I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whe- ther Sheriff Johnstone, who acted as the Returning Officer for Sutherlandshire at the last Parliamentary election, appeared at Edinburgh after the election to answer a complaint against him of charging 1s. per mile as travelling allowance for his Presiding Officers and polling clerks; and, if so, whether he will state the decision of the Court with reference to the complaint made against Sheriff Johnstone?

Sheriff Johnstone appeared in ordinary course at an Appeal Court before the Election Judges. The decision of the Court was to the effect of the answer which gave the hon. Member on the 25th of last month—namely, that the Returning Officer could not charge more than the travelling expenses actually incurred.

Then it is a fact that this gentleman had to disgorge 75 per cent, of these travelling allowances?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if Mr. J. Clark, who has just been appointed Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, in Assam, is the same gentleman whose sentence of seven men to be hung or to penal servitude for life, for the murder of Mr. Cockburn, at Baladhun, was reversed on appeal by the High Court of Calcutta, and whose conduct has since been under inquiry by the Chief Commissioner of Assam, in consequence of the finding of the Judges that he had been guilty of numerous and serious irregularities in the course of the proceedings; if so, has the inquiry been completed; and what has been the Chief Commissioner's decision thereupon; is it the case that, before this, recent promotion, Mr. Clark was an Assistant Commissioner of the second grade, and that there are in Assam three Civil Assistant Commissioners of the first grade, his seniors; and what have been the special services of Mr. Clark which have caused his promotion over their heads; is Mr. Clark a Civil servant of only eight years' standing, while the 10 other Deputy Commissioners now in Assam average over 14 years' standing; and is there any case on record in which so young a man has been appointed to a Deputy Commissionership; and is he now able to lay upon the Table of the House the full Papers relating to the Baladhun murder ease as well as those relating to the inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Clark and other persons in connection with the proceedings therein, which he stated on the 2nd of April last had been ordered by the Government of India? I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Police Inspector Joy Chunder is specially commended as a zealous officer in the Annual Report of the Province of Assam; if he is aware that this Inspector was severely censured by the High Court Judges of Calcutta, in their decision in the Baladhun murder case, for procuring tutored evidence by torture and other illegal methods, and that the Judges recommended that his conduct should be made the subject of a proper official inquiry; and has such inquiry ever been held; if so, with what result? And, finally, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Mr. J. L. Herald, lately Deputy Commissioner in Assam, has been promoted to the position of First Grade Joint Magistrate at Faridpur; is he also aware that the High Court Judges at Calcutta, commenting upon his conduct of the earlier proceedings of the Baladhun murder case, suggested an inquiry into certain illegal and irregular proceedings on the part of Mr. Herald, which they described as arbitrary and improper, and deserving of severe condemnation; and has such inquiry ever been held; if so, with what result?

My hon. Friend's three questions all refer to the same case, and he will perhaps allow mo to answer them together. I have made inquiry, and am unformed that a full inquiry has been held into the conduct of the police and Magistrates in the Baladhun case, and that the Report has been received by the Government of India and will be forwarded to me by the next mail.

Will it be laid on the Table of the House?

I can hardly say till I receive the document. My desire is to give every publicity.

Do you expect it by the next mail?

Yes.

I will put the question 10 days hence.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Times newspaper, alleging that Canadian cattle owners are disposed to doubt the disinterestedness of the English experts appointed to examine Canadian cattle, and that they would therefore bitterly resent any decision made by those authorities adverse to their own interest; whether there is any foundation whatever for this attack upon the bona fides of the Imperial officers; and whether Dr. M'Eachran, F.R.C.V.S., Inspector of Stock, and Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Quebec Department of Agriculture, is the principal officer charged with certifying the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle about to be exported from Canada to the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether Dr. M'Eachran is still managing director of the Walrond Ranch, Alberta, or has any interest in that or any other Company engaged in exporting cattle from Canada to the United Kingdom?

With regard to the concluding question of the hon. Member, I would say that I possess no official information on the matters referred to, but I am informed by the Colonial Office that it has been ascertained through the Governor General of Canada that Professor M'Eachran is connected with the Walrond Ranche, but in what capacity is not stated. In reply to the first two questions, I would say that I have seen the newspaper statement to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not gather that it is anything more than the repetition of vague and irresponsible gossip. I may, perhaps, be allowed to state that I have had the honour of presiding over and working with the officers in question for now nearly two years, and no one knows better than I do their great ability, and absolute straightforwardness in the discharge of their public duties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether there is any foundation for these statements? Considering the great importance of this traffic, I think he should inquire if they are absolutely without foundation.

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

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has now under his consideration a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioners with reference to Cass's Charity; whether he is aware that an inquiry is about to be instituted by the Charity Commissioners as to the Charities of the parish of St. Botolph, Aidgate, of which Cass's Charity is one; and whether he will postpone giving his sanction to the proposed scheme until the result of the intended inquiry is known?

The scheme referred to by the hon. Member is now under my consideration. The Charity Commissioners have, I understand, no present intention of instituting an inquiry as to Sir John Cass's Charity, which is limited to the City part of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Army Order 110, dated the 12th of May, 1893, which increased to 32 the number of paid lance-corporals allowed to a battalion of Infantry, if he will explain why, though this Order was received in India in August last, it has not yet been acted upon, so that lance-corporals who left England with drafts subsequent to 12th of May, 1893, and who were receiving pay under it, have, in consequence, been deprived of such extra pay on coming on the Indian Establishment; and whether, considering the well-known difficulty in getting good men to accept the lance stripe, he will see that this omission is at once rectified?

I have reason to believe that the facts are as stated in the question; but I am in correspondence on the subject with the India Office, which has it under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to many eases during the' last few months, such as those at Guntakul, Fulta, and Bareilly, in which Natives of India have been killed by British soldiers off duty carrying firearms, resulting in the trial of such soldiers for murder; and if he will recommend the Commander-in-Chief in India to issue an Order prohibiting the carrying of firearms and other lethal weapons by soldiers when off duty?

I have inquired as to the Regulations under which soldiers are allowed when off duty to carry firearms. Those Regulations are of a stringent nature, and go, I believe, as-far as any Regulations can to limit the possession of private arms and the grant of shooting passes to steady and well-conducted men. I do not think that it would be expedient to attempt to enforce absolute prohibition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get the existing Orders enforced and punishment inflicted when they are broken?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the platforms at stations on the St. John's Wood Branch of the Metropolitan Railway are so constructed that there is a considerable open space between them and the continuous footboard of the railway carriages; and that at Baker Street Station especially the said open space amounts at some places to as much as from eight to ten inches wide at the curved parts of the platform; and whether steps will be taken to require the Railway Company to so construct the platforms of their stations as to obviate the existing great danger to passengers?

No, Sir; the Board are not aware that such is the fact at the stations generally: but as regards Baker Street Station, the Board of Trade are informed by the Company that the figures mentioned in the question go beyond the fact, as the only instance where the space exceeds eight inches is at one side of No 1 platform, where the maximum space is nine and a half inches for a short distance, and tapers down to four and a half inches. On No. 2 platform the maximum is seven inches, tapering down to two and a half inches; and on No. 3 the maximum is four and a half inches, tapering down to one and a half inches. The Board are advised that as the station has been constructed on a curve this cannot be remedied. The Company say that they do all they can to obviate the possibility of mishap by whitening the edges of the platform. An Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade made some suggestion for alteration in 1892, and the gaps were reduced as far as practicable.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Theobald, a late Member of this House, was killed in consequence of so much space being left between the carriages and platforms? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if something further cannot be done?

It is a difficult question, and is continually engaging the attention of the Board of Trade. The alternative seems to be having no platform at all, as on the Continent, and that is open to many other objections.

Might not the platforms be constructed to come under the footboards of the carriages?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is within the powers of County Councils in Scotland to send deputations to London at the expense of the ratepayers; and, if so, whether there is any limit to the numbers appointed on such deputations or the length of their visit; and whether he is aware that the County Council of Lanarkshire have appointed a deputation of seven members to proceed to London, in order to watch the progress of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill before the Standing Committee?

County Councils have no statutory power to send deputations to London, and it does not appear to me that they can charge the expenses of such deputations against the rates, which are appropriated by Statute to specified purposes. I may add that the Local Government Act of 1889 contains provisions limiting the powers of County Councils as to opposing Bills before Parliament, and that it was thought necessary to obtain, by an Act which recently received the Royal Assent, authority to County Councils to contribute to the expenses of a County Councils Association. Such statutory authority would have been unnecessary it County Councils had had a general power of expending the rates upon such purposes as that referred to in the question. I understand that a Sub-Committee of the Lanarkshire County Council has recently been in Loudon in connection with the Local Government Bill now before Parliament, but that they were here for only two days, and that it was not their object to remain for the purpose of watching the progress of the Bill in the Standing Committee.

Were the members of the Committee there at their own expense?

I have no information as to that.

asked whether Town Councils had power to send deputations and charge for them?

Town Councils having a common good have many powers which do not appertain to County Councils.

Have Town Councils without a common good powers to make this expenditure?

You will require to give me a particular case before I can answer.

If County Councils have power to pay the expenses to London, why should they not have power to pay the expenses of the poorer members at home?

I am afraid the hon. Member must have missed the purport of my answer, which was that I did not consider that they have the power to make this expenditure out of the public rates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in arranging for the dispatch of the reliefs to the British forces serving in India during the present season the Government had regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Section XVII. of the Queen's Regulations for the British Army, and especially to that part of it which provides that arrangements will be made to embark corps and detachments so that they may arrive at their destinations in accordance with the table specified in that paragraph; whether the dates fixed by that table were determined in the interest of the health of the men, and in accordance with climatic considerations; whether the departure of the troopships to India during the present season was regulated with a view to conform to the Queen's Regulations, and whether those sent to Bombay arrived there wholly within the limits of time allowed by those Regulations; whether the reliefs, or any of them, in fact, arrived after the cold weather was over, and whether in consequence they had to be sent up the country during the hot season, thereby increasing greatly the incidental discomforts of the journey; and what steps the Government, in fact, took consequential upon the break-down of the troopships to enable them to act up to the Queen's Regulations, and ensure the arrival of the reliefs before the cool season was over?

As far as may be practicable, arrangements are made for the reliefs for India to arrive within the periods specified in the Queen's Regulations, and any variation from those periods is settled in communication with the Horse Guards, War Office, and Admiralty. I have no reason to believe that the health of the troops has been injuriously affected in consequence. As I explained, in my reply to the hon. Member on the 31st May, the dates of arrival last season were exceptionally late, owing to the break-down of the troopships. All possible measures were taken to accelerate the service, with the result stated in that reply.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question.

Yes, I think I did when I said that the dates were fixed in communication with the Horse Guards, War Office, and Admiralty. Generally, every endeavour is made to promote the health of the men, and we have no information that their health suffered in this case.

Is it not a fact that the result this year is to make later the time for sending reliefs up country, thereby materially increasing the inconvenience to the men?

Yes, a delay took place owing to the break-down of the troopships, which have now been withdrawn from the service.

Will precautions be taken to prevent this breach of the Queen's Regulations in future years?

The future arrangements are a matter of correspondence now going on between the India Office and the Home Authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Queen's birthday was not directed to be kept on Saturday, the 26th of May, by the Forces of the Crown in the Provinces as well as in London; whether he is aware that much disappointment was felt by the Volunteer Forces in the Provinces, who from business engagements were unable to parade on Thursday, the 24th of May, that no opportunity was allowed to them of evincing their loyalty by holding a Saturday afternoon parade in honour of the happy event, as the London corps were able to do; and whether in future arrangements will be made for the celebration of the Queen's birthday by the Forces of the Crown in all parts of the United Kingdom on the same day?

I am unable to satisfy the hon. Member on this point. The date on which Her Majesty's birthday is kept is fixed by the Lord Chamberlain, who takes the Queen's pleasure on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have been called upon to hold an inquiry into the circumstances attending the election for the Monivea division of the Tuam Union at the late Poor Law election; whether Mr. P. C. Kelly, the defeated candidate, has brought under their notice cases of voting papers being filled and signed in the names of persons at present in America; and whether the Local Government Board will grant an inquiry into these allegations?

The Local Government Board received from Mr. Kelly a list of objections in relation to the election referred to, and obtained from the Returning Officer a statement of his reasons for the decisions arrived at by him in each of the cases referred to him by Mr. Kelly. One of the votes objected to by the defeated candidate was that of a person alleged to be in America, but as there was a majority of six in favour of Mr. Mannion, even if this vote had been disallowed it would not have affected the result of the election. The information at present before the Local Government Board does not, in their opinion, constitute sufficient ground for holding an inquiry on oath with regard to this election.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the proceedings before the Railway Inquiry Commission in Trinidad, and to the fact that several railway officials are awaiting their trial for embezzlement; whether he has observed that it appeared in evidence that serious defalcations and mismanagement occurred on the part of under officials during the administration of Mr. Tanner, late Director of Public Works, and that he was so confident in his system of management that he had opposed inquiry regarding alleged malversation during his tenure of office; whether the Colonial Office will urge Mr. Tanner, who has retired to this country on pension, to return to Trinidad and submit himself for examination before the Commission; and whether there would be any objection to laying upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Government of Trinidad and the Colonial Office and the Crown Agents relative to the working of the Railway Department in Trinidad during Sir William Robinson's tenure of office in the island?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, the answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. I cannot find that any allegations of malversation were made during Mr. Tanner's tenure of office. As regards the third question, Mr. Tanner is prevented from going out to Trinidad by the state of his health. He has been examined by the medical officer of this Department, and Lord Ripon would not feel justified, in view of his Report, in requesting Mr. Tanner to proceed to the colony. It may be found possible to arrange for Mr. Tanner to be examined in this country with respect to the affairs of the Railway Department, and Lord Ripon is in communication with the Governor on the subject. Mr. Tanner has asked that this may be done. As regards the last question, when the Commission has reported the Secretary of State will consider whether any Papers should be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries as to the case of Jane Law, the wife of an agricultural labourer, who was, on the 29th of May, sentenced by the Saffron Walden Bench to a fine and costs, amounting in the whole to £12 9s., or in default to three months' hard labour, for having in her possession 94 partridges' eggs which it was alleged that she had obtained unlawfully; and whether, in this case, he will take steps to mitigate the severity of the sentence?

Upon the evidence the Justices came to the conclusion that the eggs were collected and stolen for the purpose of being sent to market and sold. The trade carried on in this way leads to widespread dishonesty and pilfering among the men and boys employed on the land, and I cannot say that I think the pecuniary penalty, under the circumstances, so much in excess of the merits as to necessitate my interference. Fourteen days was given to the defendant to pay, and the alternative period of imprisonment is stated to me by the clerk to be two and not three months. I think one month would be sufficient.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the medical officer of the Ballymahon Workhouse, County Longford, employed a woman as night nurse without the authority of the Guardians; that the Guardians, on being made aware of the circumstance at their weekly meeting, dismissed the woman and appointed another to look after the infirmary; and that the doctor, contrary to the Guardians' order, re-engaged the same woman; (2) will he state under what bye-law of the Local Government Acts the doctor has such power; and (3) whether at a recent meeting of the Guardians the doctor referred to was censured for the manner in which he acted towards the Sisters of Mercy who have charge of the patients in the workhouse infirmary?

(1) The facts are generally as stated in the first paragraph. (2) It is the duty of the medical officer to see that the patients are properly treated, and the Workhouse Rules provide that he shall give all necessary directions as to the treatment of sick paupers—directions the Master of the workhouse is bound to carry out. (3) The difficulty in the present case appears to arise from strained relations existing between the Nun in charge of the hospital and the medical officer, and the Guardians recently censured the medical officer for describing the Nun's conduct as unbecoming. The Local Government Board Inspector has been directed to personally inquire into the matter, and endeavour to secure that the officers of the workhouse shall act harmoniously together.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what part of the sum of £12,635 3s. 2d. paid to the Attorney General for England in the year 1893–4, for contentious business, and what part of the sum of £3,906 3s. 6d. paid to the Solicitor General, was in respect of the Behring Sea Arbitration?

The totals referred to include £7,509 17s. 3d. paid to the Attorney General and £254 12s. 6d.paid to the Solicitor General in respect of the Behring Sea Arbitration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the allegation as to the sanitary condition of the Money Order Office, lately Coldbath Fields Prison, has yet reported; and whether he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House?

The Report of Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield has been received, and is under consideration. I shall hope to be in a position to make it public before long.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, and if so when, Dr. Jameson has had a recent official interview with certain Indunas of Matabeleland in regard to the political settlement of that country; whether any Report of it has been received, or is expected, at the Colonial Office; and whether any statement was made thereat by Dr. Jameson that the Matabele would be expected to render service to any settlers in the country, either paid or unpaid, and especially in connection with the development of the mining industry which it is suggested may arise?

We have received no official Report of the interview to which I presume my hon. Friend refers. Two Press reports that I have seen of the interview contained no suggestion that Dr. Jameson informed the natives that they must labour without pay.

How is it that the Colonial Office seems always so late with the information which we can obtain from other sources?

When we get information we usually communicate it to the newspapers. Of course, I cannot say where they get their earlier reports from.

I am not alluding to matters appearing in the newspapers, but to information obtained elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in a Glasgow paper to the effect that in the Island of Coll, in consequence of his having incurred the displeasure of the proprietor of the island by standing against the factor for the County Council, the Rev. Mr. Ross, Free Church Minister there, had been subjected to many annoyances, the last move against him being the barricading of his front and kitchen doors by the factor, by the erection of six rows of barbed wire fencing, and the filling up of the well, from which the manse got its supply of water, with all sorts of filth and stones; whether it is true that the barricading with barbed wire fencing described was thrice renewed after removal; and whether the Procurator Fiscal has inquired into the case; and, if not, whether he will instruct him to institute inquiries?

I am making inquiries into the statement to which my hon. Friend has called my attention, but have not as yet had time to receive a reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the persons on the staff of the Colonisation Board who are to receive salaries amounting to £460 during the financial year 1894–5; what other offices they hold, if any, and at what remuneration; and will he explain why the travelling and incidental expenses during 1894–5 are expected to be 50 per cent, in excess of those during 1893–4?

The staff of the Colonisation Board consists of Mr. Colmer, C.M.G., Secretary in London, who has a salary of £150, and Mr. Borradaile, Agent at Winnipeg, who receives £256 per annum. Neither of these gentlemen holds any other appointment, nor receives any other remuneration from Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Colmer belongs to the staff of the High Commissioner for Canada. The provision for travelling and incidental expenses was increased from £50 to £75, because the former sum had been found inadequate, and had been exceeded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest held in the city of Belfast on the 12th of May last, on the body of Francis Conlan, who came to his death from burns received by the explosion of an oil lamp as he was turning down the wick before going to bed; whether he is aware that the oil used in the lamp was an American oil known as the "Royal Daylight Oil," the flash point of which is about 828 Fahr.; whether he is aware that no Scotch oil flashes under 100° Fahr., and the bulk of it is much over this point; if the minimum allowed for oil supplied to the War Office is 105° Fahr.; and whether, considering the danger of the present minimum flash point, 73° Fahr., of lamp oils generally used by the working classes, he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter, or have a Committee appointed to investigate it, with a view to legislation on the subject?

Accidents with oil lamps do not as a rule come under my notice, and in Ireland I have no sort of jurisdiction in regard to the administration of the Petroleum Acts. In this case the only knowledge I possess of the accident in question is derived from the depositions of the coroner's inquest furnished by the hon. Member himself, and as to the flash point of this particular oil I have no information whatever. Further, I am unable to say what is the minimum flash point of Scotch oils or that of the oils-supplied to the War Office. As has been before more than once explained, the question of the relative safety of oils of particular flash points is an extremely debateable one, and it is open to the gravest doubt whether the raising of the flash point would tend to put a stop to accidents of this kind. It is one of the many points connected with amended petroleum legislation which would have to be carefully considered by a Committee, and I shall be glad if it is possible to constitute such a Committee, but in the present state of public business I cannot hold out any hope that fresh legislation on this very large and difficult subject could be successfully undertaken this Session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the constant loss of life from the ignition of highly inflammable oil on an ordinary summer's day, he will without loss of time appoint a small Committee to inquire into the simple question whether or not foreign oils are admitted into this country at a flash point inconsistent with safety?

That is a question on which experts are wholly at variance. Some are of opinion that these oils do not cause more injury than those which have a lower flash point. I cannot separate this question from the other questions connected with legislation on the subject, but I hope in a short time to arrange for the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state (1) how many applications for loans, under "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Amendment Act, 1883," have been received from bodies of Town Commissioners in the Counties of Roscommon and Tipperary: (2) what sum has been advanced to the Roscommon Town Commissioners under this Act; (3) whether it will be possible for the Roscommon Town Commissioners to apply for fresh loans under the Act; and (4) whether he can state what are the reasons which caused the Board of Works, and latterly the Congested Districts Board, to refuse the applications of the Boyle Town Commissioners for loans under this Act for works of public utility, such as the building of a Town Hall and the erection of artizans' dwellings, seeing that under Sub-section 5, Section 35, of "The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891," the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund is applicable only in any county in which the fund was before the passing of that Act applicable?

(1) I am informed that five applications were received under the Act mentioned in the first paragraph from Town Commissioners in the Counties of Roscommon and Tipperary. (2) A sum of £1,500 was advanced out of the Fund to the Roscommon Town Commissioners previous to the transfer of the Fund to the Congested Districts Board under the provisions of the Land Act of 1891. (3 and 4) As regards the third and fourth paragraphs, I am informed that neither Boyle nor Roscommon is congested within the meaning of the Act of 1891, and that the Congested Districts Board have no power to grant loans to the Town Commissioners of these places except for the purpose of benefitting congested districts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the extra taxation about to be imposed upon Ireland, he is now prepared to direct a Board of Works engineer to investigate Kilrush Harbour, with the object of considering the advisability of making a public loan or grant to deepen the harbour?

Applications for the grant of public money for the improvement of Kilrush Harbour have been before the Irish Government from time to time, and one of the latest applications, received in January of last year, asked for a grant of £100,000 for the purpose. I regret I can now only repeat the answer which the Government has been compelled to give to all these applications—namely, that it has no funds at its disposal out of which a grant of money could be made for improving this harbour.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official confirmation has been received of the telegraphic despatch published on Monday by the Central News; whether the construction of a line of forts extending from Kihiro to Uganda, so as to entirely separate the lower half of Unyoro from the upper, is within the scope of the instructions under which Her Majesty's officers are acting in Uganda; whether the construction of this line of forts is consistent with the exclusion of Unyoro from the area of the British Protectorate; and whether the expedition of Major Owen to Wadelai, the hoisting of a British flag there, the conclusion of a Treaty with the Sheikh there, and the five engagements which it is stated were fought with the enemy, are in accordance with any instructions given to Her Majesty's officers in Uganda by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, if not, what action it is contemplated to take in the matter?

Information to the same effect has been received. Operations against Unyoro could only be justified in so far as they were necessary for the protection of Uganda in consequence of the aggressive attitude of Kaba Rega himself. The construction of the line of forts appears to have been a part of the military operations for defence against the Wanyoro and does not affect the decision of Her Majesty's Government as to the limits of the Protectorate. Colonel Colvile, being aware that Her Majesty's Government desired to obtain information as to the state of affairs at Wadelai, took advantage of the expedition to Unyoro to send Major Owen with a small escort by water. He met with no opposition at Wadelai, and he fought no engagements on the way there or back, although he appears to have been fired upon by some natives on the banks. As the hon. Member is aware, Wadelai is within the territory leased to the King of the Belgians, and will therefore be outside the limits of our action during the continuance of the Agreement.

Are these forts in the territory of Kaba Rega to be occupied by British troops?

No instructions were sent to undertake operations in Unyoro, but they were rendered necessary by the aggressive action of Kaba Rega himself. The construction of these forts appears to have been judged necessary by the people on the spot. Therefore, although the construction of the forts could not affect the intentions of the Government with respect to the future of Uganda, I cannot call in question the decision taken in this matter by those on the spot.

What is to become of these forts which are outside Uganda? Are they to be garrisoned or to be handed over to Kaba Rega?

The Commissioner sent to Uganda will have to consider what measures are necessary to maintain friendly relations with the neighbouring countries, to prevent the Slave Trade, and to promote British trade and commerce. In the circumstances, I think it ought to be left to the Commissioner to decide after his arrival whether these forts shall remain or not.

Will the matter really be left to the judgment of the Commissioner as to whether forts are to be maintained on territory outside the British Protectorate?

As yet we do not fully know what the position of affairs in Unyoro is. The Commissioner will be instructed, as I said last Friday and repeated just now, to maintain friendly relations with the people in Unyoro. The point referred to by the hon. Member must, I think, be left to his decision.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that this is the last year of the contract by which 36 of the men employed in this building under the Clerk of the Works are paid their wages through a middleman, it is intended that they shall on the expiration of the contract be paid by the Clerk of the Works, and receive the 7½ per cent, which is now charged by the contractor?

The men employed through the contractor already receive the full recognised wage of their respective trades, and to discontinue the agency of the contractor would not affect their rates of pay. It is not intended to make any change in the present system.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the reported rising in the Corea, especially as to whether the rumour is true that the rising is against foreigners; and whether British ships of war are on the coast for the protection of British interests?

Her Majesty's Government have received no information on this subject, and it may therefore be hoped that the reports which have appeared in the newspapers are exaggerated. The Naval Commander-in-Chief with six ships is now on the northern part of the China Station, but it is not known whether any vessel has been detached for service on the coast of Corea.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the new buildings of the Flitwick Board School, sanctioned by the Education Department and in part erected by the late Board, have now been stopped by the orders of the present Board for a period of 13 months; that the builder has presented a claim against the Board for £624 for breach of contract; and that a sum of £60 was surcharged by the auditor of the school accounts against certain members of the Board for illegal disbursements; whether the said sum has been paid by those members; and, if not, why the payment of the said sum has not been enforced by the Department; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the present Board from reversing the policy of its predecessor by pulling down a building already begun, and throwing a large additional burden upon the ratepayers of the parish of Flitwick?

With regard to this case, I can hardly add anything to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member on the 15th of February and the 19th of March last. The enlargement of the school is, I understand, now being carried out in accordance with the plans approved by the Department in March last. The question of surcharge rests with the Local Government Board, and is not within the province of the Education Department. I am informed by the solicitors to Major Brooks, one of the members of the School Board, that the Board have applied to the Queen's Bench Division for a Rule for a mandamus, directing the Overseers to raise the sum in question, and I presume that the question at issue will be settled by the Courts of Law.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what number of repaired wheels of the Mansell pattern made 22 years ago, as referred to in Major Marindin's Report on the railway accident on the 27th of April last to a passenger train at Dunphail Station, are now in use on the passenger trains of the Highland Railway; will he explain why time was not allowed the examiner at Kingussie to go all round the train, instead of only time to examine the wheels on the right side; seeing that since the introduction of continuous brakes the strain upon carriage wheels has been much increased, will the Highland Railway Company be required to furthen strengthen them; whether he is aware that it is the practice on the Highland Railway for the assistant guard to ride in the rear van instead of in the front brake van; and that a penalty has been imposed on the Company for failing to provide a communication cord between the carriages and the engine and the brake van of the train, and for the infringement of Rule 22 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868"; and whether all the carriages of passenger trains on the Highland Railway are fitted with automatic brakes, in accordance with the instructions of the Department to the Railway Company last year? In putting the question, I should like to say that the fourth paragraph has been so "seriously mutilated" since I handed it in at the Table that I withdraw it, with a view to framing other questions on it another day.

The question of the hon. Member refers to matters which are within the knowledge not of the Board of Trade but of the Railway Company, whose office is in Inverness; and as the question appears on the Paper for the first time this morning, there has not been time to obtain any information on the subject.

The hon. Gentleman says his question has been "seriously mutilated" at the Table; but the only part left out consisted of mechanical details, which could instruct nobody.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken to require the Highland Railway Company to run its trains in accordance with the observations made by Major Marindin, in reference to the collision on the Highland Railway, at Tain, on the 28th of March last, that he had no hesitation in recommending that the Highland Railway Company should be informed that working under rules which admit of a train shunting on a line under the protection of one signal, and that a distant signal, when another train is actually approaching from the opposite direction, cannot be considered as block-working within the meaning of the Act; whether any penalty will be imposed for this breach of the Act; whether the signalman at Tain every alternate week is on duty 15 hours per day, less two hours for meals, and that the guard and brakesman are engaged an excessive number of hours; whether ho has issued any Order prohibiting the Highland Railway Company from working their employés an undue number of hours; and whether he is aware that Major Marindin's Report on this accident is neither in the Library of the House nor obtainable iu the Vote Office?

The Board of Trade are in communication with the Highland Railway Company on the subject of paragraph 1. Obedience to an Order of the Board made under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, may be enforced by the Railway Commissioners, and the question of imposing a penalty is for them. The Board have called upon the Company to make a Return of the hours worked by the servants of the classes in question. I have caused a copy of the Report to be sent to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received the Reports lie called for as to the measures adopted in foreign countries to prevent the spread of anthrax: and whether he is now in a position to say if he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire whether anything can be done to stop the serious consequences of the disease, not only to live stock, but in some cases to human beings also?

The particulars with which I asked to be furnished regarding the measures adopted in certain foreign countries for preventing the spread of anthrax have been obtained, and are now under consideration. My present impression is that no advantage would be gained by the appointment of any Special Committee on the subject, but I should like to consider the matter further before giving a definite answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended to pro-coed with the appointment of the Select Committee to consider the accommodation provided for the Members and officials of this House, and for the representatives of the Press; and, if so, why has the Notice been removed from the Notices of Motions?

Yes, Sir; it is intended to proceed in this matter; and the Notice of Motion will be put down for Thursday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government intend to take the Second Reading of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Bill shortly, with a view to it being passed this Session?

The Lord Advocate, who is in special charge of this Bill, has been watching an opportunity to get a Second Reading, but has been hitherto unable to succeed, in con- sequence of the objection taken to it by Members who are opposed to the Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give reasonable time for the Second Reading by bringing it on before 12 o'clock?

At the present moment the Government is very short of time, and until the Budget Bill is passed will be very short of money.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the order to Messrs. J. and T. Brocklehurst, of Macclesfield, for black Navy handkerchiefs has been reduced from 80,000 in 1893 to 16,000 in 1894; and whether an order has been given to any other firm in this country or abroad?

The number of these handkerchiefs required for the present year is 16,000. No order has been given to any other firm in this country or abroad.

About how many of these handkerchiefs are required in any one year?

The number varies; it is only 16,000 this year.

And last year it was 80,000.

Yes, I suppose the stock in hand was larger this year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the allegations of Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson in Saturday's Times with respect to the harsh conditions under which the Samoan Chief, Mataafa, and his adherents have been exiled; that they are imprisoned on a coral atoll, where the water is brackish and the food distressing; that they are divorced from their families and dependent on the charity of pitying whites; that the Government has made no attempt to relieve their necessities; and that Mr. Stevenson himself was not allowed to send them a supply of food and tobacco; and whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any official information on this subject; if not, will the British Consul in Samba be instructed to inquire, and, if he finds that Mr. Stevenson's allegations are well founded, to exert his influence in the direction of a more humane treatment of Mataafa and his exiled adherents?

Mataafa and his principal adherents have been deported by agreement between the three Powers to the Marshal Islands, which are a German possession, and where, though their banishment may be disagreeable, they are, under the custody of the German Government, being treated with every regard to humanity. The question as to what extent they can be joined by their wives is under consideration, and special assurances have been given that, as they are Roman Catholics, the services of Roman Catholic priests settled in the Islands shall be available to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that an additional training ship is about to be commissioned, and in view of the promise recently given, the Admiralty will avail of this occasion to consider the claims of Queenstown as a station for a training ship?

It is not intended that the Northampton, the ship about to be commissioned for the training of boys, should be stationary at any one port. She differs from the ordinary boys' training ships in that she takes boys of a greater age, and for six months' training only. She will visit various ports, including Queenstown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the India Office have any information from Chitral additional to that which has been given by the newspapers on or since Saturday last?

No official information on the subject has been received, but inquiry has been made of the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be possible on the occasion of the visit of the Fleet to the North of Ireland to send one-half of the Squadron to Lough Foyle instead of sending the entire Fleet to Lough Swilly?

I stated yesterday the arrangements made for the cruise of the Channel Squadron. These arrangements cannot be varied in the way suggested by the hon. Member's question.

Will the Channel Squadron find its way round to Invergordon?

I can only give my hon. Friend the same answer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed in the Consular Report just issued upon trade with Persia the complaints of British subjects trading at Kerman respecting the unjust imposts to which they are subjected, and the urgent requests they make for the appointment of a Consular officer; and whether, in view of the beneficial influence which such an appointment would have upon the imports into Persia, especially of Manchester cotton goods and calico prints, and also of the fact that it is recommended by Consul Preece, of Ispahan, the Foreign Office is prepared to act upon the recommendation?

The question is under consideration, and I can make no further statement with regard to it at present.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner why the Assistant Commissioner proposes to recommend a smaller grant from the Governors of Hulme's Charity for higher education in Bury than has been given to Oldham; and if the relative populations of the two boroughs has affected the amount of the proposed grant, why that consideration should now be introduced when it was not regarded as between Manchester and Oldham when the grants from the Hulme Trust were made to those two places?

The Charity Commissioners have not yet received any Report from the Assistant Commissioner who has been visiting Bury. It is understood that no funds are as yet available from the Hulme Trust for Bury. When the time arrives, the Commissioners will take all the circumstances into consideration before publishing a Scheme.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House particulars of the trial of the two troopers at Buluwayo, charged with stealing a present and intercepting a message from the late King Lobengula, and of its results?

The two troopers in question were sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, with hard labour. The particulars of the trial have appealed in the newspapers.

Is the Colonial Office in possession of the official Report of the trial?

We have received a Report by telegraph from the Acting Governor, General Cameron, in reference to the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether permission has now been given to the Polo Club, who have already railed in some acres of the Phoenix Park, to erect a stand house on the ground; whether his attention has been called to the successive stages by which permanent encroachments and erections have been made in the park; is he aware that when the Polo Club first got permission to use a special part of the park, the ground was marked out for them merely by a whitewash boundary; that after a time they were permitted to erect a wooden railing, on the plea that this was necessary for the protection of spectators; that subsequently a second railing was erected on the other side, and the entire ground thus enclosed except at the ends; that then a small wooden shed was constructed at the western extremity; that last winter this shed was transfered to a more commanding position, and enclosed by a strong iron railing; that seats were put on top of it to form a stand house, but that admission thereto is denied to any persons except members of the club and their friends; will the Government inquire whether on Saturday last a person practising the game rode outside and deliberately drove the ball into the midst of a group of ladies, and rode off without offering any apology; and will any steps be taken to secure the free and uninterrupted use of the park for ordinary citizens not requiring special privileges from the Crown towards their enjoyment?

I am informed that the Polo Club has not been allowed to rail in the ground on which the game is played; but, for the protection of the public, barriers have been erected on two sides, the ends being perfectly open. The club has been allowed to re-erect the wooden pavilion for dressing rooms; the site has been changed in order to allow free passage for carriages and other traffic round the ground; the railing round the pavilion is the same as was round the old shed, but a little longer; the new feature is a platform accommodating about a dozen persons. With the exception of the demesnes attached to the official residences, which have never been opened to the public, and the ground occupied by certain public institutions, the Zoological Gardens, and the necessary lodges, nurseries, &c, for the service of the Park, there are no permanent enclosures in the Park. The cricket grounds which have been assigned with the consent of successive Governments to certain clubs are all held on licence, and cannot be described as permanent encroachments. Inquiry has been made, but no information is forthcoming about the incident alluded to in the fourth paragraph, nor has the Board of Works received any complaint. I appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend to secure the Park for the general use and enjoyment of the citizens, but I do not think that the existing privileges, which have been granted and confirmed by successive Governments for so many years, constitute any serious interference with such general use and enjoyment.

Is it not the case that the game of polo is enjoyed by a large number of citizens?

I believe it is very popular in Dublin.

Are the licences held from year to year, or only for a fixed term, or is the arrangement an indefinite one?

The Board of Works can terminate the licence if they think fit.

Is the privilege allowed to other Societies as well as the one named in the question?

To four others. I stated so.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the published letter of the Hon. Sec. of the Dublin Workmen's Cricket League as to the allegation that the Board of Works have prepared in the Phoenix Park a cricket ground for general use, on which at least four matches can be played, in which he asserts that its state is such that not even one match can be played on it; is it the case that cattle can graze over this ground, and that if a ball goes over into the railed-in ground of the Garrison Club it is a "trespass" to follow it; will the Government consider the advisability of requiring rich clubs like the Phoenix Club to rent ground for themselves and leaving the park to the clubs of the working classes who cannot afford to hire private grounds; whether the Phoenix Club are now prosecuting, with the assent and assistance of the Government, members of the Working Men's Club for playing on their crease in the park; are the Government determined to sustain this prosecution; and, if so, will the Board of Works provide adequate accommodation in the park for the general body of cricketers; is he aware that the Constabulary Club is now dead and their ground is in disuse and disrepair; and what use will be made of this plot?

I am informed, as regards the area of ground intended for the general use of persons not belonging to cricket clubs in the Phœnix Park, that nearly all the eastern portion can now be, and is frequently, used by six or more sets of players. Though unrolled, the ground is sufficiently level, and the sward good. The western portion having been cleared and levelled within the last six months, the sward has not got into a sufficiently good state, but as time goes on should be quite satisfactory. There will then be additional room for seven or eight more matches on this portion. Cattle can no doubt graze over this as on other unfenced portions of the park, but as the park is so extensive the inconvenience could scarcely be serious. There is no reason to think that any case of trespass would arise under the circumstances stated. The cricket clubs have spent a good deal of money in enclosing, levelling, and otherwise adapting the grounds for cricket, besides erecting pavilions for the members. To deprive them now of these grounds would, I think, in view of the vast extent of the park, require grave consideration. One of the clubs to which grounds were assigned was the Working Men's Club. The members of the Phoenix Cricket Club have not been prosecuting members of the Working Men's Club, but trespassers committing wilful mischief who, on being challenged by the police, all gave false names and addresses, as stated by the Magistrate at the trial. The Constabulary Cricket Ground has not been much used by that body, and the question of what should be done with it is now before the Board of Works.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability of relieving the enumerators of agricultural statistics in the Royal Irish Constabulary, who often at this time of the year have to walk 15 or 20 miles daily, from house to house, of patrol or general duty during the days on which they are engaged in collecting statistical information?

The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that it is the practice to relieve the police from all their ordinary duties while actually employed on the outdoor duty necessary for the collection of the statistics referred to, and for which I understand they receive extra remuneration. It may, however, become necessary on occasions to employ individual members on other duties; but, as far as possible, they are relieved from their ordinary work when engaged on these statistics.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House what portion of the increased receipt of £3,500,000 or £4,000,000, which he estimates will be received annually from the Death Duties he has estimated would be derived from the increased receipts arising from Succession Duty being charged on the principal value of realty passing in fee simple instead of being charged on the value of an annuity; and whether he can state, either accurately or approximately, what proportion of the property whereon Death Duties were levied in 1891–2, amounting in all to £241,453,000, represented realty passing in fee simple, and what was the amount on which Succession Duty was levied in respect of such realty?

It was impossible to get the figures in the short time which has elapsed since the question appeared on the Paper. Notice of it was only given yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Clause 13 of the Finance Bill as at present drawn extends to all insolvent estates, no matter what the gross value of the assets, and also to all estates, no matter of what amount, where, after deducting debts, the balance is under £1,000; whether it has been taken into consideration that professional assistance is most required in cases of the character referred to; and on what grounds in insolvent estates, where no Probate Duty is payable and the State gains nothing, State officials should undertake free of charge the duties of solicitors?

The effect of the Bill is as stated in the first paragraph. The fact that Inland Revenue officers are empowered to receive affidavits in such cases does not, of course, prevent the parties from employing professional advice, if they require it. The ground why this provision was adopted in the Bill was mainly public convenience.

If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman exclude from the scope of the provisions persons who have large properties and were insolvent?

I understand that the provision applies to people who have less than £1,000. People with larger fortunes than that will be able to indulge in professional advice.

Is it not a fact that the provision as it stands will apply to an estate of £50,000 if the owner happens to owe £49,000?

asked for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the Report of the Inland Revenue Authorities upon the Memorial of the Convention of Royal Burghs with regard to cess and stent; if so, will he introduce a Bill to deal with the matter this Session?

The Report of the Inland Revenue Authorities is, generally, not unfavourable to the proposals of the Convention; but I am afraid I cannot undertake that the Government will introduce a Bill to deal with the matter this Session.

In all probability the Bill will be absolutely unopposed, and could therefore be proceeded with after 12 o'clock. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

If there be such a lusus natuæ as an unopposed Bill, I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Board of Trade have no information, and are unable or decline to procure any, with regard to the extent to which some English and Welsh Railway Companies, on their cheap tickets issued to workmen, impose upon them a condition relieving the carrying Company from all liability for the death or injury of the workmen, if caused upon the journey by the fault or negligence of the Company; whether the Home Office, or any other Government Department, has or will procure information as to what Companies issue such tickets, and to what extent, either in the form of the Return asked for or in some other form; and if he will consider the propriety of altering the law when opportunity arises, so as to make such conditions on passengers' tickets, whether cheap or ordinary fares are paid, invalid?

The matter to which my hon. Friend's question refers concerns the Board of Trade, and has nothing to do with the Home Office or any other Government Department. From communications which I have had with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I know that the whole subject is at present engaging his attention.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in view of the fact that all the materials for a public prosecution with regard to the Jabez Balfour Companies were sent in to the Treasury by the Official Receiver more than six months ago, he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take immediate action in the matter?

I answered a question substantially the same a few days ago, and I must adhere to that answer, which was, that it was not desirable in the public interest that any further statement should at present be made.

Are we to understand that there is no intention of proceeding against the other persons concerned in these frauds?

No; the hon. Gentleman is to understand simply that it is not in the public interest that any further statement should now be made.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if he will grant a Return showing, for the last five years, which, if any, of the Courts of the Judges of the High Court of Justice have either not sat or have risen before the usual hour on the Derby Day, with the reason for such omission to sit or early adjournment?

My attention has only just been called to this question, and I will ask the hon. Member to postpone it for a day or two.

I will repeat it on Friday.

Can the President of the Board of Agriculture say if there is any truth in the report of a fresh outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Sevington, near Ashford, Kent?

I have no information of a further outbreak of pleuropneumonia at Sevington. I fancy that the report has been circulated in consequence of the slaughter there of some animals that had been in contact with those in which the disease was discovered some time ago.

said, that in rising to propose the Resolution which stood in his name for the adjournment of the House over Derby Day he did so with the natural modesty which had always distinguished him in that House. He very greatly regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on the previous night unable assent to this proposal, not only in the interests of the Members but also of the officials of the House. The longer Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Gentleman might, no doubt, have enabled him to discover a sufficient reason for the refusal, but from the point of view of hon. Members, some of whom had not always voted against the Government, and for the sake of the officials, he might reasonably have consented to give them one day's holiday, particularly when they wanted to do honour to the Prime Minister, for whom they all had such regard as a great supporter of their national sports. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself were not so young as on an occasion some years since when they came careering to the House to support such a Motion as this. To him it was a matter of perfect indifference whether the House adjourned or not; to the Derby he would go. He had not missed that event for 30 years, and he was not going to miss it at his present advanced period of life. He looked upon the Derby as an exact specimen of all the national sports. He never had a bet on a race in his life; and as a Churchwarden, and a member of the House of Laymen of the Province of York, he saw no harm in his witnessing a national sport conducted on highly moral principles. He sincerely wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to go down in the special train to-morrow. He would have been an adornment to that train, and he would have enjoyed a well-deserved holiday. He appealed to the Government to show that they were for once liberal and generous, to give them a day's holiday, which they, and especially the officials, so much needed. He admitted that practices of a most objectionable character had been introduced into the national sports. There might be a certain amount of betting. He reprobated that very strongly, but were they to give up cricket because there was betting at cricket matches? He ventured to assert that if they did not uphold their national sports England would not maintain her present position. He knew that a number of Irish Members would not vote against this Motion. He relied on the promises which had been made to him; he did not believe that they would be broken, and he would therefore move the adjournment of the House over Derby Day.

I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is going to the Derby, but let me give him one word of warning, and that is to take the precaution of pairing if he does not succeed in carrying his Motion. There are special reasons why the House should look with favour on this proposal. No Parliament, certainly in my time, has ever had to bear such a strain and such a tax as the present Parliament. We sat for 11 months out of the 12 last year, and if any serious attempt is to be made on the part of the Government to carry even the most pressing of their measures the House will have to sit for something like 11 months during the present year. I submit, in these circumstances, that the loss of a Wednesday Sitting could not make a very material difference to the progress of Government business, while it would make a great difference to the over-worked Members of the House, and to the wearied officials, to whom my hon. Friend has referred in such feeling terms. We should all benefit both in health and temper by a holiday.

That depends upon whether you win or lose.

I can picture to myself the scene and the ovation that will follow the hoisting of the number of the horse of the Prime Minister. Just consider what it will be! I can see the winner led back to the scales, with the Prime Minister on the one side, and the stalwart form of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the other, with head erect, and proud, defiant eye, flashing a warning all around—the sort of thing we often see when he rises to address is on favourable occasions—and there would be something very much worse and more serious than graduated Death Duties if anyone should venture to lift even a finger against the favourite until the welcome words "All right!" have been given. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might consider on this occasion the appeal we desire to make to him. Of course, there are different ways of doing it. You must take a Division. That I grant you. There is the Nonconformist conscience to consider. I have observed that the Nonconformist conscience is pretty tough when any political advantage is to be gained, and there can be no doubt as to the political advantage that would result from Ladas winning the Derby. I think it would only be necessary to give a wink to the Whips. The Government, as has happened before, would be defeated, and we might all go to the Derby in peace and comfort. Just one word in reply to an objection that has often been urged in the House, and, no doubt, will be urged again, for I see the warning face of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) opposite. "Why," it is asked, "should the House of Commons be called upon to adjourn merely for a horse race?" There is a good and serious reply to be made to that. Everybody will admit that it is a matter of first-rate importance to a country like this that we should preserve a first-rate breed of horses. Up to this time this has always been done by private enterprise in this country. In recent years foreign countries have become quite alive to the advantage of maintaining such a breed of horses; and enormous efforts have been made by these foreign Governments with all the advantage of unlimited purses to enable them to accomplish that very desirable purpose. I am not going to conceal from the House of Commons that, in my humble opinion, a great deal of injury has been done during the past 30 years in this country by our not endeavouring more to maintain the excellence of our breed of horses. Good horses of all kinds— especially horses that would be fitted to carry the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself—are much more difficult to procure now than they were formerly; but as long as racing is maintained, the fountain of excellence will always remain with us. And why? Because the ambitions of the Turf, and the great prizes that are to be won at it, are sufficient to induce private individuals, like Lord Rosebery, and a great many others to retain in possession of this country the Hermits—the House will forgive me for putting Hermit first—the Stockwells, the Newminsters, the Galopins, the St. Simons, and the Ladases.

And the Ormondes.

Yes; but Ormonde was not quite sound. I was delighted to see Ormonde in consequence removed from this country—I say that without the slightest want of patriotism. But, as I was saying, the encouragements given by the Turf are sufficient to induce private enterprise to maintain in the possession of this country, in spite of all the foreign purses in the world put together, horses of that class. So long as we continue to retain them in England, you can command your breed of horses. Abolish, or discourage, racing and undoubtedly they will go. That is one serious reason, and I will not give another, why I do desire to induce the House of Commons on this occasion to mark their recognition of what was called, and justly called, by my hon. Friend, a great national institution. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be induced to look favourably on this proposal. Viewing the fact that the present Prime Minister is at this moment owner of the Derby favourite— a horse which, so far as I can see, presents to all outside appearance the greatest certainty in the world of winning—I am entitled to say to Members of the House of Commons, and especially to hon. Gentlemen opposite, what a noble Lord said to me on a former occasion, "England expects the Liberal Party to go down to Epsom to-morrow." I hope they will do so. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look favourably on this Motion—there is no reason for making this Adjournment a question of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. Political opponent though I am, I hope the Liberal Party will return from Epsom to-morrow conscious of the enormous advantage they have gained because Lord Rosebery has won the Blue Ribbon of the Turf; conscious also of something else on which I am not quite so sure I could heartily congratulate them—that the victory of Ladas has done a real good and very possibly most timely turn to the fortunes of the Party to which they belong.

I do not know whether gentlemen who have had to fulfil the arduous and difficult duties which belong to a trustee have ever been solicited by the persons who are the subject of the trust to violate their trust for the advantage of the beneficiaries. It is the duty, and very often the painful duty, of the trustee to say, "Well, gentlemen and ladies, I should be extremely happy to oblige you, but really the fact is that the terms of the trust do not allow me to do so." The Government to-day are in the situation of trustees of the whole time of the House which was granted to them on Thursday last, and the question we have to consider is whether giving up one of these days to attendance at the Derby is strictly in conformity with the terms of that trust. I am sorry to say that we have come to the conclusion that it is not so—that it was not for this purpose that we were entrusted with the whole time of the House; that the House of Commons has other objects to which its time and attention ought to be devoted; and that those who have the disposal of the time of the House have no right to appropriate it to any other purpose than that for which it was given. My right hon. Friend says it is very necessary that the House of Commons should go to the Derby to-morrow in order to keep up the breed of horses in this country. I am quite sure that so long as there are persons like himself, it will not need that special encouragement to maintain in this country a breed of horses of the best description. I can offer him some consolation in that respect. If what he wants is encouragement from the august body of the State, I would remind him that there are three estates of the Realm— the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons of England. He has the undivided encouragement of the two first. They are at his disposal. Enjoying their otium cum dignitate, they can give the countenance of their lawn sleeves to my right hon. Friend on that occasion. I cannot, therefore, think that his argument that horse-breeding will die out in this country in consequence of our attending to public business to-morrow, or that it will seriously injure horse-racing, is well founded. I think that if we were to consent to this Motion we should not be doing that which we are bound to do in reference to the time at our disposal, and therefore I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the proposal.

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper: —Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after "following," to insert "when situate within the United Kingdom." He had intended this as a drafting Amendment. The effect of it, with another Amendment to be moved subsequently, would be to make it clear that the property out of the country to be charged with Estate Duty was property liable to Legacy or Succession Duty. He did not desire to press the Amendment—in fact, he would mot move it, because there were similar Amendments on the Paper in the names of other Members, and it was possible that those hon. Gentlemen attached different meanings to their proposals.

If the hon. Member moves his Amendment, shall I be in Order in moving the same Amendment afterwards for a totally different reason?

No.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It seemed to him that the clause was not sufficiently clear to show the difference between property situated within the United Kingdom and property situated outside it.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow was a drafting Amendment. Would the fact of its not being moved preclude another Member from moving it as a substantial Amendment?

The Amendment can only be put from the Chair, and either accepted or rejected once, but hon. Members can support it for any reason they like when put.

said, it would be an improvement if the first four sub-sections of the clause were prefaced by the words "As to the property in the United Kingdom." The advantage of that would be felt when they came to deal with Sub-section 5, which related to property outside the United Kingdom.

said, the Government themselves proposed to move an Amendment to prevent ambiguity. After the first four sub-sections they proposed to leave out the word "such," before "property," so that it might not be supposed that in the subsequent subsection the same class of property was dealt with as that referred to in the first four sub-sections.

rose to move, in page 2, line 5, after "following," to insert "situate in the United Kingdom." He said that there were very grave interests involved in this country and in other parts of the world which naturally reacted on one another, and unless they could at the very beginning insert in this Finance Bill some terms to confine their action to property situated within the United Kingdom very grave evils would follow, and among the gravest would be this: that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Revenue of this country would not benefit in anything like the degree—if it benefited at ail— which was estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should place before the Committee one or two considerations which he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit were deserving of the greatest respect and attention.

said, they had had the question discussed and decided upon, as to whether the Estate Duty should or should not be applied in regard to property out of the United Kingdom; and it could not be again raised upon this Amendment, which was a drafting Amendment to clear up the clause. A decision had been taken on the question whether the Estate Duties should or should not apply to property outside the United Kingdom, and he ventured to say that no Amendment could now be moved which had the object of declaring that property should be excluded from the operations of the Bill that was outside the United Kingdom. He pointed out at the time this question was raised that it could be more properly raised on Clause 2, but hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed it on Clause 1, and made this proposal upon it, which was negatived without a Division. He was sorry the hon. Member was not able to be present, but they argued it for several hours in this House; it was the last Amendment put from the Chair on Thursday night, and it was negatived without a Division. Such being the facts of the case, and after that decision of the House, he ventured to say that the question could not now be raised in any Amendment as to whether property out of the United Kingdom should or should not be liable to pay these duties.

said, his recollection was not that this matter of the duty, as it related to property out of the United Kingdom, had been negatived.

Yes, it has. The Amendment was after the word "property" to insert "capable of being dealt with in the United Kingdom," so as to restrict it to the United Kingdom. If that is so, and I think it is so, then I think this Amendment, if it had been merely a drafting Amendment followed by others, would have been in Order, but, as it is, I think it is out of Order.

on the point of Order, submitted that the words "capable of being dealt with in the United Kingdom" were entirely different to the words "situate in the United Kingdom," and covered other property. He would further point out that if it were out of Order to propose the words "situate in the United Kingdom," then this whole clause was out of Order, because if the clause had any import at all, it was a restrictive clause. If it was not restrictive it had no meaning whatever. Clause 1 imposed the duty upon all property whatsoever and wheresoever. Clause 2, again, if it had any meaning at all, had the meaning that it further defined the property in question, and if it defined it further, it must restrict it further. The language of the clause ran "it is to be deemed to include." The question they had to settle under the clause was what was to be included in the property that passed; that was to say, how far the restriction could be extended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad said that at the very end of the clause the question should be raised as to whether property in the United Kingdom was to be included or not, and the right hon. Gentleman had already told them that he proposed to vary the form in which it had been included in the clause as drafted. He submitted, therefore, on the ground that "property capable of being dealt with" was not the same as property "situate in the United Kingdom"; on the ground that this clause was entirely itself out of Order unless the Amendment now moved were in Order, and on the ground that the framers of this Bill themselves had included the question of the inclusion of property in the United Kingdom in the last part of the clause, that the Amendment now proposed was entirely in Order.

said, it was perfectly true that this clause did define certain properties included in Clause 1. It said that property passing on the death of a deceased (which was defined in Clause 1) should be deemed to include the properties following. The properties following were (a), (b), (c), and (d) subsections. These, no doubt, applied to properties in the United Kingdom. But it also stated that all property out of the United Kingdom should be included, subject to limitations and definitions. That was merely a restriction on the property which had been described under Clause I. But the question was raised upon Clause I, and decided by this House. [Mr. GIBSOX BOWLES: Not decided.] That question was raised and decided. He warned hon. Gentlemen at the time that if they raised it and decided it then they could not raise it again. It was discussed for a couple of hours, and then it was decided by the House without any Division, for the Amendment was negatived, which would have had the effect, had it been carried, of excluding property out of the United Kingdom. That was the situation. This clause was clearly not out of Order; it was a Definition Clause.

I said if this Amendment was out of Order, then the clause was out of Order.

said, it was a Definition Clause, and having decided in the first clause that the word "property" was to cover property outside the United Kingdom as well as inside, they were here defining and limiting property outside the United Kingdom in the manner described at page 24. That was to say they had already determined that the general word "property" did cover property outside the United Kingdom, and now at the end of the clause they were describing and defining that limit on that property in the manner so described.

entirely agreed that they considered the general question of whether or not property outside the United Kingdom should come within the Estate Duty, but that did not quite touch the merits of the point of Order. This sub-section was proposing to define property in these words—

"Property of which the deceased at the time of his death was competent to dispose."

Take the case of personal property or real property; it obviously came within these words. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he did not propose that the earlier sub-sections should deal with property outside the United Kingdom, therefore, he submitted it was obvious, on the right hon. Gentleman's own principle, that they must be allowed to discuss under these four sub-sections whether the words were so worded as to be wide enough to include property out of the United Kingdom.

remarked that if this was a drafting Amendment he should not have a word to say against it. It was only because the hon. Member was proceeding to discuss a question which had already been decided that he had interposed. He understood the object of the hon. and learned Member (Sir R. Webster) was very different. He did not at all dispute that it would be better drafting to put in words to make it clear that Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), and (d), were not intended to apply to property out of the United Kingdom. Upon that they did not differ. The Government preferred their own words, and they thought the alterations they proposed to make in line 24, would make it perfectly clear that it could not apply to property outside the United Kingdom, because that would be sufficiently defined and made clear, so that the ambiguity which the hon. and learned Member properly referred to would be removed. The real ambiguity arose from the word "such," and "such" here referred to (a), (b), and (c). They struck out the word "such," and the Solicitor General would move an Amendment which would make it perfectly clear that the only part of this clause which referred to foreign property at all, was the part of the clause which began at line 24. That really was the point, and there was no difference in substance.

said, before the Chairman decided the point of Order he should like to ask a further question. At the end of the clause were these words: —

"All such property, when situated out of the United Kingdom, shall be included if it is liable to Legacy or Succession Duty or would be so liable."

That was a restriction on the general proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered had been accepted by the House. He would ask if it was in Order, if this was not in conflict with the general proposition, would any further restriction that might be placed upon the taxation of foreign property be out of Order, whilst this was in Order, as an exception to the general rule which the right hon. Gentleman laid down? It appeared to him that at the end of Section I there were words which showed that, notwithstanding the vote which the House had given, all property was not included, but only property liable to Legacy or Succession Duty. Therefore, he would submit that if it was not in Order in this particular place it would be in Order hereafter to impose any such limitations as the Committee might think right on the imposition of property situate in the Colonies. When the question arose the previous night with regard to Clause 1 whether they should vote against the clause particularly in reference to what was proposed by the Member for the University of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not himself suggest that it was on Clause 1 but upon Clause 2 that the objects aimed at by his right hon. Friend could be dealt with, and when they refused to divide against the clause they were under the impression that it was a matter that might be raised upon Clause 2.

said, there was clearly no difference between the two sides of the House. His point was that it was not open now to say that no property abroad should be subject to this duty, but it was open to add further limitations. The limitation which the Government had proposed was that only such property should be included as was liable to Succession and Legacy Duty. If hon. Members thought further restrictions should be imposed they could discuss them. That was the position of the matter. He did not dispute that at the end of the clause they might impose further limitations.

said, that the general question having been settled it could not be again raised. But, at the same time, in answer to the question put to him by the right hon. Member for St. St. George's, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right in suggesting—and he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree with him in the suggestion—that it was quite possible to modify the propositions upon the latter end of the clause; but the general proposition which had already been decided was no longer open.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at this or a later stage to put words at the commencement of the clause which will show that the first four sub-sections are intended to apply to the United Kingdom?

We really mean that if you will leave it in our hands.

rose to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose," and insert the words—

"to which the deceased was at the time of his death absolutely entitled, whether in possession or not, or which he had a general power to appoint by will or (being money) to charge, whether by deed or will, or any property provided, and, so far as such powers shall have been respectively exercised but not otherwise, or to which, being real estate, he was at the time of his death entitled for an estate tail in possession, or for a base fee continuing after his death."

He said, he thought that the Amendment was considerably clearer than the words appearing in Clause 2 of the Bill, as drawn. The first kind of property which was to be included under the term of property passing on the death of a deceased, was property of which the deceased at the time of his death was competent to dispose. Suppose these words stood alone without explanation on the face of the Bill, anybody would admit they were far too wide. There were many kinds of property a man could dispose of in which he had really himself no property. He knew the difficulty the drafters of a Bill of this kind would have when they tried to define property that passed on the death of a deceased. The first item was the property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose. They had to look somewhere else to see what was meant by that, and he found that the Interpretation Clause made things more confounded than ever. Having regard to the Interpretation Clause, and to the words in this clause, it was clear that a good many items of property were included which it could not possibly be intended to include. In the first place, it would include all property in which the deceased had no property himself, but had only the right of disposition, as, for instance, a purely fiduciary power, or quasi-fiduciary power. Suppose he was tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, there was power to dispose of the property, but it was not, of course, intended to include such cases. Suppose he was trustee with power of sale—fiduciary power—that would be included in these words. Suppose he was a mortgagee with power of sale. Upon his death this would be considered property of which he was capable of disposing, and, therefore, property passing at his death and upon which duty was payable. He could suggest other instances to show that the words of the clause were far too wide. Generally, property over which a deceased person had had a power of sale, but in which he had no financial interest whatever, would be included. He had done his best to frame a clause which would include every item of property which could be reasonably considered property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, which passed at his death, and which might fairly be included for the purposes of duty. He begged to move the Amendment.

said, that the Amendment would introduce into the clause esoteric mysteries of real estate. The substance of the proposal of the Bill itself was that property passing on death should include all properties of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death, such as, for instance, money at his bankers. Another form of property consisted of a power to appoint property to oneself. For example, where a man had £1,000 at the bank which was not his own money, but which he might be in a position to appropriate to himself at any moment. What the Government said was that if a man at the time of death had power by a stroke of the pen to transfer to his own credit this £1,000, it must be treated as property passing at the man's death, although he had not in fact exercised the power of transferring the money to his credit. If such property were excluded from the operation of the clause the effect would be to facilitate greatly the plans of persons who might wish to evade the payment of Estate Duty. Coming to the Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, unwilling to leave the responsibility of drafting the clauses with the Government, and more ambitious than they, sought to enumerate every possible case in which a man might be deemed competent to dispose of property. They had been reminded that there were a number of professional gentlemen who saw a prospect of evasion of duty under this Bill. If they endeavoured to give this comprehensive and specific enumeration of every case it was very possible that after all something would be omitted, and that under these circumstances persons might be assisted in the evasion of payment of duty. Of course, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would guarantee to enumerate every case he should be much obliged to him for doing so, but to enumerate them partially would do no good whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment contained a limitation under which he said property was not to be taxed over which a person had a general power of supervision unless he in fact exercised that power. The result of that would be that if a man wanted to give another a life interest in £10,000 which upon his death should pass to his son, the father, although he might have a general power of control, and his son be completely at his mercy, might not exercise his power, and so the tax which would otherwise fall in at his death would be lost. In any case, whether his argument was right or wrong, he would ask the hon. and learned Member to reconsider the matter, and make any suggestion which he might think fit as to the limitation of the power of disposal when Clause 18 was reached. They would also find opportunity on Clause 18 to discuss the whole question of tenants in tail, in possession, or in remainder. There appeared, he thought, to be some good ground for the proposal in the Amendment with regard to base fees, and to that proposal he undertook to give further consideration. He hoped the Amendment might not be pressed further now, and that the Committee would consent to deal with these matters in due order.

said, it was essential that the Committee should know to what they were coming. He must make a protest on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend that this was an Amendment inspired by some Committee.

said, he did not mean to convey that. All that he wanted to say was that the Government by their clause had done the best they could to avoid evasion of the Act.

said, he knew of no committee in this matter or of any persons' intention to endeavour to avoid responsibility under the measure. This Amendment had been placed upon the Paper in order to make the thing more clear. The Government, although they had access to the most competent advice, were not able at present to say that they would accept it; and he wanted to know what, by the action of the Government, they were storing up for themselves in view of the fact that when any question of importance arose they were invariably asked to postpone it until some subsequent clause was being deal with? It was absolutely essential that they should know what meaning was to be given to the words—

"property of which the deceased was competent to dispose."

If that could not be settled now the whole matter would have to be re-discussed upon Clause 18. But he would not put it as a matter of mere convenience. These definitions must inevitably be dealt with, and he thought the Government ought to deal with them at once. This Amendment had been upon the Paper for some days. If the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not think the words were quite suitable he could amend them just as easily now as when they came to Clause 18. There was no reason for the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that his hon. and learned Friend who had introduced this Amendment was bringing the House to the consideration of esoteric subjects. He submitted that the real matter that they had to consider was what was the degree of competency to dispose which a person should have in order to bring the property within this aggregation or pool contemplated by the clause? It was not right to put in general words like "competent to dispose" without knowing exactly what it was the Government meant. Such words would include the case of any man who had the power of exercising appointment—the case, for instance, of a man who had these carrying powers, and who by virtue of them was brought in as a mortgagee with power to sell, and who would be taxed up to a far larger sum than would be justifiable. He really could not understand why the Government should have put in these words. The words being there, and the Amendment being moved, he submitted that it was essential that the matter should be discussed now. They might have some days, or weeks, or months hence, a discussion as to the meaning of Clause 18, but between this and then he thought they were entitled to information from the Government which would show precisely what were the kinds of property which would fall into the aggregation.

said, the Solicitor General had put to the Committee the case of a man who, without having any interest in a property himself, might have a power of appointment which he might hold in terrorem over his son, and he suggested that, although there was no exercise of power, yet upon the death of the father the property would pass. Now, this was a question that was by no means new. It had been argued before with every advantage that legal acumen could give.

interrupting, said, that if a man had a power of appointment, and did not exercise it in life, the question did not arise.

continuing, said, that he was remarking that this question as to property which did or did not pass under certain circumstances was not a new one. The Solicitor General had told them that the sub-section had been devised for the purpose of preventing evasion. If that was the ease, he did not think it was required. But it was one of the inconveniences of this Bill that when one was endeavouring to get at the meaning of a particular clause, he had to refer to other clauses, and to other Acts of Parliament. If the Solicitor General had the Act of 1881 as amended by the Act of 1889 before him, he would see that there were ample provisions against the evasion of duty. By their proposals the Government were endeavouring to bring in considerations which did not really exist. It was pretty much like saying that a man who had a general invitation to dinner, and never accepted it, had never dined. He did not think that the course which was being taken by the Government was likely to advance the Bill. When everybody had forgotten about that, and not till then, the Government were to bring in their definition of it. That was not fair to the taxpayer, who was entitled to know at once under what heading he was to be taxed. As the Bill stood, the unfortunate taxpayer had to run all over it from clause to clause to see what it was intended that he should bear in the way of fresh burdens of taxation. He-was disposed to move an Amendment himself, in order to remedy this inconvenience, and should do so except that he was anxious to save the time of the Committee. As to this particular-point of limitation, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment that the passing of properties referred to ought to be limited to the case of a man who was absolutely entitled thereto or who had the power to appoint to the property, and had exercised that power. What passed in the case put by the Solicitor General was not property at all, but merely the potentiality of property. It was no answer to say that if the clause was wrong in itself it was wrong advisedly in order to prevent evasion, because, as he had pointed out, the danger of evasion was already amply provided for. He thought that this was an Amendment which the Committee might very fairly and properly adopt.

said, he had listened to the discussion with the view of ascertaining as far as possible what were the points of substance and what the points of drafting, because he was sure that on points of drafting the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to please Members opposite. Three points had been raised on the Amendment, but he thought that the first two of these—namely, that relating to the base fee and that relating to fiduciary powers—ought to be dealt with in later clauses of the Bill. There was, therefore, only the one point to be disposed of in this clause—whether there should be included in the property passing for the purpose of duty property which at the time of a man's death he was competent to dispose of. Supposing the Government agreed to exclude property over which there was a general power of disposition if that power had not been actively exercised, the door would then be opened not to evasions but to a state of things which was certainly not desirable. Nothing would be simpler than for a man to buy property in the name of his son or in somebody else's name, reserving to himself a bare power of appointment. He felt that if systems of this kind were brought into operation it would be a very great evil. The Committee had therefore to consider whether any advantage was to be gained by adopting the Amendment. Anybody who was in the happy position of having property which he could but did not turn to account was not entitled to very much pity if he did not make use of his opportunities, particularly as under this Bill his property would be subject to an onerous duty if he did not exercise his powers. It seemed to him that the one broad principle involved in the Amendment ought to be disposed of, and there was a clear balance of advantage in dis- posing of it in the way proposed by the Bill.

was of opinion that the matter ought to be discussed now. It seemed to him that it would be perfectly impossible to discuss the very important question of aggregation without knowing first of all what it was that was to be aggregated. There was another objection to postponing the discussion. Although the Solicitor General had assured the Committee that the matter could be dealt with in the 17th or 18th clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have returned to the House before the last-named clauses were dealt with, and he would contend on a point of Order that the subject had been already settled by the Committee. It seemed to him (Mr. Graham Murray) that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Haldane) had really not met in any way the point which had been raised with regard to the fiduciary position. Surely it was not worth while to introduce words which had not at present found a single sponsor, and which would undoubtedly apply to all sorts of people which had powers at their disposal, and yet were not meant to be touched by the Bill.

interposing, said, that the power of appointment by a trustee in favour of other persons was not a power of appointment of a general character, and it was only general powers of appointment that the sub-section dealt with.

said, he was speaking not of powers of appointment, but of powers of disposal. Any trustee who had got a title to property made out was competent to dispose of that property, but he supposed it was not intended to impose a Death Duty upon the trustee in respect of such property. The Solicitor General said, that what the Government wished to get at was not only the amount a man had in the bank at his death, but the money he was able by a stroke of the pen to put into the bank. Why should not the Inland Revenue Authorities, however, wait until the man had exercised that stroke of the pen? If he did exercise it, the money would become part of his assets, and he (Mr. Graham Murray) did not think there was very much danger that, as a rule people would refrain from appointing to themselves all that they could appoint. The Solicitor General appeared to forget that the Probate Duty was only paid in the case of powers of appointment being exercised. He should have thought it a very simple proposition that a man should not pay as for his own property upon that which he had never had for himself. The question was not altogether whether the words which were suggested by the Mover of the Amendment were the right ones, but rather whether the words—

"property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose"

were the right words. It had been pointed out that those words obviously carried too much, and it was really too much to ask the Committee to insert them now in order that they might have the opportunity of amending them upon some subsequent clause.

said, he did not believe there was the faintest danger of any judicial tribunal failing to perceive that the words "competent to dispose" were not used in the sense of "competent to realise or change the form of." A trustee was not capable of disposing of the trust estate. If a trustee sold the trust estate he was bound to hold the money in trust, and had no power of disposing of it. No one who considered for a moment what the object of this Bill was could doubt that the phrase—

"property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose"

meant property of which the deceased was competent to transfer the beneficial interest to some other person. The next question was as to the power of appointment, and the substantial point was whether a person with a general power of appointment should or should not be taken to have the property, whether he had exercised the power of appointment or not. If a man was competent to dispose of property, it did not seem to him to make the slightest difference whether the disposition was made by appointment or by deed. It had been suggested that it made all the difference if the effect of the non-exercise of the power of appointment was that the property went in a particular way. If, however, a man did not exercise his power of appointment to his own property by will, it went in a particular way under the Intestacy Laws. It really made no difference whether the property went under the Intestacy Laws or whether it went under some particular deed. Under these circumstances, he thought that in substance the words of the Bill described that which was the essence of the matter. If a man was competent to dispose of property that was all he was competent to do with regard to any property, and the matter ought to be looked at as if he had disposed of it.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite saw the necessity of some limitation in the clause, and declared what he would do if he were a judge trying a case. But he (Mr. Butcher) did not think that the imposition of a duty of this kind should depend on the particular view a particular Judge might take of the word "dispose." The object of the Amendment was to make the meaning clear to ordinary minds. If by "dispose" was meant "transfer the beneficial interest," his hon. Friend would probably accept an Amendment in that sense. He (Mr. Butcher) urged upon the Government to act upon the colonial analogies. But the Government were not asked to act upon analogies alone. What was required was to impose a tax on property which, in the ordinary, popular, and intelligent sense of the word, was the property of the deceased. If the deceased could, by doing something or other, have made property his own which was not his own, the hon. and learned Member contended that he ought to pay duty on that property. He (Mr. Butcher) said that unless and until the deceased had gone through that process he ought not to pay duty on the property. The hon. Member for King's Lynn gave an illustration. He (Mr. Butcher) would give another. Supposing he was offered a gift of £1,000, and he refused it for reasons not necessary to inquire into, would the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the £1,000 should be deemed part of his property, he having been competent to dispose of it, and that his successor should be charged for it. Of course, if he accepted the £1,000 it would be his own, and his successors would be properly chargeable. But until property really belonged to a man, and was in his possession, it was unreasonable to charge his successors duty in respect of it.

said, it was difficult to discover whether they were discussing a drafting Amendment or one of substance. There was a difference of opinion as to the part of the Bill in which the Interpretation Clause should appear, but he thought there could be no doubt that certain generic words should appear in the enacting clauses, and that then the Interpretation Clause should fully and clearly and specifically express what those words meant. The Government had taken the course of introducing in Clause 18 a complete and exhaustive Interpretation Clause, and this Amendment really invited the Committee to discuss that clause. In the present clause they had adopted the words—

"the property of which the deceased is competent to dispose."

When the time arrived to discuss the meaning of the words then would be the time to argue out the various hypothetical cases which had been put before the Committee. He could put a case where the payment of duty would be entirely evaded by real property if the view of the hon. Member opposite were adopted. But this was not the time to discuss that question. They were fully determined to discuss the words "competent to dispose" in Clause 18, but if they were on every clause to be discussing every possible meaning of technical words—words of art—of which there was hereafter a full interpretation, they would never be able to make progress with the Bill, and would get into a most confused state. He, therefore, asked the Committee to come to a conclusion on the matter. The Government thought the words they had adopted were the best, at any rate, any qualification or restriction of them should be reserved until they came to Clause 18.

said, he thought the framers of a Bill of this description should be allowed considerable latitude as to the order in which they inserted their clauses; but he would point out the extraordinary position in which the Committee would be placed if the meaning of the words "competent to dispose of" was not cleared up now. They were asked in Clause 3 to say that all property passing at death, of which the deceased was competent to dispose, should be aggregated for the purpose of the duty; but surely it was necessary to ask what was meant by "competent to dispose"? When he came to Clause 18 he found that the present meaning of the Government was not to confine the extension given by these words to property over which the deceased had a general power of appointment, but to all property over which the deceased had any such general power as would, if he were sui juris, enable him to dispose of it, whether that had been done or not. A child who would be able to exercise a power of appointment if he lived to 21 might die at the age of two. Was it to be assumed that what he might have done if he had lived 19 years longer in the way of exercising the power of appointment had really been done? It was essential that the Committee should know whether this power to dispose of property passed "at death" or not. Then, again, his hon. Friend had referred to the case of a mortgagee. Clause 18 made the mortgaged estate part of the estate of which the mortgagee was competent to dispose. Persons were to be held competent to dispose of property if they had such general powers as would enable them to sell. A mortgagee with power of sale was able to dispose of the whole of the beneficial interest in a property absolutely. Were they to treat such an interest as that as property which ought to be aggregated under this Clause 3? It was perfectly monstrous. What ought to be aggregated under this clause was the amount of the mortgage. Was it reasonable they should go on discussing the aggregation clause without knowing what was to be included in these words? If they did not discuss the matter till they came to Clause 18 they would be told it was already settled. This was not a reasonable provision, and he appealed to the Government whether they would not introduce the necessary definition into the clause, so that it might be discussed now.

said, that Clause 18 stated what the Government meant; but, of course, the definition in that clause might be limited or extended when it came to be dealt with by the Committee, which would then have an opportunity of dealing with the Amendment, and either accepting or rejecting it.

added that the difficulty was that they were asked to discuss aggregation without knowing what Clause 18 was going to cover.

said, as a matter of fact Clause 18 in Sub-section 2 (a) did not give an exhaustive definition such as would preclude the insertion of a definition of persons "competent to dispose of" property in this clause.

pleaded on behalf of laymen for the insertion in this clause of a definition which could be "understanded of the people." This was the use of a generic word occurring only in one place where in fact it ought to occur. The word "competent" would probably cause little difficulty; but the word "dispose" seemed to give rise to serious discussion among legal Members of the House. They should not put wrong words into Clause 2 in order to whittle away Clause 18, which provided that a person should be held competent to dispose of property, whether he was tenant-in-tail or not. The two clauses at present were absolutely contradictory, and it would be difficult for even a legal tribunal to explain them. It should be made possible at least to appeal successfully to the law.

contended that the clause would offer an incentive to a man to act in an unconscionable manner. There might be property in the hands of his brother's children, and, if he had power to appoint himself, he might say, "If I do not, the State will levy a duty as though it were mine, and it will come out of the property I can leave to my heirs; I will therefore take it away from them, and then when my estate pays the duty there will, at all events, be some corpus out of which to pay it." He could not think it was intended to strike at the amenities of family life in this way, even for the sake of bringing money into the Exchequer. Such a result should be obviated by words which could be put into an Interpretation Clause.

said, the case put by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney was that the phrase

"property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose,"

meant that he was competent to transfer the beneficial interest in the property to some other person. Cases had been put of a man settling property upon himself or settling it away while reserving power to himself of reclaiming it. The case put by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney was already provided for by the embodiment, in Sub-clause (c), of the Inland Revenue Act.

asked the Solicitor General to say whether he refrained from answering what had been said, because he thought the matter ought to be discussed on Clause 18, or because he thought the matter had been already sufficiently discussed. He complained of the way in which the Committee had been treated. In the first instance general propositions were laid down, and they were forced to vote on general propositions to the first clause, which went much further than was necessary for the Bill itself. They could not discuss them because the Government were postponing them to the Definition Clause. What was the use of discussing the point now if they did not know what the property was to be on which the valuation was to take place? He asked, Was that a fair position in which to place—he would not say the Opposition—the Committee? They did not know what the property was on which graduation would take place or the property on which aggregation would take place.

said, he should not discuss the fairness or unfairness of the matter. No Division or decision taken now could limit the liberty of the House to discuss the Interpretation Clause. If the hon. Member wished, he could withdraw the Amendment, and there would be no necessity to negative it. The Government in no way wished to restrict or fetter the liberty of the House of Commons in the matter.