No 157) And Building Societies (No 3) Bill—(No 212)

Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Building Societies (No. 2) Bill,—As amended in the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

Building Societies (No. 3) Bill,—re-reported, without Amendment.

Special Report and other Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 13 0.]

Consolidated Fund (No 2) Bill

Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

Motions

Pier And Harbour Provisional Orders (No 3) Bill

On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861,"relating to Avoch, Burnmouth, Loch Efort, and Poole, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Sir J. T. Hibbert.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 244.]

Local Government Provisional Orders (No 16) Bill

On Motion of Sir W. Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the urban sanitary districts of Middleton and Preston, ordered to be brought in by Sir W. Foster and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.

Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 245.]

Local Government (Scotland) Salaries

Resolution reported;

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of Members and Officers of the Local Government Board appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to establish a Local Government Board for Scotland, and make further provision for Local Government in Scotland, and for other purposes."—(Sir G. Trevelyan.')

Resolution agreed to.

Parochial Electors (Registration Acceleration) Cost Of Revising Barristers

Resolution reported;

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the cost of any additional number of Revising Barristers who may be required in the present year for the purpose of accelerating the Registration of Parochial Electors in England and Wales."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.')

Resolution agreed to.

And, it being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

House adjourned at One o'clock.

Volume 24: debated on Thursday 24 May 1894

House Of Commons

Private Business

Truro And Newquay Junction Railway Bill (By Order)

Consideration

Questions

Overcrowding In London Board Schools

Sheerness Naval Gunnery Establishment

Regimental Canteens In Ireland

Cavan Land Commission Appeals

Canadian Cattle Trade

Irish Fisheries

Water-Tight Bulkheads On Battle Ships

Bombay Agriculturists' Grievances

Sunday Labour In Factories

Military Tensions

The "Sobriety" Fatality

Irish Bankruptcy Administration

Postal Appointments In Dublin

Irish Resident Magistrates

Pauper District Schools

Mischievous Soldiers

Parish Council Register

Military Troubles At Agra

Marines At Foreign Stations

Labourers' Cottages In Ireland

Ex-Inspector Ruff

Colonial Officers And Military Appointments

Admiralty Tenders

Compound Householders' Grievances

The Committee On The Manning Of Ships

Agrarian Riots In Assam

Mr John Dillon's Ballybrood Speech

The Royal Academy

Coed-Y-Pain School

Postal Conference In Canada

Munster Square Schools

Cordite

The Seizure Of The"Bluejacket"

Scotch Inspectors Of Secondary Education

The Saltcoats Crofter Settlement

Dunphail Railway Accident

Fishing Licences In Scotland

Danish Smokeless Powder

The Curatorship Of The Scottish National Gallery

The Forres Borough Auditorship

The Australian Mail Conteact

Imported Meat

The London Cab Strike

Police Evidence Of Drunkenness

Insanity In Ireland

Labels On London Cabs

Ordnance Survey Maps

Cultch

The American Mail Route

Dublin Mail Cart Drivers

Government Contracts

Military Service In South Africa

Liverpool Boundaries

Weather Forecasts For Farmers

Killybegs Harbour

Agricultural Depression In Essex

Results Fees In Scotch Schools

The Balfoue Companies

Irish Church Temporalities Fund

Income Tax On Labourers' Cottages In Ireland

The New Estate Duty

Cabinet Ministers' Salaries

Public Trustees

Welsh Disestablishment Bill

Lighthouse Illuminants

The Late President Of The Board Of Trade

Breaking A Pair

Motion

Irish Education Bill

Motion For Leave

Orders Of The Day

Finance Bill—(No 190)

Committee