Mr. Speaker, in moving an Address to the Crown praying Her Majesty to convey to the Government and people of France the sentiments of horror and indignation with which this House regards the fearful crime which has been perpetrated upon the person of the Ruler of a great and friendly nation, I know that I am expressing the universal sentiment of this House and of this people. It has been well said, Sir, that of all British interests the greatest interest is that of peace, and the first condition of peace is the maintenance of the most cordial relations and the most friendly feeling of goodwill between this country and France. Since the close of the great war at the commencement of this century, nearly 80 years ago, we have been always the friends and sometimes the allies of France. That those relations of close amity may be for ever preserved is the foremost desire of every statesman and of every patriotic Englishman. It is natural therefore, Sir, that we should approach the people of France on this terrible event with a heartfelt expression of our deepest detestation of the crime and our sympathy with that nation. Sir, I think that is the case, in public as in private life, that the presence of a great disaster obliterates all thoughts of more trivial events and sweeps away all minor incidents which may have ruffled the surface of things. A great sorrow brings together the society of nations as it does the society of men. On occasions like this we have but one thought, and that is a desire to evince our feelings of sorrowful goodwill towards our great and friendly neighbour. We have witnessed with admiration and respect the fortitude, the resource, and the perseverance with which that brave and ingenious and indomitable people have repaired the consequences of an immense misfortune and vindicated for France the place it has always held among the first nations of the world. The Republic of France has now outlasted each of the systems of Government which have ruled in that country since the great convulsion at the end of the last century. It has shown by its stability the hold which it possesses on the confidence of its people. It has by its energy and resource restored its own affairs, and in its relation with other States it has maintained the dignity of a great people and preserved the priceless blessings of peace. Amongst those who have contributed to the great and noble work there is no one who has played a more illustrous part than the President who has just fallen by the hand of the assassin. No worthier representative of the great Republic, whether at home or abroad, could have been desired than was found in the person of M. Carnot. He has added fame to a famous name amongst the most notable in the annals of France. He leaves behind him the perishable record of an exalted station and great duties bravely fulfilled. His private virtues illustrated his public worth. His dignity, his moderation, and his wisdom were made known to all men. He brought good to France, and in bringing good to France he brought good to the world. In moving that this House should express its abhorrence of the crime which has caused his death and its sorrow for the heavy loss which France has sustained, we have thought we could find no better form of words than those in which this House conveyed its sympathy to the great and kindred Republic of the United States on the occasion of the murder of President Lincoln. I beg leave to move—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned the assassination of the President of the French Republic, and to pray Her Majesty that, in communicating Her own sentiments on this deplorable event to the French Government, Her Majesty will also be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime and their sympathy with the Government and the People of France."

I might well leave this Resolution where it has been left by the Leader of the House, were it not perhaps desirable that I should add one word in order to emphasise the absolute unanimity with which this message of sympathy is sent by the British nation to the French nation. We have surrounded this message with all the formalities customary on such an occasion, but I hope, and I believe that those to whom it is sent will feel, that there lies behind it something more than a mere formal expression of our grief, and that we are speaking from the depths of our hearts. It is a national expression of a great national feeling. Sir, it is more than that. It is not merely the expression of the instinctive horror with which we have received the news of a great crime, nor the natural sympathy with which we have seen this great tragedy, nor our feelings for the loss of a great and patriotic citizen thus sustained by our near neighbours and friends. Sir, it is all this; but it is something more than this. It is the recognition of the community of interests and the brotherhood between the nations of the world, too often obscured by petty controversies and small causes; it is a proof that their sorrows are our sorrows; that their loss is our loss, and that this cruel and cowardly and this useless crime is not considered by us merely as an attack upon one particular member, however distinguished, of an alien Government, but it is a blow aimed at the interests of which all the nations of the world feel themselves to be the guardians in common. That the message sent with these feelings may be so understood by the French nation is my fervent hope and prayer; and in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I beg to second the Resolution.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned the assassination of the President of the French Republic, and to pray Her Majesty that, in communicating Her own sentiments on this deplorable event to the French Government, Her Majesty will also be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime and their sympathy with the Government and People of France."

I should not, Mr. Speaker, have added to the eloquent words which have been spoken on both sides of the House with regard to the terrible calamity which has befallen France but for one circumstance. Our a feeling are all the same as to our regret at the loss of that great man—great by his very goodness—our horror at the crime and our sympathy with the nation deprived of his guidance and his inspiration. On these points we are all at one. There is only one common feeling amongst all parties in this House. But I do feel that the Irish National Party occupy a somewhat peculiar position, and that we are specially entitled and even called upon to speak words of sympathy with France. Everyone knows that the Irish people have been found for generations and centuries in sympathy with the people of France. We are proud to have contributed to the service of France some of the best and truest soldiers and statesmen France has ever bad. One of the later predecessors of the lamented M. Carnot was an Irishman by descent and by feeling. Therefore, I think it would be in some degree peculiar if on this occasion the Irish Party were not represented. It is unnecessary for me to say more to show how sincerely we associate ourselves in this public, this national, this international expression of sympathy and sorrow.

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente , That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey to Her Majesty the expression of the deep sorrow and indignation with which this House has learned the assassination of the President of the French Republic, and to pray Her Majesty that, in communicating Her own sentiments on this deplorable event to the French Government, Her Majesty will also be graciously pleased to express on the part of this House their abhorrence of the crime and their sympathy with the Government and People of France.—( The Chancellor of the Exchequer .)

To be presented by Privy Councillors.

moved, in page 12, line 36, to leave out from "if," to the end of Sub-section (a), and to insert

"he is absolutely entitled thereto either in possession, or expectancy, or having a general power to appoint property by will, if and so far as he has exercised such power, or if, being real estate, he is entitled thereto from an estate tail in possession or to a base fee continuing after his death."

He said there had been a slight discussion in reference to this matter in Clause 2, but it was then suggested that he should postpone further debate upon it until the present Interpretation Clause was reached. Clause 2 of the Bill purported to show what property was taxable, and the first part of the definition in the present clause provided that property of which the deceased was at the time of his death perfectly competent to dispose should be taxable. More was included in the words "competent to dispose" than would appear to an ordinary reader from the words themselves. The Interpretation Clause provided that if a man had such an estate or such power as would enable him, if he were sui juris to dispose of the property, including a tenant in tail, whether in possession or not, he should be deemed competent to dispose of the property. The object of his Amendment was to provide that a man should not be deemed competent to dispose of the property unless he was absolutely entitled to it either in possession or in expectancy. He had used as large words as he could to express the ordinary sense of what a man was competent to dispose of. He also proposed to include all property over which a man had general power to appoint, if he had exercised that power and not otherwise. Of course, to an ordinary lay mind it would seem a rather extravagant thing to make taxable property of which a man was merely competent to dispose. He submitted that it was not reasonable to regard as part of a man's taxable property that which he had not attempted to deal with in any way. His Amendment further provided that a man should be deemed competent to dispose of property if being real estate he was entitled to an estate tail in possession, or to a base fee continuing after his death. He thought it was not reasonable if a man was entitled only to a base fee which did not continue after his death, and the property on his death went to an entire stranger, that such property should be dealt with as if he were competent to dispose of it. His Amendment would omit from the clause the provision that a man should be considered to be competent to dispose of property, although he was not sui juris , if he would have been competent to dispose of it in the event of his having been of full age. He was glad to see that the Solicitor General had placed upon the Paper an Amendment which would exclude fiduciary powers from the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 36, to leave out from the word "if" to the end of Sub-section (a), and to insert the words

"he is absolutely entitled thereto either in possession, or expectancy, or having a general power to appoint property by will, if and so far as he has exercised such power, or if, being real estate, he is entitled thereto for an estate tail in possession or to a base fee continuing after his death."—( Mr. Byrne .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, as far as the word 'whether,' in line 39, stand part of the Clause."

^* , who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the Amendment went a very long way indeed, and struck deep into the principle of the Bill. The Government had adopted the words "competent to dispose" as pointing to a matter which everyone could understand, and which was different from ownership. The first and most important subject of the Amendment was that of power of appointment. He really thought that an Amendment of such breadth and extent ought to have been brought forward on the second clause.

said, the Solicitor General had b suggested to him when they were discussing the second clause that it would be more convenient to deal with the Amendment upon the Interpretation Clause, and he had therefore postponed it until now. He believed the Attorney General was not present when the second clause was discussed.

^* said, his hon. and learned Friend was right, he believed, in supposing that he was not present. After all, however, his hon. and learned Friend, being a lawyer, must have known what "competent to dispose of" meant, and he did not think his hon. and learned Friend was free from blame in allowing words of that sort to pass on a sort of under- standing that at a later period this Amendment would be moved. The Government had put the words objected to in the Bill because difficulties had been raised in the matter, and not that they really made any difference. The Government had been so often challenged to make their meaning clear that he thought they ought to be excused for endeavouring to do it in this case whether the words they had put in the Bill were absolutely necessary or not. The Government could not accept the Amendment.

said, he hoped that this Amendment, which seemed one of the most important on the Paper, would be discussed at greater length. The hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment contended that they ought not to count as the property of the deceased that which he had in no sense received benefit from. His hon. and learned Friend would shut out property over which the deceased had had a general power of appointment, except so far as he had exercised it. If he had exercised it the property became his property, and it was right that it should be taxed; but it did seem extraordinary that they were to count as a man's property that which had never been his property, which he was given an election to make his property if he wished, but which, if he did not make that election, would go to a person who might be, and often was, a stranger to him. Supposing a man had a general power of appointment, and that during his life he released that power, would the property be looked upon as his, and be taxable at his death? So far as he (Mr. Carson) could see from the wording of the Bill, the man would be no longer competent to dispose of the property, having released the power of appointment, which was the only way he had of making the election to take the property. If in that way he could avoid having the property taxed as his property, and brought into aggregation, what was the difference in relation to this property between that and allowing it to go over in exactly the same way as if he had never exercised the release at all? It was reducing taxation to an absurdity to say that because a man did nothing they were to tax him as if the property were his, whereas, if he executed a deed declaring that he would do nothing, the property was not his, and should not be taxed? He submitted that the Government ought in all fairness to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, and should not leave these matters dependent on the absurdities of conveyancing, which eventually must give rise to a vast amount of litigation. The next point of the Amendment was this: his hon. Friend did not think that an estate tail in remainder for which the testator had never received benefit, and which by reason of its never having come into possession went over to a perfect stranger to the family, and therefore had never brought a shilling of interest, either to the deceased or any member of his family, should be taxed. To say that they were to tax the estate tail in remainder as a portion of the estate of the deceased, or to aggregate it with his property for the purpose of increasing the duty on that, was an absurdity in taxation. A base fee, when it became a base fee in possession, was a valuable property, but by the form of the Amendment it was conceded that such a base fee ought to be taxed and aggregated for taxation. But if a base fee never came into possession at all, and therefore had not been a. property in the ordinary sense of the word which was of any use to a man or his family, how ought that to be taxed, or why should it be taxed? He thought they ought to consider whether they ought not to accept the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 193.—(Division List, No. 130.)

moved, in page. 12, line 39, to leave out "whether," and page 12, line 39, to leave out "or not." The Attorney General had said, with regard to a base fee, that it might last for all practical purposes as long as an ordinary fee simple. Of course, that was so, but it might also last a very short time, and it was therefore an interest of a very uncertain character. He suggested that while it might be an interest which might have to be taken into account for the purpose of paying duty, it was not such an interest as should be treated as property under the control of the person on whose death the duty became payable, property within his disposition, so as to be aggregated as to its value with the rest of the estate.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 39, to leave out the word "whether," and page 12, line 39, to leave out the words "or not."—( Mr. T. H. Bolton .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

^* was understood to say that if a tax were involved upon the estate, then in all probability the Estate Duty, irrespective of it, would be payable almost immediately, and therefore the relief would be inconsiderable in the case of a base fee from any point of view. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 12, line 43, at end, to insert—

"but exclusive of any power exerciseable in a fiduciary capacity under a disposition not made by himself, or exercisable as tenant for life under 'The Settled Land Act, 1882,' or as mortgagee."

He said the Amendment was in compliance with a promise he had previously given, or an understanding which had been arrived at.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19.

^* , on behalf of Mr. R. T. REID, moved, in page 13, line 29, to leave out from "of a" to end of line, and insert "gross value not exceeding five hundred pounds." He said the object of the Amendment was to bring the Scotch provisions into line with those settled in regard to the English provisions, the necessity for that arising from the fact that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act had separate sections—applicable to the two countries—one 33 and the other 34.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 29, to leave out from "of a" to end of line, and insert the words "gross value not exceeding five hundred pounds."—( The Lord Advocate .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

^* said, he desired to put a question which was raised by the Amendment. He was very glad indeed that the Government had seen their way to reduce the maximum estate from £1,000 to £500; but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the figure of £500 was in advance by £200 of the maximum obtaining at present, which, he thought, was £300. He obtained an answer a few days ago from the Secretary to the Treasury to a question he put on behalf of a very deserving class of officials in Scotland—namely, the Commissary clerks, who answered to the Registrars in England. Some Commissary clerks were still paid by fees and not by salary, and, he asked, if it should turn out that those fees were materially reduced under the operation of this Act, whether it would be competent for the Treasury to consider questions of compensation? The Secretary to the Treasury assured him that if a good case were made out the Treasury would give compensation. He would remind the Government that in a similar case which happened about 12 years ago it was found necessary on the part of the Treasury to obtain the necessary legislative powers to grant that compensation, and what he wanted to know was whether the Government did not intend to put down a new clause in the present Bill empowering the Treasury, in case an occasion was made out for that compensation, to grant it according to the usual scale? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a favourable answer; otherwise, if claims for compensation were made out, there would require to be fresh legislation next Session, which would, of course, always create more difficulty. He would suggest that a short clause on the lines of Section 12 of the Revenue Act of 1882 could be added to this Bill with great propriety. He looked to the Government to fulfil what was practically a pledge given to him by the Secretary to the Treasury, and. he was sure such a clause as he had suggested would pass without any opposition.

^* : Whatever pledge my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has given I am sure he will loyally fulfil. I was not present when he answered the question, but I will confer with him on the matter, and we shall see whether statutory powers are necessary to enable him to give effect to what he promised.

Will that be at the end of the Committee stage or at the beginning of the Report stage?

I am sorry that I am not in a position to answer that question. I did not know that this point was to be raised, otherwise I should have conferred with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury in regard to it.

said, he did not mean that the Secretary to the Treasury gave any pledge that he would introduce legislation within the lines of this Bill; but if it turned out that such legislation was necessary to enable the Treasury to give compensation, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take those powers in the present Bill while it was before the House.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 32, after the word "security," to insert the words "or other debt, payment, or prestation secured upon heritage."—( Mr. Graham Murray .)

suggested the omission of the word "prestation," and the Government would then accept the Amendment.

assented.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

moved, in page 14, line 1, to leave out from "settled property," to end of line 2, and insert—

"Shall mean property, whether heritable or movable, the title to which is by any disposition, will, deed of entail, settlement, or other deed given to any persons in succession, whether by way of life rent, or life rents and fee, or by way of substitution."

This Amendment, he said, raised a very important question, and as what he conceived to be a national grievance would be constituted if the Bill were allowed to stand as it was, he hoped that he should have the support of all the Scotch Members. The point with which it dealt was one which was really capable of being made intelligible, even to the dry light of the unprofessional intellect, because although, no doubt, it was wrapped up to a certain extent in technical phraseology, it had entirely to do with the exemption which was given by the Bill under the clause which dealt with the payment of 1 per cent. for settlements. The scheme of the Bill which was embodied in Clause 4 was that Where they paid an additional 1 per cent. duty, besides the Estate Duty for a settlement, that settlement during the course of the settlement should be enfranchised and should not have to pay the full Estate Duty again until the property passed to somebody who was really competent to dispose of it. That had been, with one slight exception, successfully carried out as regarded the English portion of the Bill, and all he wanted was fair and equal treatment to Scotland in this matter. There was always a certain disadvantage from the Scotch point of view in proceeding in a Bill like this, making substantive propositions couched in English law phraseology and then proceeding afterwards by means of one Clause and applying them to Scotland because very often they found the form had a very awkward effect on the substance. So far as the form was concerned, the two systems of land rights in the two countries were completely different. In 1848 the Scotch law was assimilated to that in England, and whilst in Scotland they could do exactly what they could in England and no more, at the same time the forms of conveyancing were perfectly different. He proceeded to the application of it in the Bill. This privilege he had spoken of in the 4th clause was given in the case of settled property, and when they came to the Definition Clause they had disposed of, having to do with England, they found that settled property meant property comprised in the settlement, and they found that the expression "settlement" meant any instrument whether relating to real or personal property which was a settlement within the meaning of Section 2 of the Settled Land Act of 1882. In other words, they had given a statutory definition couched in English phraseology, in an English Act, which had no application to Scotland, and which, if they took it as it ran, could have no application to Scotland, because abounding in phraseology which was entirely foreign to Scotch con- veyancing and Scotch legal notions; and accordingly they approached this subject with the fact that settled property had no technical meaning in Scotland. If they did not look at it in a technical way, but according to the ordinary English language, it was difficult to know what settled property meant. As, however, they were professing to use technical language in the definition, it made it first of all necessary to give a definition. The draftsman of the Bill, on the other hand, had proceeded in a curious way, because he had not proceeded to define what settled property meant for Scotland, although that expression, as a legal phrase, had no meaning at all. But he had proceeded to tell them what it was not. It was not an easy method of definition to define a method of exclusion, but he told them that settled property should not include property under entail. Speaking roughly, if they took the majority of the large Scotch landed estates, these estates were held under entail. The Bill proposed not to allow settled property to apply to property held under entail. He said that was a very great grievance, because what was the result? Take the ordinary case of a man providing for his own family. Suppose he had four sons and an estate in England and Scotland. He knew an hon. Member sitting behind him who had a Scotch and an English estate. He would desire to settle these two estates in exactly the same manner, and if they left the law as it was the same thing would happen. But settle one in the proper phraseology of Scotch conveyancing and the other according to English conveyancing, and although the result as to succession would be exactly the same, the result of the Bill and the payments that would have to be made would be absolutely different. What would happen would be this. The father, A, had four sons, B, C, D, and E. He wished the eldest son to succeed first and the other brothers to come in turn. Suppose the father died, that B, C, and D died before they arrived at the age of 21, and that E eventually succeeded. In England, of course, the original Estate Duty of 1 per cent. would be paid on the death of the father, A, and no other payment would be made on the succession of C to B, and D to C, and E to D. But in the Scotch phraseology there would be duty to be paid on every one of these successions. He said that was outrageous. There was a technical answer to be made, which was that a Scotch entailed proprietor was competent to dispose because in the eyes of the law a Scotch entailed proprietor was a fiar. [Mr. J. B. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] He thought that would be the answer given. He knew quite well that in the eyes of the law a Scottish proprietor was a fiar, which meant the equivalent of owner of the land, and that he might do what he liked with it. But if he did what he liked with it first of all he lost it, and the thing he had done was allowed by law. That was exactly the position of the Scottish entailed proprietor. The law said he could do as he liked with his own, that it would allow what he had done, so that the purchaser for value should not take; and, secondly, for having done what the law allowed he forfeited the property. To tell a man he was a fiar was not, therefore, much good, and what they should like to get at was the real substance of the matter. Although a Scottish entailed proprietor was a fiar, he was not competent to dispose of the property in the sense that those who did not understand the law, but who understood English, would suppose. It was quite true he could get an estate into his own possession, but how? By paying for it. He had to buy out the next interests. If there were three next heirs—which would be a typical case—he had to buy out these three heirs. What was left? His own interest, which was practically his life interest; and yet in the same breath the Government said, "Oh, if there is a life interest we agree that is a perfectly proper application of the principle of settlements, and we shall not charge." That was the English case. In the English case the settlement clause applied, and in the case he had put of a family they had not to pay a new Estate Duty upon each of these transmissions, because these various children who had died only took a life interest. For all practical purposes it was clear that all that a Scottish entailed proprietor could get was his life interest. Everything else went to somebody else because he could only get the estate into his own hands on condition that he should pay out to these men all that they would have got out of the estate if they had come after him; therefore, how could they on technical grounds or anything of that sort support this gross injustice between the treatment of the two nations? It might be said that they could avoid this by settling their property not by way of entail, but by life rent and fee. That was open to two objections. In the first place they would be committing a great injustice upon the present owners of entail in Scotland, and in the second place they could not alter all of a sudden the system of conveyancing. Persons who died long ago did not know of this Budget Bill, and they settled their estates according to the ordinary conveyancing practice of the day. A typical class of settlements in an English family where there were more sons than one was to give the sons a life interest and make tenants in tail of the issue of these sons. Just in the same way in Scotland the vast majority of the estates were settled by entail, therefore if this Amendment were not accepted a cruel injustice would be perpetrated on the present members who were under these settlements. But that was not all. If by refusing to accept this Amendment they forced people to get changing settlements and put them in the way of life rent and fee, they would really upset the work they had been doing since 1848 and the very useful Act passed by his right hon. Friend since he had been in this House. For years and years they had been working in Scotland as regarded heirs of entail to give them full powers to do everything they could with their estates in the way of charging for improvements, providing for their widows and children, bringing their estates into the market, and allowing free dealings in the way of doing all these things which they had been doing in England, and had been enabled to do by legislation which had its termination in Lord Cairns' Act. But the moment they got in the position of life rent and fee their hands were tied tightly, and they would be prevented from doing any one of these things or from doing anything in order to make the land be of the greatest benefit to the community at large. As regarded the phraseology of the Amendment, he was not particular as to that, but he desired that the heir of entail in Scotland should be practically in the same position as the person was in England at the present moment ender the ordinary English settlement. He pressed this Amendment on the grounds of justice, and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 1, to leave out from the words "settled property," to the end of line 2, and insert the words—

"Shall mean property, whether heritable or movable, the title to which is by any disposition, will, deed of entail, settlement, or other deed given to any persons in succession, whether by way of life rent, or life rents and fee, or by way of substitution."—( Mr. Graham Murray .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

^* said, his hon. and learned Friend began by observing that the Bill as it stood would amount to the introduction of a national grievance. In regard to that, he could only say he should be one of the first to help to remove a national grievance if it existed, and one of the last to be any party to introducing one. He need say no more to satisfy the House that, in the judgment of the Government at all events, this clause was not deserving of that description. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that the aim should be to give equal treatment to the two countries in regard to this matter. That certainly had been their aim in passing this part of the Bill. They had had repeated conferences with a view to accomplishing this between the Law Officers of England and Scotland and the highly skilled officials who administered the law applicable to both countries, and what was found in this part of the Bill was the outcome of the careful consideration given to the question at these conferences. Whilst his hon. and learned Friend had anticipated one of the answers he should give to the argument which he had advanced, he entirely disclaimed the suggestion that either that or any answer which he would offer could with any accuracy be described as a technical answer. This was not a matter of technicality depending on considerations of form as distinguished from substance, and he quite assented to the view that what ought to be done should be to bring about equality of treatment in substance, and not merely as matter of technical conveyancing. There was no difference between them as to what ought to be the governing principle in dealing with this important question; and, guided by that principle, the Government had decided to deal with the question in the manner proposed in the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend had pointed out, quite accurately, the difference between the English and Scotch law in regard to this question, and it was exactly in the difference between the nature of the rights given by entails in England and Scotland respectively that the solution of the question would be found. His hon. and learned Friend said that according to the English law of conveyancing a number of estates were carved out of one property; they created a number of interests which together made up the whole estate. But the Scotch heir of entail was a full and unlimited fiar. He had not merely a fragment of a property that was cut up into different estates; he was the full fiar or proprietor; and, indeed, if the Scotch heir of entail had had only a fragment of the estate instead of the whole of it he agreed that he ought to be treated differently from the way in which he was treated in the Bill. There was another argument which he regarded as a very crucial one, as giving the key to the mode in which the Government had dealt with this question, and that was that the Scotch heir of entail had the full power of disposition. The proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buteshire was based on the assumption that the Scotch heir of entail had not the power to dispose. But the Scotch heir of entail had got the power to dispose; he did not need the consent of anyone to dispose, and if the Amendment were accepted he would be treated in a way that no one in England having a similar power would be treated. That was a matter which had been decided in the House of Lords in a case of Legacy Duty since the Bill had been brought in. The Lords decided that where a Scotch heir of entail had exercised the power of disentailing entailed money, and paid large sums to his sons as the value of their expectancies, because their consents were forced, he was nevertheless bound to pay duty on the whole estate, without even getting any deduction or allowance in respect of the sums paid to his sons. The reason of that decision was that the Scotch heir of entail had an estate of inheritance; and it was satisfactory for the Government to find that the view upon which the Bill was framed had been recognised to be the right view by the highest legal tribunal in the land.

said, there was always a certain relief in turning from one uncomfortable position to another uncomfortable position; and therefore the change from the technicalities of English law and English conveyancing to the technicalities of Scottish law and Scottish conveyancing would be welcomed by the committee. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come into the House, because the case which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buteshire in an extremely clear and able speech was one in which the right hon. Gentleman would see that there was a substantial grievance to be dealt with; and if it were not dealt with now it must be raised on the Report stage. In what did the grievance lie? He had collected his facts impartially from two excellent sources. Both learned Gentlemen who had spoken on the subject were agreed that where a man had the absolute disposition of the property which he had inherited, by being the last in an entail in Scotland, and therefore being in a position corresponding to a remainder in England, that that was a case in which, as in the ease of a remainder in England, Estate Duty was properly paid when the man died. But what the learned Gentleman did not agree upon was the case of an owner of an entailed estate in Scotland, who though he might be said to have control over the successions of that estate, only got that control by paying for it. The Lord Advocate contended that such an owner was in the same position as the owner of a fee simple in England, and that he ought not to be treated as the hon. and learned Member for Buteshire thought he should be treated, as if he held under a life settlement in England. No one could doubt the side on which the real equity of the case lay. The process of settlement—he used the word "settlement," though it was not strictly accurate in Scotland—was the same in England and Scotland, to carry out the same object—namely, to keep the property in the family, though by the developments of two different systems of law it had taken in each country a different shape; and what they contended was that it was not fair to prevent Scotchmen from, having the same privilege under their system of settlement as Englishmen enjoyed under their system of settlement. The only reason advanced on behalf of the Government for the refusal to extend those privileges to Scotland was that as the Scotchmen could get control of the successions under the settlement by paying for that control he was in a different position from his English brother. But suppose they made an alteration in the English law by which the owner of a life estate in a property under settlement could absolutely buy the interests of others under the same settlement by money given, would the estate not be then as much under settlement as it was now? Clearly it would. The successions of the estate could be altered in such a case, but they could only be altered by the man paying away to the successors of life interests in the estate the amounts of their shares in the property. He maintained there was no difference whatever in the two cases. When his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buteshire brought before the Committee the example of a man with two or three sons, and with estates in Scotland and England, showing that though the man had precisely the same object with regard to the estates, though carried out in two different ways, because the estates were in two different countries, the two estates were accorded different treatment under the Bill, that example ought to have been sufficient to drive the Government to make the concession asked for. He had had occasion to point out more than once that one of the objections to the Bill was that it would drive land in England into settlements, because only by settlements could protection be given to any estate from being mulcted heavily by a rapid succession of deaths in the family who owned the property. If that would be an evil in England it would be a double evil in Scotland. The Bill would drive every owner of realty or personalty in Scotland who desired to prevent injustice by having to pay Succession Duty several times over in the course of a few years to settle. But the owner in Scotland would not settle by way of Scotch entail; he would be driven to a settlement by life rents and fee, which was a form of settlement so strictly drawn, so little touched by recent legal reforms, and which were of a character that so bound the life owner of the property, that great hardship would be inflicted on the owner of property, and on all who were dependent on him, and the whole course of our legislation would be reversed in regard to Scotch property. That was a practical evil, and he trusted that the Government would prevent it by carrying out the principle laid down in the Amendment before the Committee.

said, the House had learned to admire the versatility of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever the subject—whether it was the system of jurisprudence in England, whether it was the mystery of Scotch entail, or whether it was a discussion on Socialism outside the House—the right hon. Gentleman passed from topic to topic with a facility and a power and a grasp of dry technicalities that amazed everyone. The right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, discussing a remote and difficult chapter of law, had shown not less than his usual skill. But none the less, the right hon. Gentleman in his attempt to strip the matter of technicalities had not gone far enough, and he had not borne in his mind what was the real analogy of the two cases the Committee had to deal with. Stripped again of technicalities, what the, right hon. Gentleman had asked the Committee to do was, having given England an inch, to allow Scotland to take an ell. The clause of the Bill, which let settlements which paid one duty off the payment of further Estate Duty of 1 per cent., had been framed with regard to the English law, and the very foundation and essence of it was that by taking off the payment of further Estate Duty they let off settlements not for all time, but only until there came in a person who was competent to dispose. In deferring the payment of duty until the estate passed into the hands of a person competent to deal with it, the pro- perty was not exempted from payment, for that was only during limited possession. In England property could only be tied up for existing and a term of 21 years afterwards, but in Scotland there was nothing of the kind. The law there was quite different.

said, that, upon this point the Scotch law was identically the same as the English law, the former having been altered by the Act of 1848.

pointed out that the alteration effected by that Act did not come into operation unless someone in the line of succession disentailed had the estate.

said, that in Scotland anyone in the line of succession could put an end to the entail of his own sweet will. Of course, unless that were done the estate went on to its destination.

said, that would only be so in case the person attained 21. The Amendment, as he understood it, would cover all cases of property entailed, whether in modern times or already in existence.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the Amendment. Particular reference was made to persons competent to dispose of the estate entail. The moment a previously unborn life succeeded he would be able to disentail without consents, and would, therefore, be a person competent to dispose of the property.

said, the question which the hon. Member was suggesting upon the Amendment was now raised for the first time. There was no analogy between such a case as he had put and the case of an English settlement with its limited power of disposition. It really meant "competent to dispose of" with the assent of other persons. The person would exercise dominion over the property vested in him. That would come under Clause 18, Sub-section 2 (a). It had been decided that au English tenant entail, not in possession, and who could not disentail or bar the remainder without consent, could not be treated as competent to dispose. Working out the analogy, stripped of technicalities, the matter appeared plain enough.

said, he hoped that either then or upon the Report the Government would introduce words into the clause which would put the owners of land in settlement in both England and Scotland upon an equal footing in respect of this duty.

said, that the little that he knew of Scotch law was derived from the Waverley Novels and sources of that description, and therefore he could offer no opinion upon this very technical point. He must, however, point out to the hon. and learned Gentle man opposite that the Government was in the fortunate position of having as their legal supporters two English and two Scotch gentlemen, all of whom happened to represent Scotch constituencies, who were unanimous in opposing the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite must therefore admit that, notwithstanding his great authority, the majority of the Court were against him. He would, however, say that the matter should be further considered by the light of the arguments which had been put forward by hon. Members opposite, and that if the Legal Advisers of the Government were satisfied that a difficulty had been shown to exist the Government would do their best to remove it.

was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was so far with him, but he must point out that so far from the majority of the Court being against him, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had sat silent, looking very unhappy at the injustice that was being done to his adopted country. The point really was not a technical one, and it was only to avoid incongruous results that he had moved the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

moved to omit Sub-section (a), and another Amendment on Clause 19. They were all parts of the same matter, which he was willing should be considered before Report.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (a).—( Mr. Graham Murray .)

Question proposed, "That Sub-Section (a) stand part of the Clause."

^* declined to assent to the Amendment. If a person other than the owner of the estate paid the duty, he thereby paid the owner's debt and he should be in the position of being his assignee to all the rights which the Crown would have had against the owner. Difficulties would arise unless an effective and trenchant remedy was given.

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20.

moved an Amendment providing that the Act should come into operation not, as the clause proposed, on the last day of May, but on the first day of August.

Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 34, to leave out the words "the last day of May," and insert the words "the first day of August."—( Mr. Hanbury .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

accepted the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

^* said, he moved to omit the clause from the Bill entirely. The effect would be the total abolition of the Tea Duties. It was perhaps strange that such a Motion should come from that side of the House, as the proposal was contained in the much talked of Newcastle Programme, and he was much surprised to find that, notwithstanding this, the right hon. Gentleman had again included the Tea Duties in his Budget. One of the great objections to the duty was its cost. It was impossible to say at what cost the innumerable Customs officers who kept watch and ward over the tea in the bonded warehouses were maintained, and the bonded warehouses themselves were a great source of expense. But it was disgraceful that tea, which was so sensitive and so quick at absorbing other flavours, should be by the Custom orders turned out at the warehouses from the original chests. So sensitive was tea that, although sent over in soldered packets, it could not be allowed to travel in the same ship with at all a strong-smelling cargo. Yet, on coming home here, 10 per cent. of it at least was turned out of the chests, and in order to be repacked again had actually to be trodden in by the feet of the labourers employed in the warehouses. For this reason alone it would be impossible to find an article with more claims to free entry than tea. Then, again, no less than 85 per cent. of the tea now used in England came from the British Empire, and how could it be right to tax the produce of our own flesh and blood in our colonies while we let in free French silks and foreign satins. Quite lately, too, the Government had prevented the Government of India from taxing English cotton goods, and how could the same Government with any consistency now propose to tax India tea? Of course, it was easily explained. The right hon. Gentleman wanted the Lancashire vote, and Lancashire was tired of so-called Free Trade and wanted the indirect Protection afforded by damaging the Indian cotton mills. But the strongest argument against the Tea Duty rested on broader grounds. Why was tea to be taxed, or tobacco? Who was the richer by tea being made dear? Every penny of the tax was paid by the consumer, while a tax, on foreign manufactured articles competing with our own would be largely paid by foreigners themselves. In the East End of London the want and poverty was deplorable on account of scarcity of employment. Women had actually to make there 144 match boxes for 2¼d. because of foreign competition. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money let him tax foreign manufactured articles, such as prison-made goods from Germany, bounty-fed sugar, and Swedish match boxes, then he could give our people cheap tea and more work and wages at the same time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might call it Protection, and so it was; but who would be afraid of advocating Protection when it meant protection for the labouring classes of our country from unjust and ruinous foreign competition?

Moved, "To leave out the Clause."—( Mr. H. Farquharson .)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

One would suppose, to listen to the speeches which have been made during the progress of this Bill in Committee, that the House had not voted a largely increased expenditure on the Navy. No less a sum than £4,000,000 is involved in this Amendment. The Committee has spent I do not know how many days in an endeavour to get rid of one provision in connection with the Estate Duty; and now we have reached the Tea Duty. The next Amendment has reference to the duty on beer, and after that the Committee are to be invited to take off the duty on spirits; to be followed by an attempt to decrease the Income Tax. This is the position of the House of Commons with reference to the provisions for the increased Expenditure of the year. The hon. Member said he did not know how anyone was made richer by tea being made dear. That is a position I accept, but it applies not only to tea, but to all articles. I do not think anyone is better for paying more for an article than he would be for paying less. I do not defend the Tea Duty or any other duty or tax whatever. I should he extremely delighted to dispense with all taxes; but, at the same time, if the country thinks it is necessary to spend money, the House of Commons will surely support some honest means of finding it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Spend the money, and let the Government find the money; only we won't pay it." [ Cries of "No, no!"] Who is going to pay under the proposal of the hon. Member that there shall be taxes on all manufactured articles? I presume the people who use those articles will have to pay for them. I am always glad to hear a candid confession of faith: it is not too common in these days. The hon. Gentleman has candidly and frankly advocated Protectection. I am not a Protectionist, neither are the other Members of the Government, and therefore the remedies proposed by the hon. Member for a repeal of the Tea Duty by putting on a universal tax for manufactured articles coming from abroad is one that the Government cannot accept.

I said nothing like that which the right hon. Gentleman attributes to me. I am not in the least in favour of putting a tax on all articles. Indeed, the object of my Motion is to prevent the taxation of tea, an article coming from abroad.

The hon. Gentleman felt obliged to propose a substitute when he took off the duty on tea, and he certainly said, unless I misheard him, "Why not put a tax on foreign manufactured articles." That is not the view Her Majesty's Government take of the financial policy of this country, but I should be taking up the time of the Committee unduly if I attempted to argue that question. The Government have adopted the policy of Free Trade and stand by it; therefore, they cannot accept this Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken as if he were the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been assailed with proposals for reducing taxation during the discussions of the Budget. Nearly every year when I was at the Exchequer a Motion was made for the reduction of the Tea Duty by the hon. Member for Leicester, whether there was a surplus or not. It was a display made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and many hours were spent by those hon. Gentlemen in endeavouring to make such holes in my Budget as my hon. Friend wishes now to make in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Time after time the same course has been taken, but I will treat the right hon. Gentleman better than he treated me. I never remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian discouraged those attacks; but I intend to return good for evil. I do not think it is possible to support the proposal of my hon. Friend, and I hope that it will not be debated at length. I think the Committee is anxious to get to the question of the Beer Duty. I remember the Irish Members moving Amendments night after night in the hope of making a hole in my Budget.

I did not do so.

No; but the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade his Irish friends below the Gangway to abstain from moving Amendments. He had not the influence over them that he possesses now. I should not have said so much had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking as a Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to speak as if it was an unusual course to make such a Motion as the present. The course taken by my hon. Friend is by no means unusual, but I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to divide against the clause.

I also would suggest to the hon. Member that he should not take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of this as a Protectionist Amendment, and said that not being a Protectionist he could not accept it. Well, I do not see any way to support it, though I am a Protectionist. If the hon. Member who moved the Amendment were prepared to ask the House of Commons to substitute certain taxes on foreign products, manufactured and otherwise, which I should be glad to support him in proposing, then I think the Tea Duty might very fairly be relegated to oblivion; but so long as no effectual substitute is forthcoming, I, for one, do not wish to part with any indirect tax. We are far too much relying upon direct taxation instead of indirect taxation, which I, for one, decidedly give preference to. I only wish hon. Gentlemen not to run away with the idea that if we do not adopt this Amendment, or enter seriously into the discussion of it, it is not because many of us do not know that the fiscal system of this country is based on an entirely wrong principle. I could mention many taxes that would be far more equitable and less onerous than the Tea Duty. I will not go into them now; but when a proper opportunity comes, I shall be prepared to contend that our entire fiscal system is rotten to the core and requires to be entirely remodelled and readjusted, and that taxes should be levied upon foreign products imported into this country, thereby obtaining in a fair manner contributions from the foreigner, instead of in the surreptitious manner the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to establish by means of Death Duties. In that way prosperity would be restored to many trades which are now being driven out of the country.

said, he had voted on more than one occasion with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question. The Amendment was one which used to be proposed on every Budget by the hon. Member for Leicester. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had voted against the Budget of his own Party on more than one occasion—as against our fiscal system—and if a Division were taken that day he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hampshire. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Opposition were prepared to deprive him of £4,000,000, but that they did not propose taxes in substitution for those they would abolish. But the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had proposed taxes in substitution. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) was convinced that some future Chancellor of the Exchequer, though it might not be the right hon. Gentleman opposite, would have to contemplate the imposition of a fair duty on foreign articles, manufactured and otherwise which competed with British industries.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23.

said, he did not like the Committee to think he was opposing the present increase of Beer Duty as a representative of the brewers. On the contrary; he had no interest in them, nor any relation with them. The brewers were strong enough to look after themselves, or if they had wanted an advocate they would have entrusted the subject to abler hands. He had not ventured to interfere in this Bill before, as he was no master of finance. He had left the knotty points of law to learned Gentlemen to argue, but it was because he believed the proposed increase in Beer Duties would injure his constituents' as agriculturists that he ventured to move this Amendment. He believed, and would endeavour to prove, that the extra duty would fall not on the brewers, who might be able to bear it, though even if they could he thought that suddenly to propose what was equivalent to a 1s. 2d. Income Tax on an individual industry, or 1 per cent. on ordinary shares, was a strong measure. Nor would it fall on the consumer, but it would fall with all its weight on the unfortunate producer of the raw material—namely, barley. It would fall on an industry crippled in every way, already taxed beyond its strength—on a producer living in a country where taxes were yearly increasing, and having to compete on unfair terms with foreign growers of the same material. Of course, he knew this would be a Party Division. It was no use inquiring why. They all knew it. Two points they might agree on, and little as he knew of finance, he knew they were true. First, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have money. They had an increased expenditure, to part of which the Opposition urged him. He (Colonel Lockwood) was proud of it. This expenditure must be at present met by extra taxation. In the second place, they believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to raise this in the fairest manner possible and in such a way that no industry would be injured by it. They believed that all should hear a fair share, and in short that the right hon. Gentleman tried, or ought to try, to get as near the equality of sacrifice as he could. That, of course, would be ideal taxation with an ideal Chancellor of the Exchequer. But some gentlemen opposite seemed to think that it was fair and sufficient to say, "If a man is rich and there must be extra taxes—tax him." But they knew that if this method were carried too far they would overreach them. Undue taxation upon one class would react upon others. Up to 1880 a Malt Tax, or really a Barley Tax, was paid on malt made and levied at the maltings. This tax, with the brewer's licence, amounted to 22s. per quarter, being thus levied on material. A quarter of barley paid a set duty of what its yield would be to the brewer. One quarter of English barley yielded 84 lbs. of extract and paid a duty of 22s., at the rate of about 3d. per lb.; whereas a quarter of foreign barley yielded 72 lbs. of extract, and paid a duty of 22s., at the rate of 3½d. This was equal to an extra duty of 3s. 6d. per quarter on the poorer producing or foreign barley, and acted as a sort of Protection Duty to the English or better producing barley. In June, 1867, came the Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the Malt Tax. No doubt agriculturists thought repeal of the Malt Tax would be beneficial to them. In July, 1868, the Committee reported that they believed that repeal or reduction of the Malt Tax would lead to an increase in the consumption of malt and to an increase in the growth of barley for malting purposes, and thus benefit agriculture. In 1880 the Member for Midlothian repealed the Malt Tax and substituted a Beer Duty, and he said in effect to farmers, "You get the repeal you wanted." To the Inland Revenue he said, "You will get 2s. per quarter by the change." To the cries of the brewers, who had to submit to an extra charge of 2s. per quarter, he replied, "Do not weep, you are going to benefit by Free Trade." He said, "I'm your best friend; I give you a free mash tub. You can use cheap foreign grain, or rice, or maize." He (Colonel Lockwood) confessed he regretted that the Chairman's casting vote carried the Report of the Select Committee. It had been satisfactorily proved that the agricultural party were wrong in their estimate and forecast of the effect of the repeal of the Malt Tax. They had hoped that the importation of malt would increase, and they contended that English barley would always fetch more for malting purposes than foreign. As a matter of fact, however, barley has decreased in price ever since. The prices realised had been as follows:—In 1880, 33s. 1d. per quarter; 1885, 30s. 1d.; 1890, 28s. 8d.; 1891, 28s. 2d.; 1892, 26s. 2d.; 1893, 25s. 7d. Thus, ever since 1880, barley, instead of holding its own, and instead of being used in greater quantities, had rapidly decreased in price. Again, he found that in 1880 3,150,000 quarters of foreign barley were imported, and in 1890 6,149,000 quarters. Not only were the agricultural party wrong, but the late Prime Minister was also wrong in his forecast of the future. The right hon. Gentleman held exactly the same opinion—namely, that the English farmer had nothing to fear from the importation of foreign barley. He added—

"We have been receiving corn from abroad for the last 40 years, and in that time British agriculture has thriven under Free Trade more than ever before."

The present proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise the duty to 27s. per quarter, and as that would exceed the value of barley, what was the outlook of those who grew it? Brewers said that they would not pay extra tax if they could help it, but would get it out of consumers by giving a weaker article. It might, perhaps, be said that that would be a good thing, but certainly it would not be an advantage to the farmers in his constituency, because, unluckily, the beer would be made with less barley and more foreign stuff. The brewer would use 4 per cent. less barley. At the end of the year he would have left, consequently, on his hands a proportionately, larger stock. Next year he would purchase 4 per cent. less, and thus there would be a fall in consumption of 8 per cent. He believed the brewer would sooner use barley than foreign products if they could do so at a fair profit. Farmers were good customers to them, and large sums were sunk in malting, but this extra tax would force them into the cheapest market, and they would get it out of the producer by using raw grain and 7½ per cent. less barley. He had seen beer made in that way, and had even tasted it. It was difficult to detect the difference between that liquor and beer brewed from English barley, but it was not what an Englishman asked for, and he could not think that it was an honest way of doing business. The consumer expected to get beer made from the materials of which it professed to be made, and he did not wish to have it brewed from all sorts of trash. As showing the line of action likely to be taken by the brewers, he would read a letter he had received from a small country brewer. It ran—

"I am pleased to see that you are going to move the rejection of the Beer Duty. When the head of my firm returned from the brewers' meeting, he said, 'Now, brewer, put on your thinking cap; my capital won't stand this extra 6d. It has to be found somewhere and you must find it.' The result is we now ran the same length from a 20-quarter mash, made up previously as follows: 15 quarters English malt, 3 quarters slake malt, English make, 2 quarters English glucose. The present: 10 quarters (20 cwt.) American glucose, 4 quarters English malt, 3 quarters Californian, 3 quarters U.S. slake malt. Who gains? The Revenue—proprietors hold their own. Who loses? The English farmer! His malting barley is not as good now as grinding previous to '80. The public ales brewed on the old style were liquid foods—muscle-making, strength-giving. The present, though well liked, are alcoholic; the little unfermented sugar makes heat, not energy; it is not a food. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that he is driving the staple industry from the country? Brewers must get their supplies in the cheapest market."

The letter concluded with remarks which were not of a very complimentary nature, and he did not think they were suited to the occasion, so he would not read them. But let them consider what the loss in the sale of barley meant to the farmer. The duty paid by brewers on barley up to April, 1894, represented £9,500,000. This, at three barrels to £1, represented 28,500,000 barrels. Taking four barrels to the quarter, a reduced consumption of 4 per cent. represented 284,000 quarters; and if the reduction were 7 per cent. it would mean 532,000 less quarters. A fall of 4 per cent., therefore, involved a loss of £355,000, and of 7½ per cent. a loss of £665,000 on one industry. Could they view such a loss to the British farmer with equanimity? The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that barley was not used for malting alone. That was so; but the difference in the price of malting barley and grinding barley worked out at 7s. per quarter, which meant his rent per annum. He had endeavoured to put the case of his constituents fairly, although perhaps he had done so inadequately, before the House" and he was sure hon. Members would not wonder that the farmers viewed with alarm any increase of taxation on their products and on an industry already so seriously crippled. Surely a House famed throughout the world for its generous instincts would endeavour to assist the weak and would hesitate before imposing this additional tax on this industry.

Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 36, to leave out the word "sixpence," and insert the word "threepence."—( Colonel Lockwood .)

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

I have heard with satisfaction the pleasant and able speech of the hon. and gallant Member; but he must forgive me for declining to regard him as the real mover in this matter. He has come forward to represent an industry, but the real mover is the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who sits behind him, and who, on the first occasion, appeared on the scene as the opponent of any tax on beer. I think, consistently with the course taken through these Debates, it is always the person affected who is interested in somebody else. The millionaire does not care for himself. It is the poor widow and her small annuity that he cares for. That is always the case. The great landed proprietor with his palace and pleasure grounds does not care for himself. It is only the poor labourer that he cares for. And so with the brewer and distiller. They do not care for themselves. They are far too dis- interested for that. Their feeling is entirely for the farmer and the agriculturist. It is extraordinary the disinterested point of view from which every interest regards the tax that affects them. It is a remarkable fact also that the lauded interest is determined, whatever else happens, it shall not be taxed. The whole opposition has come from the landed interest. The main part of the Estate Duty—about five-sixths—will be paid by personalty, but personalty has not appeared to refuse to bear its share. We come to the next tax—the tax upon beer and spirits—and the landed interest again complain that they will be indirectly affected by that tax. It is clear, therefore, that whatever tax is imposed the claim is always put forward by the landed interest that their contribution ought to be different from that of other people. The hon. Member's object—and it is a legitimate object if he can accomplish it—is that beer shall be brewed exclusively from malt and hops. Will he get the hon. Member for Wimbledon to support that view? I would like to know what the brewers are going to say to that proposal. Are they going to accept the doctrine that beer is to be brewed only from malt and hops? because the fact is, as I shall be able to show, that enormous profits have been made, quite apart from this terrible Budget, from beer brewed from very different things than malt and hops. But there will be an opportunity under a future clause, on au Amendment by the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division of Suffolk, of inviting brewers to vote in favour of a proposition that the tax shall be remitted in the ease of all beer brewed exclusively from malt and hops. The brewers will lose a great deal more than they will gain under this proposal. We have the information given upon the subject by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. He says very candidly that this tax would not fall upon the brewer. Why, then, do the brewers object? Why are these meetings of brewers and publicans gathered together up and down the country to agitate against this tax? Is it in order that they might preach the gospel of pure beer, brewed exclusively from malt and hops? We have a little light on this point, because it is not for the first time that beer has been brewed from materials other than malt and hops. Why were not all these meetings called before to protect the unfortunate agricultural interest from the evil practice of oppressed brewers? The hon. Member for Wimbledon says that in the year 1876, while 58,000,000 bushels of malt were used in brewing, 820,000 cwt. of sugar were used; in 1880, while there were 55,850,000 bushels of malt used, 1,146,434 cwt. of sugar were used; in 1887, the number of bushels of malt used sank to 52,319,000, whereas the number of cwts. of sugar used rose to 1,465,000; and in 1893, the malt used was 55,655,000 bushels, and the sugar 2,122,000 cwt. During all this time the brewers have been using less and less malt and more and more sugar, and why? Because it pays them better—a most sensible reason. I do not object to that for a moment; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amendment thinks that the brewers are going to use malt when using sugar pays them better, he is more innocent than I took him to be. [Colonel LOCKWOOD: am.] He says the brewers are longing to use barley if they can only get, it at a fair price. They have got barley at half the price which they paid before, but nevertheless they use less and less barley, and more and more sugar. The hon. Member for Wimbledon says that his own barley buyer in Norfolk has bought the best barley in the same market for a number of years, and from the figures he finds that in 1876 the average price of the best malting barley was 45s. 6d.; in 1880 it was 42s. 10d.;, in 1887, 34s.; in 1893 it went as law as 28s. Then the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who can get now the same barley for 28s. as he had to pay 45s. 6d. for in 1876, uses twice as much sugar as he did when barley was so cheap. Yet the hon. Member for Sudbury thinks that the brewers are anxious to use the best barley, and that if only they are spared the 3d. they will use nothing else. Before this Budget was introduced the hon. Member said that at the Institute of Brewing it was decided that 10 per cent. of raw grain could be used in brewing without spoiling the article, and the hon. and gallant Member testifies to that himself, for he tasted and found that the beer was just as good. Does the hon. Member really believe that the brewer who can brew just as good beer at a greatly less price is going to brew it from much more expensive materials simply in order to encourage the barley growers? Sic notus Uixes? He must have a very imperfect acquaintance with brewers. Therefore, the notion that the brewers are the real patrons of the growers of pure barley is one of those fictions which do not correspond to the facts with which we are acquainted. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully, of the trade. They are very good customers of the Department over which I preside; but I am very glad to think that these customers are in a very flourishing condition, and that the grievance of a 6d. duty will not be disastrous. I do not understand why the hon. and gallant Member makes two bites at a cherry. If he is really in favour of English malt, why does he allow 3d. to be put on instead of 6d.? He did not explain that. It is a very curious part of his argument on which he throws no light. In imposing heavy taxes you must see that they are drawn with the least hardship to those who pay them. If you get money by taxation of this kind, is there any commodity upon which you can more fairly raise it than beer and spirits? If you were to succeed in the course you are taking, the consequence is certain that hereafter you would have in this country nothing but direct taxation. If you refuse to tax beer and spirits, there is no other means of making provision for the great and growing expenditure of this country than direct taxation. If you refuse to-night to raise the money required by means of this tax on beer and spirits, to-morrow you must put it on the Income Tax. I am sufficiently old-fashioned in my financial notions, acquired in the school in which I have been bred, to make a proposal for increasing direct taxation accompanied by the taxation upon beer and spirits. Can the interests affected afford to bear this taxation? On a former occasion I gave some Returns. I will give some of the figures again. In 1884–5 the number of assessments to the Income Tax from brewers was 2,446, and the whole of their profits assessed amounted to £6,316,000. Ten years later the number of brewers assessed for Income Tax was 2,274, showing that the smaller brewers were being more and more absorbed by the great concerns, while the amount of assessed profits was £10,177,000, showing an increase of 60 per cent. in the profits of the brewing trade during those 10 years. But the general profits of trade under Schedule (B) increased, during the same period, only 13 per cent. In looking to see what trade is able to bear a moderate increase of taxation, is it right, or is it not right, to lay the increase upon that trade which shows an increase in profits amounting to 60 per cent., as compared with the general trade which shows an increase of 13 per cent.?

^* : Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there are 2,274 brewers?

That is the number of assessments. That, I say, is a question worthy of our consideration. I have given these figures, but I will give some others. In 1882 the number of barrels of beer was 27,298,000, while in 1889 it was 28,064,000. That, was the year before the alteration made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, which was equivalent to a duty of 3d. Has the trade fallen off since then? Last year, which was a period of extreme depression in trade, the number of barrels was 30,500,000, equal to an increase of nearly 10 per cent. over the consumption of 1889. Why is it that this trade has made such a great advance? The year 1893 was, as I noted in my Budget speech, one of the most disastrous years we have experienced, owing to strikes and various disturbing causes; yet is that year there was the largest amount ever known of beer consumed in this country, producing an increased duty of £80,000. What, Sir, is the reason for this enormous growth of the trade? I also gave some figures before as to the fall in price of materials used in the brewing trade, to which I will refer again. That fall is of a most remarkable character, and, if thought necessary, I will give the figures again. Without going into details just now, I may state that there has been during the period referred to—during the last 20 years—a fall of something like 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. upon all the articles used in brewing. The amount of duty is a small thing as compared with the cost of materials, and the great fall in the price of materials has not, moreover, been met by a corresponding decrease in the price to the consumer. It must, therefore, have gone into the pockets of the brewers. They have used cheaper materials; their old materials have become less expensive; they have used the substitutes referred to by the hon. Member in largely increased quantities; while all the old materials have fallen in price; they have been able to employ new materials which are cheaper still; and the result of all this has been that these great profits have been made. Well, Sir, I know the pressure that has been put upon people in this trade. We have heard a good deal about boycotting; but of all the boycotting nothing has been so severe as that which has been practised in this trade. If a Parliamentary Inquiry were instituted into that, it would reveal some remarkable circumstances. All persons have not, however, taken the view that this is a ruinous and oppressive tax. A letter was sent to me, which was published in April last, signed by Mr. M. W. Hodgson, of Messrs. William Butler and Co. (Limited), Wolverhampton, in which he stated that the effect of the new tax to the consumer would be but trifling; that it was not sufficient to affect the retail price; and stating that, in the main, he was favourable to the Budget proposals; and Mr. Hodgson added that he thought that the burden of added taxation which w as rendered necessary to meet a large deficit had been fairly and justly distributed; and that, in face of the overwhelming evidence of the increasing popularity of beer as a national beverage, it was hardly possible to maintain that the industry of brewing was taxed beyond its power. What a pity it is that there are not more brewers with courage enough to hold language of that kind!—the lion. Member for Liverpool, for example.

was understood to ask why he was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman? He was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey that he (Mr. Long) represented the wealthy brewers.