I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that, at the last Licensing Court for the Upper Ward of Lanarkshire, a public-house licence was applied for, for the Tillietudlem Inn, Crossland; that 12 justices voted in favour of the licence, and 10 against it, and 4 refrained from voting; that there was, therefore, not a majority of those present in favour of granting the licence, and that the licence was granted; that, on the same day, at the Licensing Court of the Middle Ward of the same county, a licence was applied for, when 21 justices voted for and 19 against it, and the licence was refused on the ground that it was not supported by a majority of those present; and whether he can say if the granting of the licence in the Upper Ward was contrary to law as well as to the practice in the Middle Ward?

From the information supplied to me, I believe the facts with regard to the first case referred to by my hon. Friend are correctly stated in the question. Twenty-six justices were present, 12 voted for the licence, 10 against it, and 4 declined to vote. In these circumstances the licence was granted. The Clerk to the Justices of the Peace, whose experience extends over 50 years, says that the uniform practice has been to take into account only the justices voting. With regard to the application at the Licensing Court of the Middle Ward, it appears that 21 justices voted for and 19 against it, and 3 declined to vote. The practice followed in that Court until last April appears to have been the same as at Lanark, but the present Clerk has expressed the opinion that a licence should only be granted when a majority of the justices assembled vote for it. It is in his view not sufficient to have a majority of those who actually take part in the voting. The Clerk's ruling and the practice in the Middle Ward which has followed upon it are based upon a different construction of Section 7 of the Home-Drummond Act, and upon an English case in which similar words in the corresponding Licensing Act of 1828 for England, have been thus interpreted. As there may be an appeal to the Quarter Sessions, it would not be proper for me to express an opinion as to which is the sound construction of the statute.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the experiment of telegraphing weather forecasts to telegraph offices in rural districts in certain counties, for exhibition during hay or corn, harvest, gave satisfaction to those interested; and, if so, whether the sending of these forecasts can be further extended, or at least sent to those counties where they are found to be of value to agriculturists?

So far as I can gather from the information which has reached me, the experimental exhibition of the weather forecasts at the telegraph offices in rural districts has not been so beneficial as I had hoped, and I am doubtful whether the assistance rendered to agriculturists by this means is sufficient to justify me in making a further application to the Treasury on the subject. I shall be glad, however, to further consider the matter, and if it should appear that the arrangement is of real service to agriculturists during harvest-time, I would do my best to secure its continuance in localities where it was appreciated.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Central Chamber of Agriculture had passed a resolution approving of the continuation of the weather forecasts; and, if so, whether he did not consider that sufficient reason to justify him in asking the Treasury for assistance in the matter?

The resolution has been placed in my hand since I came into the House, and I can assure the hon. Member that it shall receive that consideration which any communication from so influential a body as the Central Chamber of Agriculture deserves.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Colonel HOWARD VINCENT), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture how many prosecutions have been undertaken by the Board of Agriculture under the Merchandise Marks Prosecutions Act, 1894, in respect of the false marking of agricultural or horticultural produce; and in how many were convictions obtained?

No prosecutions have as yet been undertaken by the Board of Agriculture under the Act of last Session; and although I have taken steps to bring the provisions of that Act under the notice of those concerned, no representations have reached me upon the basis of which such prosecutions could with advantage have been instituted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade how many offences against the Merchandise Marks Act have been proceeded against since 1st January 1894; and in how many was a conviction obtained?

Ten summonses in all have been issued under this Act, and on all of these convictions have been obtained. Other cases were also submitted to the Solicitor for his opinion as to proceedings, but as to some he advised that they did not come within the Acts, and in other cases there was not evidence to secure a conviction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—whether a Kurd, named Hussein, now living at Van, who came from Patnotz, in the vilayet of Erzeroum, has got possession of 20 Armenian girls, brought to him by soldiers as spoils of war; (2) whether Hussein is the same man as the Hussein of whom it was reported, five years ago, by the English Consul at Erzeroum, that he had committed 13 murders and 5 rapes, besides countless robberies of money, sheep, cattle, and property of all sorts; (3) whether, after adding to his crimes during the last five years, he was made a Pasha two years ago, and given rank in the Kurdish Cavalry; and (4) whether a large number of Armenian women and girls have been carried off and are now scattered about among the Kurds and Turks in Turkish Armenia?

Hussein Pasha is the same person whose record is given in Parliamentary Paper, Turkey, No. 1, 1892. It is not known whether he has any rank in the Kurdish Cavalry. A statement has been made that he has obtained possession of 20 Armenian girls, but not upon evidence which can be considered conclusive. Similar reports to that alluded to in the last paragraph of the question have, I regret to say, reached Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador will be instructed to call for an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) whether he can state the total number of candidates who competed at the last examination for clerkships in the First Division of the Civil Service; and (2) the total number who have been offered appointments, and the number now remaining on the list to whom it is proposed to offer them?

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is 23, and to the second 11, all of whom were University graduates in Honours. The examination was held in order to fill existing vacancies, and others which might occur during the next six months. It will rest with the head of a Department in which such a vacancy occurs to decide whether to offer the appointment to the next candidate on the list or to wait for the next examination.

in putting the following question, said: I beg to express my great satisfaction—which, I am am sure, is shared by the whole House—at seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for India, back in his place. [Cheers.] I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) if he is aware that the Report of the Hemp Drugs Commission, appointed by the Government of India in consequence of action taken in this House, was, as long as August of last year, distributed to The Times of India, The pioneer, and The Englishman; (2) can he state on what date the Report was published in India, and on what date copies were received at the India Office; (3) if he is aware that the hon. Member for Bradford, on whose initiative the Commission was appointed, applied to the India Office for a copy of the Report on 22nd September 1894, three weeks after it had been reviewed by the Anglo-Indian Press, and has made repeated applications since, only receiving a copy last Saturday; (4) if it is possible for this Report to be procured by the general public; and (5) if it is intended to distribute it to Members of this House, and place a copy, with the volumes of evidence, in the Library of this House?

My answer to the first of my hon. Friend's questions is in the negative. I do not know when the Report was published in India, but the Orders of the Government of India on the Report were published on the 23rd March last. An advance copy of the Report alone reached me on the 14th November last. I cannot verify the precise dates, though I am aware that repeated applications for the Report were made by my hon. Friend; but it did not appear to me to be desirable to make its contents known until I could at the same time communicate the Orders of the Government of India, which did not reach me until the 5th April. The Report cannot, so far as I am aware, be obtained in this country; but I shall be happy to lay it on the Table, with the Orders of the Government of India, if the hon. Member will move for them.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if, seeing that the new Crofters' Bill does not provide for the allotment of any land to the cotter class, he will consider the feasibility and expediency of yet incorporating with it some plan whereby a plot of arable land, from one to three acres, with or without the grazing for a cow, might be made available for each family that could show they were able to equip and work the croft within the family circle; and whether he is aware that the people are willing to pay for such allotment the fair rent that would be fixed by the Crofters' Commission?

Under the Scottish Local Government Act, 1894, Section 26, the Parish Council may lease land for allotments to cotters and others under conditions much wider and more generous than those of the English Act. Under these circumstances—and for reasons which I gave in my speech last week—I do not propose to deal with this point in the Crofters' Amendment Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has been tried, and that the County Council found it impossible to work it without serious expense?

It has not been tried. The Parish Council Bill on this point has not come into operation seriously. It was the amendment of the old system which was tried and found wanting.

In my constituency two or three applications have been made to the Parish Council for allotments, and it was found impossible to obtain them.

Then the applicants ought to have gone to the Local Government Board, who would have over-ridden the Parish Council.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the sum of £150,000 voted by Parliament some years ago for the purpose of emigrating the Highland people to British Columbia could now be utilised to enable the poorer class of cotters and crofters to occupy some of the land scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission for this and other purposes?

The British Columbia (Loan) Act, 1892, enabled the sum of £150,000 to be lent at 3 per cent. per annum to the Government of the Province of British Columbia, for the purposes of the transfer and settlement of families from the crofting counties of Scotland. No scheme of the sort contemplated in the Act has been carried out. It is, of course, impossible to apply the money allotted by an Act of Parliament to any purpose except that to which the Statute applies it.

Seeing that this money was voted by Parliament for the benefit of the crofters, what does the Government intend to do with it?

If it is a question of a fresh grant of £150,000, it should be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the proposed eviction or re-arrangement of crofters at Kinrossie, Perthshire; whether the object is to annex the crofters' holdings to a large adjoining farm; and, whether he can do anything to prevent these crofters from being turned out of holdings that they have occupied for years, pending the passing of the Crofters' Bill now before the House?

I have had a report from the Sheriff of Perthshire on this matter. The crofts of a certain number of crofters are to be attached to a larger farm. Some of these crofters are stated to have resigned their holdings voluntarily, and two of them have received notice to quit in November next. It cannot now be ascertained whether or not they possess the requisite qualification of crofters under the proposed Bill. If the Bill passes that would be for the Crofters' Commission to determine upon the evidence submitted to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the British steamship Ethel Radcliffe signed on a crow of foreign sailors and firemen before Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at the Port of Rotterdam on the 25th April instant, when the said sailors and firemen were charged three guilders each by the shipping master before they could get their advance notes; if he is aware that Her Majesty's Consul used his influence for the purpose of procuring those men at £3 per month for able seamen, and £3 5s. per month for firemen; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of the low wages paid, the police were called into the Consular Office to prevent a disturbance; whether the Government will consider the desirability of issuing instructions to Consuls in the Ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Hamburg to discontinue transacting business with shipping agents, either directly or indirectly; and what steps he will take to have the evidence of the crew of the Ethel Radcliffe taken before a Superintendent of the Board of Trade, as the vessel now lies in the Port of London?

We have not heard anything of this case. Inquiry will be made of the Consul as to the facts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make inquiries from the crew of the vessel, as the vessel is now lying in the Port of London; and to have their evidence taken by the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office before the men go away in their ship?

It would not be for the Foreign Office to do that in any case, and we could not make any request to the Board of Trade to take that step until we have the facts before us.

I am pointing out a way by which the right hon. Gentleman can get the facts.

The Foreign Office have no means of taking the course the hon. Member suggests.

then put the question to the President of the Board of Trade, but the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the moment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Royal Navy is partly supplied with boots made by members of the Royal Marines at Chatham; whether such members draw their regimental pay and at the same time receive wages for shoemaking; whether there are any Army Reserve men so employed whilst at the same time receiving their pensions: whether such work is conducted under the conditions required by the Factory Act; and whether the prices of the boots so supplied are governed by the prices contracted for by the recognised Army boot contractors?

The only boots made by Marines are for the use of the Royal Marine Corps. Shoemakers, as well as other workmen, receive extra pay whilst working at their trades. No Army Reserve men are employed, but a few Marine pensioners, and these retain their pensions precisely as they would if employed in civil life. The work is conducted under regulations framed by the commanding officer. The boots are of a special pattern to suit the nature of the Marine Service afloat and ashore; and to compare them with boots supplied under Army contracts would be misleading.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is still his intention to bring in a Bill to provide for the endowment of a Veterinary College in Dublin out of the funds of the Intermediate Education Board in Ireland; whether he is aware that the numbers entering this year show an increase of 700 over last year, and are now nearly 10,000, or double the number they were in 1891; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider the proposal to deprive the boys and girls of Ireland of funds essential to their education?

As already stated in reply to similar questions, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to make certain provisions in connection with the proposed Veterinary College for Ireland, an institution which, in the opinion of the Government, will be of considerable educational advantage. The provision will be not for the endowment of the College, as is suggested in the question or the hon. Member; but merely a grant of a lump sum in aid towards the acquisition of buildings and fittings. The grant will not reduce the annual sum paid to the Intermediate Education Board as their share of the Local Taxation Duties, but will be withdrawn from an accumulation in their hands in respect of their share in these Duties not expended by them in former years.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by Lord Elgin in the Viceregal Council early last month, in which he admitted that the Government of India foresaw that, if anything happened to Nizam-ul-Mulk, the ruler of Chitral, the position of any British officer, who might be then in Chitral, would be one of extreme danger; (2) will he explain why Lieutenant Gurdon was nevertheless allowed to visit that place in midwinter with an escort of only 10 men; (3) whether he has observed from the published Reports that the British Political Officer, Mr. Robertson, wrote to Lieutenant Gurdon on 8th January ordering him not to make his way back with his men owing to the badness of the road between Chitral and Mastuj, although, at the same time, Mr. Robertson was able successfully to send forward another 50 men to join him by the same road; (4) whether he has observed that Lord Elgin in his speech justified the sending forward of the 50 men on the ground that it was essential that Lieutenant Gurdon should be either supported or relieved; (5) can he explain why, instead of relieving and withdrawing Lieutenant Gurdon from Chitral, the Government of India ordered Mr. Robertson to follow him there; and what was their object in doing so; and (6) whether, in regard to the points above noticed, the Government of India have acted on their own responsibility, or whether they have had the consent of Her Majesty's Government?

The statements 1 to 4, extracted by the hon. Member from the Viceroy's speech in Council, are correct, save that the 50 men referred to were ordered up from Mastuj by Lieutenant Gurdon himself, being part of his own escort, not sent forward by Dr. Robertson. As was explained to the House on the 21st March, in answer to a question of the hon Member for Banffshire, the Government of India had been asked by Amir-ul-Mulk to recognise him as Mehtar; and they ordered Dr. Robertson to enquire and Report as to the propriety of doing so. The Government of India in this matter acted, as is usual and proper, on their own initiative and responsibility.

Arising out of that answer, while I admire the heroism of my fellow countrymen in Chitral, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman can he state to the House what business we have in Chitral at all, and what right we have invading a territory against the will of the natives, and putting them to death in defence of their homes?

I should like to correct a statement of the hon. Member. We have not invaded a territory. We are rescuing the representatives of the Queen and people of Great Britain who have been attacked. [Cheers]. The whole policy of the future relations between this country and Chitral is a matter that is now engaging the most anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and when they have fully considered the policy they think best it will be announced to the House. [Cheers].

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the present ruler of Chitral, Amir-ul-Mulk, secured his present position by murdering his brother, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to support Amir-ul-Mulk as ruler of Chitral?

The question of the policy to be pursued in Chitral is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Nicaragua offered to refer to an influential Commission of Arbitration all questions relating to the indemnity to be paid for alleged personal injuries to British subjects, including Mr. Hatch, the Vice Consul at Blue-fields; and why Her Majesty's Government declined the offer?

A proposal to this effect was received from the Nicaraguan Government on the 11th of April, but when papers are laid I think the House will see that this was not a case for arbitration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government has tendered its good offices in the dispute between this Country and Nicaragua, or has suggested terms for an amicable settlement; and whether there is any good prospect of such terms being accepted.?

No such communication has been received from the United States Government, but we have reason to hope the matter will shortly be settled.

asked, whether he was to understand that Her Majesty's Government refused to submit this matter to arbitration?

in reply, repeated his answer in the terms already given.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council of Education whether, considering that Clause 24, Instructions to Inspectors, 1895, has been in the instructions some years, and that inspectors almost invariably give a problem (involving more than one rule) to the second standard, he will direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to adhere to Clause 24?

The paragraph in the Instructions to Inspectors referred to by the hon. Member does not lay down any rule as to giving or not giving a problem in arithmetic to children examined in the second standard. I believe that it is the usual practice of the inspectors to give four sums to such children, and two of such sums are required by the instructions to be set in concrete quantities. I cannot ascertain that any complaints have been made to the Department as to the present practice of Mer Majesty's Inspectors in setting sums for the second standard.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether compensation will be given to Joseph Conrad, who was arrested by the police without a warrant on 6th December 1892, and charged at the Clerkenwell Police Court with attempting to poison his wife, and who, after being detained in prison until the 21st December following, was discharged?

Full consideration was given to this case at the time, and to an application received from a firm of solicitors acting for Joseph Conrad for compensation, and after consultation with the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions I was of opinion that Conrad had no claim whatever to compensation, to which opinion I adhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will inquire whether, in Gujrat (Punjab), in May or June last year, Nawab Mohomad Afzul Khan, Deputy Commissioner, fined several teachers of the board school for signing a petition to the House of Commons in favour of simultaneous examinations; and whether he would take steps to prevent a recurrence of such conduct?

I have no information on the subject of my hon. Friend's question, but I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House as to the conditions of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and China?

I cannot yet say when an official statement of the text of the terms of Peace can be made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to protests alleged to have been made by certain European Powers against the conditions of the Peace made between Japan and China?

I cannot say any thing about negotiations which are still in progress between other Powers.

wished to know whether the Under Secretary was aware that great anxiety was felt in this country as to the reported attempt by certain European Powers to coerce Japan, and whether he would be able to give the House information on this subject on an early date?

repeated that while negotiations were in progress with other Powers he could not possibly make any statement on the subject, nor could he say when he would be able to give information about it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has had time to consider the recent communication from the Canadian Government on the subject of the cattle trade; whether he has forwarded any reply to it; and whether he will lay the documents upon the Table of the House?

at the same time asked whether there was any chance of the Canadian cattle traffic being restored this year?

I have fully considered the communication to which my hon. Friend refers, but it does not seem to me to do much more than restate the views previously expressed by the Dominion Authorities. Moreover, since it was written, the Belgian Government have also discovered cases of pleuro-pneumonia amongst cattle brought from Canada—a fact which, in view of the admitted eminence and experience of the Belgian veterinary experts, affords an important corroboration of the opinion of my own advisers. I am endeavouring to obtain through the Foreign Office further information with regard to the Belgian cases, and on its receipt I shall be able to determine whether any detailed reply on my part is necessary beyond the formal one already sent. Later on it may be desirable that further Papers should be laid on the Table; but it would, I think, be inconvenient that I should do so at the present stage of the correspondence.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, how soon the erection of the long-promished new post office at Newbury will be commenced?

The plans of the new post office at Newbury have been approved, and I learn from the First Commissioner of Works that tenders will be invited in about a month's time. It is expected that the building will be begun in about three months.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three local justices refused an Occasional Licence for the Route Hunt Races, held near Coleraine, on Easter Monday; and that, although the stewards of the races advertised that they would not allow intoxicating liquors to be sold on the ground, and in spite of the desire of those in charge of the races and the local justices, a single magistrate granted the licence, the drink being sold on the roadside; and if he will undertake to introduce amending legislation under which the sanction of the justices at petty sessions will be required before such licences are issued?

The question, I am informed, sets forth the facts with accuracy. The hon. Gentleman is correct in assuming that amending legislation would be necessary to take away from a single magistrate, acting out of sessions, the power of granting an Occasional Licence, which, I confess, I think a very proper and desirable change in law. But in the present state of public business I cannot undertake to introduce such legislation.

asked whether the right lion. Gentleman would support such a Bill if introduced by him?

I should like to see the Bill first.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the telegraph messengers enjoy the eight-hour day granted to adult workers in the Postal Service; and if not, on what grounds; whether the pay of these lads for Sunday labour is less than 2d. per hour, while all other classes receive increased overtime pay; and whether, having regard to the youth of these messengers, he will consider the desirability of granting them a 48-hour week, and also exemption from Sunday labour?

It has not been considered necessary to extend the eight-hours rule to persons who, like telegraph messengers, are not continuously employed during the whole period of attendance; but who have frequent intervals for rest or recreation. In the same way the payment which the boys receive for Sunday work brings up their whole earnings to a sum which compares favourably with those of other boys in private employment. For these reasons the boys have not been granted a 48-hours week, or exemption from Sunday labour.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet come to any decision as to the appointment of a Commission, after the model of the Highlands and Islands Commission, to inquire what lands are available for the purpose of enlarging the holdings of small tenants in the congested districts of Ireland, and as to whether the powers provided by Scotch crofter legislation for the acquisition of such lands can be made applicable to Ireland?

A meeting of the Congested Districts Board has been summoned for the 10th instant, when the matter referred to in the question of my hon. Friend will be taken into consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is the intention of the Education Department, now that it has obtained control of the elementary education of deaf and dumb children, to continue to recognise as sufficient the certificates granted previously to the passing of the recent Act by the College of Teachers of the Deaf and Dumb to the existing teachers, numbering about 180, without requiring them to obtain the elementary grant certificate?

Teachers of certified schools for the deaf and dumb are not required, as a condition of receiving grants, to hold the ordinary certificate of the Department, and there is no intention of imposing such a requirement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now indicate when a decision on the grievances of the Indian Staff Corps may be expected?

The Secretary of State for War, after consultation with the Commander-in-Chief, has informed me that he is unable to concur in the recommendation of the Government of India with respect to an alteration in the rules of promotion to officers of the Staff Corps. It has, therefore, been decided that no change shall be made in the present rules. Majors and Captains of Staff Corps permanently appointed Commandants and Seconds-in-Command of Native Regiments will be given a step of temporary rank.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what arrangements he proposes to make for the observance of the Queen's Birthday by employés under the War-Office at Woolwich and elsewhere in London; and whether he can see his way to grant the same concession as has been made at the dockyards?

It is proposed to close the War Department establishments at Woolwich on the same principle as in the dockyards, from midday on Friday, May 24, until Monday morning, the men having a holiday composed of two half-days, and receiving their usual weekly wages. In London the closing will be on Saturday the 25th only, the men having practically a half-day's exemption from work, with payment for the whole day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if his attention has been called to the dangers likely to arise in administering the proposed Police Bill for the prohibition of solicitation in public places in India, a draught of which appeared in The Gazette of India of 23rd January 1895; and whether he has advised the Government in India to give to the Bill very careful consideration before its final enactment?

The dangers likely to arise were pointed out by members of the Bengal Council, who have been added to the Select Committee appointed to revise the provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Bill will receive most careful consideration, and I have not thought it necessary to issue any special instructions on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to an article published in The Times of India of 13th March 1895, over the signature, "A Married Officer," showing that there is a strong movement in the Indian Army for acting contrary to the Resolution of the House of Commons and the recent legislation in India for the Amendment of the Cantonment Acts; and if he will state what provisions the recent legislation makes for the prevention of violations of the purpose of its enactment?

I have seen the letter referred to by my hon. Friend. The Penal Code provides for the punishment of any breach of the rules laid down by Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a letter from the Rev. Frank R. Harbord, in charge of the Church of England Mission at Jägersfontein, dated 1st April, and published in English newspapers, wherein he alleges that 13 Zulu boys were treated with great injustice and cruelty by the mine managers, which induced them to endeavour to make their escape; that they were recaptured and assaulted; that, notwithstanding, they were next day brought before the magistrate, who sentenced all to punishments, but five of them to be flogged with cat-o'-nine-tails or the payment of an impossible fine; and that, in consequence of representations made to him, the Public Prosecutor proceeded against two of the managers, with the result that they were only fined £5 each; and has he any information to show whether the above facts are, in the main, correct; and, if so, what steps he intends to take in consequence, and to remedy the existing state of things?

The newspaper sent me by the hon. Member is the first intimation we have received of the matter referred to. We will cause inquiry to be made in regard to the matter through the High Commissioner.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that serious injury is being caused to the property of British fishermen by the position of the wreck Elbe, and of the powerlessness either of the Board of Trade or of the Trinity House to do anything in the matter, he is prepared to introduce a short Bill for the purpose of giving legal power to the Board of Trade to expend money in this and similar cases for the purpose of either dispersing the wreck or of marking the spot, or alternatively; and whether, in the event of the Introduction of a private Bill for this purpose, the Government will give facilities for its consideration by the House?

the only existing fund which could be made available by legislation for the purpose suggested in the question, is the Mercantile Marine Fund; and I cannot encourage the hope that such a charge as this, which might become very heavy, can be thrown upon that fund, to which, moreover, fishing vessels do not contribute. Neither am I prepared to recommend that money should be voted by Parliament for that purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last meeting of the Kilrush Poor Law Board, when the condition of certain evicted tenants in West Clare was considered; and whether the Government intend to make any effort to relieve these people?

A Press report of the proceedings at the meeting of the Guardians to which reference has been made, has been brought under my notice, and the Local Government Board have been asked to report as to the condition of these evicted tenants. I may observe, however, that the Guardians appear to be aware that these people require assistance, and are prepared to continue to afford relief from the rates, and that, upon the information at present before me, there, does not seem any reason for the intervention of Government in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now give the date by which a settlement of the clerical staff of the various Departments of the Admiralty will be arrived at?

A scheme for the whole of the Admiralty Departments has been prepared, but it has still to be considered by the Board before submision to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, why the rural postman who carries the mails between Sligo and Glencar has been prohibited by his superiors from riding a bicycle in making his daily runs; is there any rule of the Post Office Department regulating the use of bicycles by rural postmen; has he received representations from the people of the district requesting him to allow the postman to use his bicycle; and when will a decision be arrived at?

The rural postman from Sligo to Glencar was forbidden to use a bicycle because it was found that the bicycle was not, and could not be, always used, and this caused the working of the Post to be irregular. The rule of the Department on the subject is, that no rural postman shall use a cycle on his own account without the authority of his superior officer, to be given or withheld at his discretion. The people of the district have requested that the postman may be allowed to use a bicycle. I will inform the hon. Member of my decision in a day or two.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, on what date the telephone trunk line was opened from Belfast to different towns in England and Wales; how many messages which have been paid for have passed over the line since then; and, if the amount of business done will pay for a profit after providing interest on the capital outlay and meeting all the working expenses?

The line was opened to Liverpool, Manchester, and a few other towns on the 1st March. On the assumption that the hon. Member refers to conversations with Belfast alone, I have to say that 16 conversations have been paid for up to the 20th ultimo; but, of course, there have been other messages on the same trunk line. It is too early to judge of the financial result until further time has elapsed and the line has been placed in communication with other lines which are now in course of construction by the Department, and with the trunk lines of the Telephone Company, which will shortly be acquired by the Department.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention had been called to the dissatisfaction which is alleged to exist amongst local authorities, particularly in the case of the Metropolitan area, with regard to the valuation, of Government property; and whether, in considering applications for new post offices, or for additions to existing ones, he will take into consideration the possible after-charges for rates, and avoid as far as possible the sanction of expensive sites or of costly plans, and limit the expenditure to what may be fairly necessary for the efficient carrying on of the postal work?

In proposing any scheme for a new post office care is taken to avoid unnecessary expense for site or undue cost for buildings. The expenditure is in all cases carefully limited to what is fairly necessary for the efficient performance of the Service, and should the burden of local rates be largely increased the Department undoubtedly might be restricted in its selection of sites for new buildings.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty—(1) whether he can state the probable date when the Navy Estimates will be next considered: (2) whether, when these Estimates are under consideration, he will be able to favourably entertain a proposal to establish the principle of a minimum wage in the Victualling Yard at Deptford for the labourers employed by Her Majesty's Government, such minimum wage being at the rate of 6d. per hour; and (3) whether he is aware that at the present time the labourers employed by private contractors are being paid at the rate of 6½d. per hour?

I am unable to answer the first part of the question. As regards the remainder, the Admiralty are not prepared to re-open the general settlement of Dockyard wages arrived at in 1893, and I would refer to the replies given on 14th and 18th February last to similar questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Deptford, in which I stated that the Admiralty did not propose to establish a minimum rate of pay for labourers of 24s. a week, and, while aware of the wages paid by contractors, do not consider the cases are comparable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to say what step has been taken towards carrying out the recommendations of the Cab Committee, especially with regard to the appointment of an inspector with technical knowledge in each of the 21 police districts of London, the abolition of the privilege system at the railway stations, the abolition of the Hackney Carriage Tax, the transfer of the cab shelters to a public authority, and the extension of the cab radius throughout the Metropolis?

I must refer my hon. Friend, for the present, to my answer of last Friday, on the same subject, to the hon. Member for Paddington. The scheme which I then mentioned is now almost complete.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Wexford Board of Guardians, in which they complain that great distress prevails in die division known as Slievemahanagh, that the ratepayers in the division are so poor that they can no longer afford to give out-door relief from the rates; and, if, in view of such destitution, he will establish relief works in that district?

The word Wexford in this question is evidently a misprint for "Westport." I have received a resolution passed by the latter Board of Guardians on the subject of distress in the electoral division mentioned, and am informed that the Local Government Board's Inspector has reported that the people, generally speaking, were fairly well off, though there were individual cases of poverty in the division, the rate on which is only 8d. in the £. The Board do not, at present, see any necessity for recommending the opening of relief works in this district, but their Inspector has been directed to make a further visit to the locality at an early date.

asked, whether in accordance with the half-undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman before Easter, he would undertake to institute independent investigations into the state of distressed localities?

said, that he did not know what the hon. Member meant by a half-undertaking. He had given no undertaking at all. What he had said was that if he should have reason to think that the Inspectors were not taking adequate steps to obtain information, he would consider what measures ought to be adopted. He had himself seen the Inspector concerned in the circumstances to which the Member referred, and he had satisfied himself, by a minute consideration of the question, that his statements were the result of inquiries made from those best qualified to supply information.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman also cross-examined the Local Authorities, the Poor Law Guardians, and the parish priests.

was understood to say that the Inspectors had been in constant communication with the district authorities, and that they had been instructed on no account to omit communicating with the priests.

asked what the right hon. Gentleman would do if the Westport Board of Guardians found it impossible, without bringing bankruptcy upon the unfortunate ratepayers, to give the out-door relief certified to be necessary by the local officers?

I shall consider what is the best course of action to take as soon as the condition of things adumbrated by the hon. Member arises.

asked whether the Board of Guardians in the locality referred to in his question no longer granted out-door relief?

replied, that from the information in his possession, which was very good, he had reason to believe that the apprehensions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite were really groundless.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware that, although the railway between Malarannay and Achill Sound has been completed for the past month, no trains are yet running on the line; and, if he can explain the reason for this delay?

As the hon. Member's question was only put down on to-day's Notices, I have had no time to obtain a special report from Ireland on the subject; but in a letter which I received this morning, the Chairman of the Board of Works states that the Midland Great Western Company have decided to commence working the line on the 13th instant.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that vehicles propelled by stored electricity or petroleum run freely in the streets of Paris, whereas they are restricted here by the Locomotive Acts to a speed not exceeding four miles per hour, and must have three attendants, one in advance of the vehicle carrying a red flag; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps for allowing such vehicles, if unobjectionable to the public, to be freely used in this country?

I am about to introduce a Bill upon this subject, which I hope will meet the views of the hon. Member.

asked the Postmaster General whether it was legal to fine a Member double postage when a Petition was sent to him at the House of Commons with the words "Petition to Parliament" written on the envelope enclosing it, and when the envelope had been closed inadvertently? He had just been fined 9d. in this way.

I believe I am right in saying that it is not only legal to fine the hon. Member in the circumstances, but that it would be illegal and contrary to the statutory obligations of the Post Office to refrain from imposing this penalty.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to the result of agricultural depression in Essex, owing to derelict and unoccupied land in the parish of St. Lawrence, the quota of land tax required renders an assessment of 5s. 10d. in the pound necessary, but that a higher assessment than 4s. is illegal; and, what he would suggest, by legislation or otherwise, under the circumstances.

I have no responsibility in respect of land-tax assessments; the responsibility rests solely and exclusively with the Land Tax Commissioners. I am informed that if the rateable poor rate value of the unexonerated property in the parish of St. Lawrence, Essex, be adopted by the Land Tax Commissioners as representing its "real yearly value," an assessment of something like 5s. 10d. in the pound would be necessary to raise the quota payable by the parish. The hon. Member is correct in stating that a higher rate than 4s. in the pound would be illegal. The proper course would be to write off as irrecoverable the difference between the quota and the amount produced by a 4s. rate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what we are to do when the whole of the land of Essex has gone out of cultivation?

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in deference to temperance opinion, he will extend the Intoxicating Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill to Ireland?

I must give the hon. Member the same answer that I gave the other day to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I said then that the Bill had been introduced in the same form as that of the Bill of 1893; but that, of course, it would be open to the House to consider whether or not Ireland should be included.

Would the right hon. Gentleman think it fair, if Ireland is not included, to force this Bill upon England by the votes of Members representing Irish priests and publicans?

Will the Government support the Amendment for extending the Bill to Ireland?

I think it would be premature to state now what course the Government intend taking.

Is it the intention of the Government that this Bill should have precedence over the "One Man One Vote" Bill?

I cannot now make any statement upon the point.

asked when the Crofters' Holidays (Scotland) Bill would be proceeded with?

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce this Session, as they did last, a Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments?

We have not introduced such a Bill.

Yes; the President of the Board of Trade did last year.

Is it the intention of the Government to introduce shortly the Resolution relating to the House of Lords?

asked what the business would be on Monday?

The Committee stage of the Welsh Church Bill.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of setting up a Scotch Grand Committee to deal with any Scotch Bills that had passed a Second Reading, before entering upon the Committee stage of the Welsh Bill?

said, that he would consider the suggestion, but at present the arrangements were as he had stated.

The right hon. Gentleman has made no reference to the Crofters Bill. When will that Bill be taken? I ask the question because I find that on the Order Paper the Light Railways Bill has precedence of the Crofters Bill.

asked when the Fisheries Act Amendment Bill would be proceeded with?

At the earliest possible moment.

who was received with loud cheers, rose to make his annual financial statement. He said:—Mr. Mellor,—The Revenue of the year just concluded was estimated at £94,175,000. It has realised £94,684,000. The expenditure was estimated at £93,884,000. The issues to meet the expenditure amounted to £93,918,000. The realised surplus of the year is, therefore, £776,000, as compared with the estimated surplus of £291,000. This sum of £776,000 will be appropriated to the liquidation of the permanent Debt under the name of the old Sinking Fund, and will more than exceed the debt created within the year for the barracks and telephones. The Revenue of the year has, therefore, more than covered the expenditure within the year. Having regard to the vast increase of expenditure and the enormous deficit we were called upon to face, this is a result which may be regarded as not unsatisfactory.

How much of it is due to Schedule A?

I am afraid the analysis is not yet complete. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it takes a good deal of time to analyse the figures, but if in the course of these discussions the result comes to hand I will give it to the House. I have made these observations upon the expenditure and revenue. I now would make a statement as to the other parts of the Public Accounts. First, as to balances.

Do these figures refer to Post Office Savings Banks only?

No. They are for the whole of the Savings Banks. For the first time I am glad to say that the Trustee Savings Banks have shown an increase as well as the Post Office Savings Banks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state tea and tobacco separately?

It is not usual, on occasions like this. We take Excise at £25,450,000, as against Exchequer receipts in 1894–5, £26,050,000, a decrease of £600,000. This, as I have said, is on the assumption that the additional 6d. on beer and spirits expires on July 1. We take stamps at £15,800,000, as against Exchequer receipts in 1894–95, £14,440,000, an increase of £1,360,000.

Will the right hon. Gentleman separate the death duties?

The estimate of the income tax is £15,530,000. This is £70,000 less than the Exchequer receipts of last year, and is identical with the estimate for 1894–5. It is true that arrears will be at the higher rate, 8d., as compared with 7d. last year. But this will be counterbalanced by heavier repayments, resulting from the increased relief given to small incomes. The land tax and house duty are taken at £2,470,000, as against £2,450,000, the amount of the Exchequer receipts in 1894–5. The total tax revenue will thus stand at £79,490,000, as against Exchequer receipts in 1894–5, £78,655,000. The Post Office is estimated at £10,900,000; the Telegraph service at £2,620,000; Crown lands, £415,000; interest on Suez Canal shares and Sardinian Loan, £687,000, an increase on last year of £274,000; and miscellaneous revenue, £1,550,000, reduced by the amount received out of the Naval Defence Fund. This makes the total non-tax revenue £16,172,000. Adding this to the total tax revenue, £79,490,000, makes a total revenue of £95,662,000. Comparing this with £95,981,000, the estimated expenditure of 1895–6, we arrive at an estimated deficit of £319,000.

I do not propose on the present occasion to enter in any detail upon the interesting statement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will observe what I believe to be the most orthodox practice—that is, that such changes as are proposed in the taxation of the country are better discussed after reflection, and when the matter can be properly considered. I will confine myself, therefore, now simply to offering congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House, and the country upon some of the statements which it has been in his power to make. I join most heartily with him in the congratulations which he makes to the permanent Civil Service for the marvellous accuracy with which their forecasts have been fulfilled. I must say, looking to the extraordinary changes which have taken place in the taxation, as regards income-tax and the Death Duties, that this is simply short of a marvel. I congratulate, also, the officers of the Customs; and, there again, that they should be so nearly right on a total receipt of 20 millions shows the great ability and the great accuracy with which now the departments conduct these duties. There is only one point which struck me in connection with the estimate as regards the death duties, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to throw a little light on the subject. He placed before us some most interesting statistics with regard to the deaths which had taken place in the respective years 1893–94 and 1894–95. I am not sure that I remember the figure exactly, but I think he told us that 40,000 less people died than in the previous year.

Seventy-five thousand.

Seventy-five thousand less people died than ought to have died. This is the marvel, that the officers of the Inland Revenue seem to have been able to foretell such an extraordinary result. Otherwise, unless they had expected 75,000 less people to die, how could the results be such as to yield the precise amount which they estimated? I should presume that the same has taken place this year as has taken place on previous occasions—namely, that there are compensating circumstances, and that though the officers of the Inland Revenue are able to foretell as a whole what the result will be, there are in the course of events extraordinary changes which nevertheless are compensated by other changes. I should be glad to have some more information upon that point. At the same time I do not wish in the slightest degree to diminish the compliment which has been truly earned by the extraordinary accuracy of these estimates. The same of course applies to the estimates of expenditure, although there the difference is less remarkable because it is more difficult to foresee. In the next place I would congratulate, not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the country generally, on the figures with regard to savings banks and the general savings of the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right, and did a public service in opposing some of those pessimist views which circulate so much in the country. If the masses are suffering under oppressive circumstances, prosperity amongst the artisans has not entirely ceased. The facts that have been placed before us show that the consumption of articles has been progressive with the increasing population, being at least 3 per cent. greater, a circumstance which should afford satisfaction to all classes of the community. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his statement as to the increase of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks, and in other similar institutions. There is, however, one thing which must be borne in mind with reference to the increase in Trustee Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings Banks. It is not possible that a certain amount of money has been transferred to these banks because the rate of interest is high as compared with that allowed by other banks? I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that this is a matter which requires some watching; because, while we all rejoice that money should be put into the bank by the real working classes, it would be wrong that there should be a a loss to the country upon deposits which might be withdrawn from other undertakings by persons in a better position in life, who simply transferred their savings to the Post Office Savings Bank to get a higher rate of interest. All the same, the amount of deposits in the savings banks is a matter of national satisfaction and congratulation. It shows that the working classes are becoming capitalists themselves, and by that means new links are being established between all classes of the community. There is one point to which I wish to call attention, not in any controversial spirit, and that is in reference to Supplemental Estimates of one year which may be used for the relief of the following financial year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that they were taking a Supplemental Estimate of £200,000, not because it was required in the past year, but in relief of the present year. That is to say, that the amount has been withdrawn from what would have been the old sinking fund, and that there would have been a surplus of £900,000 instead of £700,000 for the present year. There is nothing that the departments are so anxious to do as to take Supplemental Estimates one year in order to reduce the Estimates of the next, and this is a practice which the Treasury have resisted to the best of their ability. That, however, is a venial offence, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is a practice which ought to be looked upon, I will not say with suspicion, but certainly with some anxiety and with some care. However, having congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the result of his figures, I do not wish to offer any more comments upon his able statement to-day, beyond a passing reference to his most ingenious proposal, by which to meet the deficit which otherwise he would have had, and provide a small surplus, by reimposing the Beer Duty and taking off the extra Spirit Duty. We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has many "cogent reasons" for taking that course.

They have all left the Irish Benches.

I think that my hon. Friend is really too suspicious. I mean that there may be very cogent financial reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's action in the matter. Among other reasons I may point out that the Spirit Duty is a declining Duty and the Beer Duty is a flourishing Duty. But with regard to this portion of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal I offer no comment at the present time. We have before us at this moment a comparatively simple Budget, and I should hope that before the evening is over the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us when he proposes to resume the consideration of that portion of his proposal which will touch the only alteration in the Duties which he has submitted to the House.

I may say at once that I propose to take it on Friday of next week, if that would be convenient.

complained that no relief had been given to the agricultural interest, and suggested that the land tax, which amounted to £1,000,000 a year, should be given to each county according to the proportion of its contribution. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what became of the land tax? Nearly every penny of the English land tax went into the Exchequer. There was no such tax in Ireland; and in Scotland the money was applied to other purposes, and did not go to the Imperial Exchequer. He also wished to know why the land tax was increased this year from £1,015,000, at which it stood last year, to £1,020,000. The tax, which in some places amounted to 3s. 9d. in the £, pressed very heavily upon the landowners. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he had done nothing to relieve the agricultural interest, had indirectly done something that would tell against that interest by reimposing the Duty upon beer, which was almost exclusively an English product. He was not a brewer, and he held no brewery shares, but he thought it very unfortunate that the Beer Duty should have been reimposed while the extra Duty upon spirits, which were made chiefly in Scotland and Ireland, should have been taken off. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to another matter which he regarded as being of some importance. He alluded to the £17,000 that was to be granted towards the construction of light railways in Ireland. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a grant in aid of the construction of light railways in Great Britain? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had brought in a Bill for the construction of light railways in this country, but that Bill would remain a dead letter unless a grant were made from the Imperial Exchequer, which would, at all events, partly defray their cost. What was the use of telling the landowners and the farmers of England that they were at liberty to construct light railways at their own expense? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily put aside a small amount every year in aid of the construction of these lines, and thereby do much good to the agricultural interest. If he were in order he should like, at the proper time, to propose an Amendment that would have the effect of transferring the proceeds of the Land Tax from the Imperial Exchequer to the counties in which it was raised.

That would involve an addition being made to the Income Tax.

said, that he should not object to an increase of an additional ½d. in the £ upon the Income Tax, provided something were done for the benefit of the agricultural interest. If the right hon. Gentleman would only make the proposal to transfer the Land Tax from the Exchequer to the counties, he believed that it would meet with acceptance, certainly on the Opposition side of the House and, he believed, in the country generally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was delighted that prices got lower and lower. But although we produced food at extraordinarily low prices, our taxation not only did not become lighter, but increased year after year. It was very unfair and unjust that something should not be done for the agricultural interest, and when the proper time arrived, he would move that the Land Tax be given to the counties.

considered the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very satisfactory. No objection could be reasonably raised to them. He regretted, however, to find that the right hon. Gentleman had not included in his Budget any further modification or simplification in the Stamp Duties on bonds to bearer, and, thereby, given an impetus to reviving trade and eventually benefit the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago abolished the vexatious adhesive transfer stamp. The right hon. Gentleman conferred a great boon on traders; and, he was glad to learn, that the increased contract stamp had yielded the equivalent to the Exchequer. They must remember that the transfer stamp was a declining duty, being applied only to old bonds, while the contract stamp was a permament and advancing source of revenue. There was, however, more to be done in the same direction. They noticed in neighbouring countries that duties were imposed with the object of benefiting their people—giving them an advantage over foreign traders. He did not ask for protection, but why impose Stamp Duties here to our disadvantage and to the advantage of our French and German rivals? He had, on previous occasions, pointed out in the House that we thus handicapped our traders and drove lucrative business into the hands of our rivals. We imposed a Stamp Duty on bonds to bearer greatly in excess of what obtained in France and Germany. Here the Stamp Duty was 10s. per cent., while in France it was 3s., and in Germany 4s. per cent. It might be said that nations which came here to borrow must pay that extra stamp. That might be a good argument if we had a monopoly and ours were the only market. But countries which enjoyed good credit issued their loans elsewhere. And if our investors bought such bonds abroad they paid, or were expected to pay, for the stamp. It was a good thing for this country to lend to many nations and to borrow from none. If we lent money to a country we generally gave some of our manufactures in exchange, thus making a profit on our goods and obtaining a tribute in the shape of interest from foreigners. It might be said that transfer of stocks paid 10s. per cent. duty. That was, he believed, so also in Germany. Then, again, the transfer stamp was charged on the actual money value of the stocks, whereas on bonds the 10s. duty was on the nominal value. Few foreign loans were issued over par; and in many cases the 10s. stamp on bonds equalled £1 and even £2 per cent. on their actual money value. Excessive duties always led to evasion. The evils of our present system were, that we often divert profitable trade to rival countries; that those who bought bonds abroad left them there, and did not have them stamped unless they were sold again in England. They thus very often evaded the Stamp Duty altogether. Again, Indian railway companies which issued many millions in short-dated bonds—over £10,000,000—always tried to renew them by attaching fresh coupon sheets, thus avoiding the 10s. per cent. stamp, which amounts to £5,000 on every million. Besides this, we had a very complicated system. The Indian Government paid no stamp on their direct loans issued here. But Indian railway bearer bonds guaranteed by the Indian Government bore the 10s. per £100 stamp. Our Colonies paid 2s. 6d. per cent. on their loans issued in this country; and some old issues of foreign bonds bore 2s. 6d. per cent. stamp, while new bonds bore 10s. He proposed that there should be a 5s. per cent. stamp on all bonds dealt in in this country—old or new, Indian or Colonial—every existing bond, and every renewal. He had very good authority for asserting that increased revenue would eventually result from such a change with benefit to our traders. We should even then impose 2s. per £100 more than France, and 1s. more than Germany; but we could give our competitors that slight advantage owing to our abundance of capital seeking investment. One word regarding Bills of Exchange, which are international instruments of credit. Our laws and duties pertaining to Bills of Exchange differed essentially from those of other countries, and ours were not the best. Take one instance. We exempted Demand Bills from ad valorem duty, imposing only penny stamps. If we imitated Austria and Holland we should extend that exemption to bills drawn within eight days. This would be a great advantage, especially in transmitting large sums through the post, and danger of robbery and delayed payment, would be avoided. He did not urge these reasons last year, as the Budget was complicated; but he certainly expected that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given his attention to these matters. He trusted that before long his right hon. Friend would give this question of stamps his serious consideration.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the subject just raised by the hon. Gentleman. There was, he was sure, a general feeling in support of the suggestions of his hon. Friend, except possibly as regarded two points. It might act unfairly and undesirably if fresh stamps were charged on renewals; and he also rather doubted the desirability of allowing a penny tax upon eight-day bills. He listened with great interest to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, he confessed, he heard with much regret, the right hon. Gentleman speak almost with despair of the prospects of economy. The increase of expenditure was, he could not help thinking greatly due to the practice which had grown so much of late years of putting off the Estimates. The fact that the permanent officials knew that the Estimates would be carefully considered in Committee of the House, had had a beneficial effect in keeping estimates down, and he therefore hoped the House would put pressure on the Government to induce them to produce the Estimates at a time when they could be properly considered. He trusted, too, that when he replied, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them how he got the statistics in respect to meat of home production. [The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: "Through the Agricultural Department."] Did the right hon. Gentleman think the Department had got the statistics in such a form as they could be thoroughly relied upon? The House expected to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he dealt with the beer duty, something about the probable effect on the revenue from beer of the passing of the Local Veto Bill, but on that interesting point the right hon. Gentleman gave them no information whatever. The large increase in deposits in savings' banks within the last few months was very remarkable. So far as the increase was due to the greater prosperity and economy on the working classes everyone would rejoice; but he feared it was to a great extent due to the fact that there was no other means of getting so high a rate of interest as that offered by the savings banks; and therefore he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman saw his way to reccommence the return showing the deposits classified according to amounts. He should also like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of the savings banks keeping larger cash reserves. The savings banks, of course, relied upon the credit of the nation. Every banker who held consols relied upon the credit of the nation; but every other banker held, in addition to reserves of consols, a considerable amount of ready cash available at any time; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider whether it was a safe or a satisfactory state of things for the savings banks to hold those large deposits without any available reserves against them. The right hon. Gentleman had always shown a desire to reduce the floating debt. And why? Because it was a debt the country might be called upon to pay at the most inconvenient time. But the real floating debt at the present moment were the deposits in the savings banks. They were far larger than the ordinary floating debt, and they were far more likely to be demanded in a sudden emergency than the ordinary floating debt. He therefore hoped his right hon. Friend would, from the point of view of sound finance, take the matter into his most serious consideration. He thought there was a great deal of force in what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's had said in reference to the Land Tax. It was a tax that fell very heavily on England as compared with Scotland and Ireland, and he should be glad to see it handed over to Local Authorities for local purposes. But, as there was a Committee inquiring into the financial relations between England, Scotland and Ireland, this was not perhaps the most convenient moment to enter upon a discussion of that important question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that there had been a diminution of something like six millions within the last two or three years in the deposits of building societies. To prevent any injustice being done to the building societies, it would be well to state that the great bulk of the diminution of deposits was almost wholly due to the failure of the Liberator, which had called itself a building society, but had never been a building society in the proper sense of the term. It was a strong testimony to the solvency of the building societies, and the care and skill with which they were managed that, not with standing the Liberator failure, very few had succumbed, and that the funds entrusted to them had not been materially reduced. He had always looked upon building societies as one of the best forms of investment; and, although he knew his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intended to say a word that would throw a slur upon the building societies, he thought it well, in order to prevent misunderstanding, to say a few words in defence of those institutions, which he believed were doing a great and good work in the service of the country.

said that, as the representative of an industrial constituency which was suffering severely at the present time, he must express his surprise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done nothing to relieve the existing industrial depression in the slightest degree, and had taken on notice of the vast number of the unemployed, and the great amount of poverty which prevailed throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that our commercial system was sound in principle and satisfactory in its results. That was a most amazing statement in view of the facts, as shown by the returns in The Labour Gazette month after month, that the number of unemployed was this year six times as many as in 1890, and that 400,000 paupers had been registered last month. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer give £45,000 for the relief of Irish distress and nothing whatever for the relief of English distress? A Committee was now sitting to inquire into the causes of unemployment and the extent of the unemployed, but there was not a word of sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement in reference to those matters. The Irish alone were taken notice of, both with regard to their distress and their agricultural interest. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present, as he had been, at two deputations, received recently by the Home Secretary, from two of the most important industries of the country—the glass industry and the iron trade,—he would have heard a tale of depression which would probably have considerably modified his views as to the condition of our commercial system. The representatives of the glass trade, masters as well as men, had said that between 40 and 50 per cent. of the men had been unemployed for a considerable time; and that a very heavy levy for their relief had to be paid by those who had the good fortune to obtain work. The deputation from the iron trade had been introduced to the Home Secretary by the President of the Iron and Steel Institute—an hon. Member who sat behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had told how, owing to the foreign competition, orders were being given in a decreasing degree to the iron districts of Yorkshire and Staffordshire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might, in these circumstances, have at least readjusted the taxes on home industries, so that the burden might be less felt by those industries which were suffering most from the present depression. The tendency of foreign countries was to increase rather than to diminish their protective duties so far as they affected English imported goods. He had in his hand a new law which had been introduced into the Belgium Chamber, which, while reducing the duties on foreign-made articles required in Belgium and not produced in sufficient quantities in Belgium, increased the duties on every article of British manufacture. One of his leading constituents wrote him only that morning that this act on the part of Belgium was the last straw that would break the camel's back, and that if it were allowed to pass without protest on the part of England it would encourage every other foreign country to increase its import duties. Not only was it the case that those foreign duties were increasing; but the importation of foreign goods into this country without any profit to British workers was also greatly on the increase. Although the imports from this country went down considerably last year, the importation of foreign manufactured goods largely increased. The importation of such goods amounted last year to close upon £69,000,000 sterling, showing an increase from the comparatively small sum of £41,000,000, which was the total some 15 or 20 years ago. What a large revenue would be in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he laid a slight toll on goods manufactured in foreign factories and prisons, and which were every year increasingly displacing British labour. A toll of 5 per cent. on £69,000,000 would produce a revenue of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year, which was nearly equal to the duty on tea. He had always understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious to see a free breakfast table and to follow the example of the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in diminishing the taxes—which were all paid by the consumers—upon those goods which were not produced in this country; and if he would do that, and levy taxation rather upon goods which entered into competition with those of this country, then great benefit would result to the industrial masses of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that everyone must be gratified with the large increase in the deposits in the savings banks. He should like to know the classes into which the depositors were divided. He agreed with what he understood to be the view of the right hon. Member for the University of London—namely, that the increase in the deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks was due to the favourable rate of interest now given and the difficulty of placing deposits at the same rate of interest in other banks and elsewhere. Although the working men and others were saving in an increased degree when they were in regular employment and in receipt of good wages, there could be no doubt whatever that with the enormous numbers who were without employment, the increase in depositors was due to the deposits of the better, rather than to those of the working, classes, for whom the Post Office Savings Bank was really established. He deplored the fact that, while the expenditure had increased by no less than £6,000,000 in the past two years, no effort had been made to increase the sources of revenue, to inquire into the applicability of the fiscal system, which had existed in this country since 1846, to present conditions, to develop markets in our colonies or foreign countries, or to do anything which would be of the smallest benefit to the commercial classes; and above all he regretted to find that the greatest of their industries, that of agriculture, which was suffering from such depression at the present moment, had not even been mentioned

observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from his statement, seemed to think that the last year had been one of prosperity. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would find it very hard to make those who lived in agricultural districts believe that they were in a state of prosperity. In face of the fact that farmers were going daily into liquidation, that enormous numbers of labourers were out of work in every district, and that farms were going out of cultivation, it was very hard to understand how this prosperity had been attained. He did not intend to further criticise the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to last year, but he was extremely surprised that no notice whatever had been taken of the agricultural interest. He had hoped that the Government would have conceded something towards the light railways. He would state honestly that he believed the Government might just as well take the Light Railways Bill from the Order Book to-morrow as to attempt to pass it in its present shape. In its existing form it would be of no use to anybody, and would certainly not be received with thanks by the agriculturists. If these railways were to be provided out of the rates they would prove a burden rather than a relief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he had taken great trouble to distribute the burdens amongst those who could well afford to pay them, and to relieve those who could not. He did not agree with this view. His own opinion of the Budget was that it was the Budget of last year plus a sop to the Irish Members. It was the Budget of last year without a sixpence on the Spirit Duties; and he did not think that there had been any great trouble taken in trying to distribute the burdens this year among the different classes. At any rate there had been no attempt to relieve the agricultural classes. What was the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He, no doubt, desired temperance every year, and he had taken sixpence off the whisky in Ireland, where there was to be no Local Veto Bill, and he had put sixpence on the beer in England where, as they were told, they were to have a Local Veto Bill. Surely if the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct—namely, that he had put the tax on the article from the consumption of which he hoped to get his revenue, he either could not believe that there would be much effect from the Local Veto Bill, or else it was not intended that they should have it at all. In his opinion the Budget dealt the deathblow to the Local Veto Bill or to any likelihood of their getting it in the future. Last year when the tax was put on beer he then stated that he believed it would not affect the brewers at all, and he thought the statement that had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proved that he was right. What he (Mr. Heneage) said was that the tax was equal to an imposition of 2s. per quarter on barley. He should like also to refer to the circumstances under which the tax was voted last year. They were told it was only for a year. He remembered the Member for Bedford (Mr. S. Whitbread) getting up in his place and stating, as the reason why he considered that many of his friends who objected to it should still vote for this tax, that a great concession had been made to them. What was the concession? These were the words which, upon that occasion, were used by the hon. Member for Bedford. He stated that he and some of his friends

"thought they had secured a most valuable concession, and one which was not often given to them"

from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

"…A great difference of opinion existed as to who would pay the tax. He spoke for himself in this matter. Much depended upon whether the brewers believed the tax would really be for one year only. If they believed that, he could not help thinking that any successful man would hesitate a long time before he altered the gravity or quality of his beer, or the material he used for the sake of avoiding a temporary imports which was to terminate at the end of the year."

Therefore, if they had had good beer during the last year, if a certain amount of barley had been used, it was clearly on the understanding that the tax would only last for one year. Did the House suppose that the brewers would go on in the same way, now they knew that the concession, if it was a concession, for one year might be repudiated at the end of the year again? It had been so repudiated this year, and why not next? Under these circumstances, it might be assumed that the brewers would seek to use more foreign barley, sugar, and other things, and would not continue to supply the pure beer which many of them advocated last year. He, for one, regretted the effect of this Budget. He regretted it because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, in his speech, given one single word of sympathy to the agricultural interest, because no effort had been made to do anything to promote light railways, and because he believed the right hon. Gentleman had again placed an imposition of 2s. per quarter upon barley, which would prove very hurtful to distressed agriculturists.

remarked that this, instead of being an heroic, was an unheroic Budget, and was, in fact, more unheroic than he expected. He should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had placed taxation on anything in the world, would have placed it on those obnoxious elements of food which were to be dealt with by the Local Veto Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman had run away at the mere echo of the sound of the voices of the Irish Members, and given up the spirit duty. The duties on wines had decreased. There was now a less duty on wine, especially on sparkling wine, which showed that the rich of this country were getting poorer and soberer. He further noticed that spirits had also been a failure, with the sole exception of rum, and that beer had been a success. He presumed, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would revert to that well-known British motto, in vogue at the commencement of the century—"Beer and the Bible; rum and true religion." He rose principally for the purpose of asking for information with regard to the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them they had increased by £973,000, which closely approximated to the increase he expected in his statement of last year of £1,000,000. He, himself, was not surprised that there had been a considerable increase in the total revenue from the Death Duties, whatever the source, because he had become acquainted with the fact that the mere whisper of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year brought into the exchequer a large number of duties which he should call the result of the panic created by this Act. What he wished to point out was, that the right hon. Gentleman had not given them quite enough information to enable them to ascertain how much of this increase was due to the new Estate Duty. His belief was that very little of it was due to the new Estate Duty. But a very remarkable thing he noted, and that was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had to admit that the personalty returned for taxation under the Death Duties in the course of the year had diminished by 18 millions from what it was last year. Practically, the Act had only been in force for six months, and if in the course of that period the effect of the Finance Act had been to reduce the amount of personalty returned by 18 millions, it might be reckoned that in a whole year there would be a reduction of 36 millions, and that would have a serious effect upon the revenue. Therefore, although the golden egg was laid, the goose was very sick. Why should personalty be decreased by 18 millions?

I explained that.

observed that one part of the explanation was that there had been influenza, or not enough influenza, and another was that the accounts had taken longer to come in. He did not think they had taken longer to come in. Only the other day he noticed in that oracle of wisdom The Daily News, no fewer than nine large wills reported, the average time being two months after death. The longer time alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not the reason at all. The real reason was that people were disposing of their convertible property in such a way as to secure it against the most violent and unjust attacks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rich persons, to whom it was of no consequence, were well prepared now to divest themselves of a portion of their property in favour of their children and relations, in order that the rest might escape not merely the ordinary but the exaggerated Duty. A man who had only to pay 1 per cent. did not mind paying it, but the wicked millionaire had two motives to try to escape all he could. If he gave away half-a-million or a quarter of a million, not only did he escape taxation on that, but he thereby brought the whole of his property into a lower scale of Duty. The diminution in question was unprecedented. There was no year which showed so small a return of personalty to be charged with Duty as this year showed. There was only one reason to which it could be attributed, and that was that the goose was sick—very sick. He believed there was not a single millionaire who had come into the charge under the Finance Act. On looking into the figures he found that, from 1864 to 1871, nine millionaires died; from 1871 to 1884 there were no returns; but from 1884 to 1894 no fewer than 30 millionaires died. This year the millionaire was gone—he was dead, and there (pointing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was his assassin. The millionaire would no longer die. [Much laughter.] He was assassinated fiscally. He ceased to return anything to the Treasury. He was a great source of revenue at one time; but, in consequence of the accumulated inducements given him to dispose of his property, possibly they had seen the last of him in the Taxation Returns. As to next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them they might expect an increase of the Death Duties. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman was going to get his increase. He would remind him there were a great many sacrifices that would begin to tell next year. He did not believe the Estimate would be realised, or even nearly realised, and if so, it would be rather an awkward matter for those who then had to deal with the finances of the country. If the Budget was to be based upon that particular increase—because in almost every other respect than that of the Death Duties a diminution was allowed for, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be saved by a combination of beer and death—[laughter]—and this increase failed, why, the Budget failed. He believed it would fail. He did not believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get anything like £12,500,000 from the Death Duties next year.

The hon. Member who has just sat down visited his constituents in November last and spoke on the Finance Act. He said:—

"When the Act had been before the House of Commons for a certain time, a distinguished Member of the Radical Party met Mr. Bowles in the Lobby of the House of Commons and said, 'Bowles, I understand that there are only three men in the House who understand this finance Act, and that you are one of them. Is that true?' To which Mr. Bowles replied, 'Well, it is true about me; but who are the other two?'" You will not export me to tell you whether this anecdote is true or not; I read it in the newspapers, and I can only say there is a strong air of probability about it."

I rather wonder that the hon. Member should ask for information after that. Then he proceeds:—

"The Act came into operation on August 2, and from that time to this—namely, for another three months—all the people liable to these duties were found, as it were, sitting—were shot on the ground, you know. Yes, but they are beginning to rise now; the lawyers are coming back to town, they are beginning to look into this Act, and are beginning to understand it; so that, in spite of the panic quarter ending in June and the unprepared quarter which is now ending, I think that, although there will probably be a considerable increase in those two quarters, the next two quarters will show very considerable diminutions, and the last quarter the greatest of all, because then there will have been more time for the lawyers to arrange schemes of evasion and avoidance."

He also said:—

"I have always predicted that the Act would be a financial failure. I believe I have been entirely alone in that; certainly I was alone in Parliament."

Of course he was, for was not the hon. Member the only man who knew anything about the subject? Then, in the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill the hon. Member said:—

"The right hon. Gentleman would not listen to his practical suggestion, and instead of getting £1,000,000, as he thus would have done, out of the Death Duties this year, his belief was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now got nothing at all."

That was the prediction of the only Gentleman in this House who knew anything about the Bill, and then he proceeded in the allegorical style to which he is so partial:—

"Like a modern Orpheus, the Chancellor of the Exchequer descended to the realms of Pluto, with his lyre of graduation in his hand, clutched his deceased Eurydice, and, like Orpheus again, he would find he would lose her before he brought her into light."

Well, the modern Orpheus descended and brought back, not absolutely a million, but £973,000 from those realms which were to yield nothing. The hon. Member affords an excellent illustration of the old saying that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." He has learnt a little about this subject, just enough to lead him into making extraordinary mistakes, not enough to enable him to form a sound opinion. He found that, month by month the receipts from the stamp duties were constantly increasing in spite of his prediction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get no benefit from the new duty.

I said that the right hon. Gentleman might get £700,000, but that probably it would be less.

That proves that the hon. Gentleman has not read his own speech. That sum was to be the ultimate result of the whole plan. It was not to be £700,000 in the present year. The hon. Member has asked me why it is that I expect far more in future years. He cannot have read the Act. One of the provisions of the Act is, that the duty in respect of real property may be paid in instalments, so that in the present year next to nothing has been got from real property, but the payments will be coming in in future years. I recommend a little elementary study of this question to the hon. Member, and then he may find out that he is not the only person in the world who understands it. The hon. Member's theory is, that people in a panic paid the death duties last year early in the year, and that the whole of the increase in receipts was due to that alleged fact. But the increase of which I have spoken was the increase after deducting all the old probate duty. The hon. Member has said that every quarter has seen a smaller sum produced. The hon. Member is wrong; facts confute him. There has been a gradual but marked increase in every month. The solicitors on their return to town apparently did not adopt the many methods of evasion recommended by the hon. Member in his speech on the Third Reading. They have not adopted them, or, if they have, their methods have not been worth anything, for in August the yield of the new duty was £15,700; in September, £119,100; in October, £286,100; in November, £391,600; in December, £420,100; in January, £460,500; in February, £506,700; in March, £597,600; and in April (two weeks), £319,000, or at the rate of £638,000 for the month. Therefore the hon. Member is absolutely wrong in his facts and in his conclusions. Instead of a diminishing return the yield has increased every month at an even more rapid rate than we anticipated.

How is it that the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to allocate less to the local taxation accounts?

Again I recommend the hon. Member to read the Act. He can know nothing about it; otherwise he would know that the local taxation account derives no benefit whatever from the increased duty. Until the hon. Member masters the elementary fact that the local bodies do not derive any benefit whatever from the new Finance Act and were only secured in their old position, I shall think that he is the only person in this House who knows nothing about the Act, instead of his being the only person who understands it. I am sure the hon. Member must be glad to find that all the evasions which he recommended to solicitors have not in fact been adopted and that we are £1,000,000 to the good. Had the hon. Member been right I should have been obliged to impose a new tax amounting to £1,000,000; as he is wrong I am relieved from that painful duty.

thought that the correct estimate made with regard to the death duties, the graduation of which he had supported, would be considered as satisfactory by the House as by the officials who served the State so well. This estimate showed that public finance had now almost arrived at the dignity of an exact science, and this was a great protection to the public purse. There was in the Budget little to criticise. With respect to the Suez Canal, the increase both in capital value and in dividends was satisfactory both pecuniarily and also commercially, on account of the preponderating interest of our shipping in the canal. Our tonnage amounted to two-thirds of the whole tonnage passing through. Therefore it was highly desirable that the management of the undertaking should be proportionately under our influence and control. The foresight of Lord Beaconsfield in purchasing the shares they must now all heartily admire. As Chairman of the Committee of Inspection of the Trustee Savings Banks he welcomed the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as showing the prosperity and prudence of the people. Part of the large increase in deposits was perhaps accounted for by a distrust of other securities and of building societies, but this increase both in Great Britain and Ireland was certainly very satisfactory. The Committee of Inspection took all the care they could that statutory requirements as to expenditure, credit, &c., were complied with by the trustees and managers of the banks, and these had generally readily responded to the demands made upon them. The effect of the inspection and control had been to close the weaker banks and to strengthen the residue, which stood on good foundations. People could now rest satisfied as to the safety of the funds invested in these banks, and as that knowledge spread, so, he believed, would providence and thrift increase. He spoke, of course, generally, and there might be exceptions, but the reports of their Inspectors justified these conclusions. These banks were undoubtedly most used by the class for whom they were intended—that was, by the wage-earning class, and he did not think that the ordinary bankers had anything to fear from the accumulation of savings in this way. On the contrary, they created resources for general trade. He wished to address one word to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to a great grievance under which these banks existed. If they were doing all the good for the people that he contended they were doing, they were certainly entitled to great consideration. One effect of the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen) undoubtedly had been to restrict the operations of some of the largest and best banks in their investments. They certainly ought to be allowed to make the best of their money. They had been in the habit, till 1891, of lending to local institutions, to Municipalities, and School Boards on the security of the rates—in his opinion a very good security. The result of the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's had been to prevent those investments, and thus the local community had ceased to enjoy the advantage of the loans, and the banks had been deprived of good and safe investments. He still hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to agree to one of the Bills before the House, under which trustee, and so savings' banks (like Industrial and Provident Societies, under an Act of last Session) investments might be extended to loans to Municipalities and School Boards on the security of the rates, which the Committee had been reluctantly compelled to forbid. On the cognate matter of Friendly Societies he wished to say one word. No one could fail to appreciate the value of these great foundations, and they ought to be very careful not to do anything, even for so great and good an object as National Pensions, that would endanger institutions which had done so much for the people, which had been managed and worked so well by the leaders of the working-classes, and had conduced so greatly to the prosperity of the nation. With regard to local taxation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the past had been a bad year for the doctors. Was not that an indication of the advantage of the municipal and other authorities providing for the health, and so for the strength, of the people? Although the rates might have risen somewhat, still a great return might, as in the case of public education, be expected from the narrowing of the kingdoms of disease and death, and in the end such expenditure must be most beneficial to the community. So far from parsimony being wise, it was unwise in such a case; and expenditure made for the purpose of meeting inroads on the health of the people by zymotic and epidemic pestilences, was true economy, and reconciled one even to local indebtedness, which was thus reproductive. He would only add one word on agricultural depression. He had hoped that something would have been said about a provision by the State for light railways. Railways could not, of course, be provided for the people, except to some extent by their own efforts; but he thought that the State, the locality, and private enterprise should be combined more on this and other matters. In Belgium and elsewhere such a combination was doing much to develop railways, and he thought that was a very wise example. On the question of the revision of local taxation, he thought that, after the last Budget, a primâ facie case was made out for some readjustments; but the question could only be effectually dealt with, in his opinion, by an inquiry, and he was surprised that there had never been a Motion for a Committee to take the whole subject into consideration. He was quite sure the Members of the House generally sympathised with the agricultural population in their distress, and that they would most willingly take part in securing a full inquiry in order that justice might be done, but it would not be done without inquiry, or until the speech of Mr. Fowler in the last Budget had been answered. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated by his figures that the rates on Government property would be increased, and he hoped the time was not far distant when the right hon. Gentleman would apply the true principle of equality, and would take care that local taxation should be shared equally by every class of the ratepayers.

thought it must must have required some hardihood on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep so heavy a hand on beer for the paltry sum of £500,000. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that he had put an Amendment on the Paper last year, and if the spirit of that Amendment had been adopted, it would have saved the necessity of re-imposing the beer duty this year in its present form. His suggestion in that Amendment was, that for beer made from wort of more than 1·055 degrees of specific gravity, and containing other ingredients than barley, malt, or hops, a duty of one shilling should be imposed beyond the ordinary duty. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought fit to take that course, the effect would have been to give him about £400,000 more. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must expect to hear a great deal more of this beer question before these Resolutions were finally settled. He was not given to interrupting, but in the fulness of his heart he could not help allowing an ejaculation to escape him that evening. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the quality as well as the quantity of beer had been fully maintained, that was too much for his feelings, but he apologised for the interruption. If the right hon. Gentleman had also considered a very humble suggestion of his, that some slight alteration should be made in the forms of Somerset House, they would have been able to know what brewers had used other ingredients than barley, malt, or hops; and there would have been a considerable improvement in the quality, and an increase in the quantity of beer consumed. The result of what had taken place, during the past year of depression, had shown that while rum might he drunk in the colder weather, beer was continually drunk during all seasons of the year; and whether it were wise to take the duty off spirits or not—he did not propose to question that—this extra beer duty was paid out of the pockets of the agriculturists. They could not forget—and if they attempted to forget it, they had been reminded of it by what the hon. Member for Wimbledon had said—that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to run up the duty on beer, the brewer would seek other ingredients. He believed he had used other ingredients, and very largely, and though the quantity of beer had not decreased, he ventured most respectfully to suggest that the quality had deteriorated. He believed that this extra beer duty was a very heavy burden on the agricultural industry in the East of England, which was already burdened beyond endurance. He believed that it was the coming shadow of this Budget which had something to do with the result of the Election in Mid-Norfolk; and that when the re-imposition of this beer duty was explained to the agriculturists of East Anglia, they would offer the greatest opposition to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his time had played many parts, but never so many as in the last few days in relation to the Local Veto Bill and the Spirit Duty. The whole reason of the right hon. Gentleman for the repeal of the extra tax on spirits was that it did not pay, which meant that the imposition had tended to check the consumption of spirits. If the right hon. Gentleman were really desirous of reducing the amount spent on drink, he ought to regard this check as the highest result of his last year's Budget; because beer was a much more wholesome drink for the masses than spirits. Was the right hon. Gentleman in earnest on the temperance question, or was he not? He must decide which horse he was going to ride. The other day, on the Local Veto Bill he showed the virtuous side of his character, in a keen desire to reduce the consumption of alcohol. Now, when it appeared that a duty imposed last year had had a remarkable effect in this direction, he abolished the duty because it "did not pay." The country would probably prefer some one as a temperance advocate who really meant business, instead of someone who merely tinkered with the question. There was no doubt that this change in the Spirit Duty was made at the dictation of the Irish Members. The country would be informed that this Government, which professed to be so keen for temperance, was reducing the duty on spirits—the worst form of drink—to please the Irish Members, and was at the same time going to allow the Irish Members to force Local Veto on England, while Ireland itself was exempt from that measure. The cup was already pretty full; but these beer and spirit items had filled it to overflowing. As to the Income Tax, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not said a word on the question of married women's incomes. Last year the right hon. Gentleman gave a concession to the joint incomes of married people, but owing to a technicality, this had been a boon to very few working people. He should propose, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal, that all married people who were both earning their incomes, should be allowed to consider their incomes as separate. He was glad to hear that the debt had been reduced by £6,300,000. He had always urged the paying off of the debt, and had regretted that the higher maximum adopted by Sir Stafford Northcote had not been maintained. It was gratifying to know that if the present rate of repayment were continued, the debt might be wiped out in 50 years. That would give an enormous reserve of strength for emergencies. He wished to emphasise the remarks of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the savings banks. No one rejoiced more heartily over these large increases in the returns than did he; but they must be looked at with more than a superficial eye. It was remarkable that the deposits should jump from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 in one year, and from £3,000,000 to £7,000,000 in another year. He believed the explanation was that there was no other outlet for fairly large savings. He dissented from the opinion of the right hon. Member for London University as to the necessity for keeping a larger reserve at the savings banks. They had the guarantee of the State, and if it was attempted to make them keep a reserve like an ordinary bank, the sum would be too fabulously large. But these increases in the amount of the savings showed that the questions of social legislation, increasing the facilities of savings banks, and the purchase of Consols in small sums, were what the House ought to look to for really making the people happier and better, and were more important than many of the great measures before Parliament. If anything more had been wanted to convince the country that the Government's action in relation to Local Veto was a sham and a delusion, this Budget would have served the purpose.

I only rise to make one observation on the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who voted last year against the imposition of a Spirit Duty, and who, if he thought he could enter into combination with the Irish Members against the Budget, would vote against the repeal of the Spirit Duty.

I protest against the right hon. Gentleman imputing to me what I should do. He has a light to speak of what I have done; but he has no right to say what I should do in certain circumstances.

I make my own inference. The hon. Member said that last year it was the Irish Members who compelled me to make the Duty temporary. Why was it the 70 or 80 Irish Members, and not the 300 odd Tory Members, who equally put pressure on me, and who combined with the Irish Members in order to defeat the Budget. But why in the world should these hon. Gentlemen, who were the active promoters of this combination, and who very nearly succeeded in defeating the Government on the Spirit Duties, now come forward and urge that the Spirit Duties which they opposed should be retained? The hon. Member says I have no right to say what he would be likely to do. But my opinion is, that if he saw his way, by a combination with the Irish Members to defeat the Budget and the Government, he would do again exactly what he did last year. Therefore, this affectation of virtue on the part of the hon. Gentleman is a little misplaced, and everyone in this House, and out of this House, will thoroughly see through the tactics which the hon. Gentleman adopted last year, and intends to pursue this year. But I venture to say that my action as a temperance reformer, which the hon. Member chooses to disbelieve in, but which I am bold enough to believe in myself, and of which I intend to give very solid testimony, is distinct altogether from my action as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has always been admitted that, in the departmental character of Chancellor of the Exchequer, you must deal with taxes in their fiscal character and not at all upon a social view of them. A Chancellor of the Exchequer may hold the view that the smoking of tobacco is a bad thing. I do not hold that view myself, and I do not act upon it; but if I did believe, as some do, that the smoking of tobacco is injurious to the individual British constitution, I could scarcely act, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to tobacco upon that view. The real truth is that in these matters I am obliged to act upon the fiscal view of the question, and therefore to put on a tax for the purpose of preventing consumption is a policy which I believe no Chancellor of the Exchequer in his senses would adopt. What the hon. Member proposes to me is, that when I want a sum of money for a temporary purpose I should put on a tax that would not produce it. That would not be a very logical proceeding for any Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore I pass from that point without further comment. The hon. Member for Hampshire complained that I said nothing to express sympathy and proposed no remedy for depression in the landed interest. It is not from any want of sympathy I said nothing; it was from a want of means. I take great interest in the depression of the landed interest; but what can I say? If I had any money to give away they would be among the first persons who would be deserving of the consideration of this House; but I have no money to give away. The hon. Member asked why I did not give away the land tax. How can I? It is a difficult question. I entirely admit that the land tax is of all taxes the most unsatisfactory, and I believe one of the first duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to look into the question of the land tax with a view of putting it entirely on a new footing. I have not been able to do that this year. Of course, I could not do it last year, because I had a great deal to do last year; and I cannot do it this year because I have not the funds at my disposal to enable me to deal with it. But I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the land tax, in its present position, as altogether unsatisfactory. I was asked to give some figures regarding the consumption of meat, and I have obtained them from the Board of Agriculture. In the years 1891–2–3 the home produce was 1,423 thousands of tons, and the foreign imports were 650, making a total of 2,073 thousands of tons, as against, in 1882–3–4, home produce 1,307 thousands of tons, foreign 419 ditto, making a total of 1,726 thousands of tons. The consumption per head of the population has grown from 101·4 lb. in 1867–8–9 to 121·8 lb. in 1891–2–3, or an increased consumption per head of the population of no less than 20 per cent.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now answer another question. If 75,000 fewer people have died than were expected to die, and if 18 millions more of property have been brought into account than before, and yet nevertheless the Estimates were right, can he give any explanation as to the compensating causes by which the result has been brought about?

The right hon. Gentleman can give the true explanation himself. In these matters, as in astronomy, allowance must be made for what are called compensating errors; these are elements in all our calculations. It was estimated that very few people would pay up sooner than they need on real property, but it was found convenient, by a certain number, when they were paying upon personal property, that they should pay on their real property, too; and that produced a certain sum more under that head. That is but one illustration of the sort of compensation that takes place.

wished to ask a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not complain that the right hon. Gentleman was not present when he considered the fatigue that his Budget speech must have involved, because they had the benefit of the Secretary to the Treasury, who, he had no doubt, would report the matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He desired to know whether the Budget included any provision for the superannuation of teachers in elementary schools in England and Wales. Possibly that increased sum included the provision for which he was pleading. If so, it would have been well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned it, because the matter excited supreme interest among many thousands of hardworking men and women in all parts of England and Wales. It might be within the recollection of the House that a Departmental Committee was appointed by the Vice President of the Council to submit a definite scheme. The Report of that Committee was based upon a Resolution passed unanimously by the House two years ago, which Resolution was, again, based upon the Report of a Select Committee which sat in that year. The financial proposals of the Departmental Committee were generally considered by the educational world to be businesslike and satisfactory, and they had confidently anticipated that these purposes would in some shape be embodied with the Budget. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would report the substance of his remarks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that some statement would be made by him before the Debate closed. He understood that the proposal was viewed with favour by the Education Department, and that all that was required was the approbation of the Treasury. He should be the last man to ignore the financial necessities of the Government, but he would remind them that the amount required in the first year was extremely small—so small that it would hardly make a fraction of difference in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's moderate surplus. Of course, the amount to be provided would go on increasing in future years until a certain maximum, set forth in the Report of the Departmental Committee, was reached. But, as the amount at present required was small, and as the interests at stake were vast—the efficiency of education in this country being concerned—he ventured to press the matter on the consideration of the Government. He understood that they were at present giving it their practical consideration with a view to immediate action being taken; and, of course, it was possible that the scheme might be begun during the present year, although no provision was made for it in the Budget. But he submitted that the provision could be more conveniently made in the Budget than in a Supplementary Estimate, to which there was always an objection. He concluded by repeating his expression of the anxiety with which this matter was regarded by one of the most hardworking, important, and meritorious classes in English Society, and by assuring the House, with his practical knowledge of education, which ought to be as considerable as that of most people, that this matter vitally concerned the efficiency of that education which it was the pride of the House and the nation to promote.

agreed with the hon. Member as to the importance of the subject of teachers' superannuation, and of the body in whose interest it was brought forward. No provision was made for it in the Budget, for the reason that the report to which the hon. Member alluded had not been considered by the Treasury when the Estimates were prepared. That report was now under the consideration of the Treasury, and if it was decided that money should be devoted to the purpose of teachers' superannuation during the present financial year the necessary provision would be made by a Supplementary Estimate. He would be very glad to report what the hon. Member had said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he felt quite certain that the matter would be dealt with sympathetically by the Treasury. Certainly, so far as he was concerned, it had his warmest sympathy.

said, that, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, he shared in the regret already expressed that no reference had been made in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech to the state of Agriculture. The state of agriculture in the Eastern Counties—and, indeed, in all wheat-growing counties—was very critical at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed the view that the Land Tax was not in a satisfactory position, and it certainly fell with excessive severity on wheat-growing counties; he was glad to hear some hope held out that on a future occasion that tax would be dealt with. A Light Railways Bill had been brought in, but it was a remarkable fact that, while the Government proposed to contribute no less than £17,000 for the construction of light railways in Ireland, there was no proposal whatever to offer any sum towards the construction of light railways in England. He should like the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of the Treasury to try to prevail on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to surrender the land tax to local purposes in the several counties, so that, if desired, it might be used for the construction of light railways. It would be impossible for owners and occupiers in Essex to find the money wherewith to construct these light railways. There were two districts in the county which he represented where they would be very thankful to have light railways constructed; but he was afraid, under the present provisions of the Bill, there would be no chance of such railways being constructed unless some assistance was given from Imperial funds. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not refer at all to the state of agriculture. It was contended last year by the hon. Member for Chelmsford Division that barley was taxed at the rate of 100 per cent., and he thought it would have been far better to retain the duty on spirits and not re-impose the duty on beer. At all events they ought to be placed on an equal footing. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer increasing the death duties had increased the difficulties of the owners of land, particularly in the Eastern Counties; and he believed that experience would show that the number of landlords who were unable to live in their homes would be increased in consequence of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that improvements would be checked, and that their means of employing labour would be reduced. He much regretted that the present Government had not followed the policy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) with regard to local taxation. Real property paid much more than its due share of the £100,000,000 now raised by taxes and rates, and he only trusted there would be a sufficient number of Members in that House before long to force the Government of the day to continue the policy of the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square in the direction of lightening the burden of local taxation.

said, that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that the English farmer should be placed on the same footing as the Scotch and Irish farmer in respect to the income tax, but that had not been done. In England a farmer was taxed on half his rent, whereas in Ireland and Scotland the farmer was taxed on only one-third of his rent. Take the case where the rent was £320. The English farmer had to pay on £160, but the Scotch and Irish farmers escaped altogether. That was not carrying out the undertaking given last Session by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had hoped that they would be told that the English farmer would be taxed on one-third only. The English farmer felt this to be a grievance. The position of English agriculture made it extremely hard for the farmer to be called upon to pay this sum, and he thought the Treasury might have found means of obviating the difficulty. He hoped this matter would be simplified at once. They were extremely glad to hear that the public generally had not been suffering from the bad times which they generally supposed until during the last two years. It made one ask whether the present condition of wages was likely to be maintained. So far the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very satisfactory in that respect; but, having in regard the fierce competition to which the trade of the country was subjected, the question arose, whether the present scale of wages was likely to be maintained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather criticised those who took a pessimistic view, but was not the right lion. Gentleman inclined to take a too optimistic view? They were told by some good authorities that there was a prospect of a revival of trade, but it was certain that the country had to submit to a competition which it had never had to submit to before, during all its industrial progress, and against which it was hard for us to maintain the position amongst industrial nations which we had hitherto held. This was an extremely serious matter, and ought to be seriously considered.

said, that lie only rose because his constituents felt so strongly on the condition of agriculture; and, seeing that this Budget rather increased than lessened the burdens which fell upon it, he desired to take the earliest opportunity of entering his protest against it. They would doubtless have an opportunity later on of discussing the one addition which was proposed in the taxation of the country, but he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he said last year, to the effect that, if the additional burden on beer was to be made into anything like a permanent tax, he was afraid more brewing substitutes would be used. From statistics already to hand, that sugar had increased in percentage, since the additional tax was imposed on beer, more than it had done in any previous years; and there was an ever growing temptation to introduce sugar and chemicals, which were more and more taking the good old English ingredients of malt and hops.

I do not think it is open to the hon. Member to discuss that in any detail; I understand that the two Resolutions with regard to beer stand over for the present.

on the point of Order, said, that it was generally understood that on the first Resolution a general discussion on all the points might be held.

I said nothing about a general discussion. I was only pointing out to the hon. Member that it was not in Order to go into detail on the point he was discussing.

said, that he did not intend to go into details. In regard to local taxation, at a time when they had a right to expect some further help, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that a less sum had been paid over to the counties towards the relief of local taxation than in any previous year; while, at the same time, an extra tax was imposed which especially affected the agricultural districts. The English agriculturists had as much to contend with as any others, and they should not be chosen for extra taxation at a moment when the agriculturists in Scotland and Ireland were being relieved of the share which they had to bear last year. He was surprised to learn that the Estate Duties of last year had only added £1,000,000 to the Revenue of the country. He had been about the country and seen its effect. He had seen places deserted, houses shut up, the labour previously employed in the gardens and surroundings of the houses of country squires dispensed with, and those places lying practically useless, waiting to recover from the effects of a most cruel and oppressive tax. Coining fresh from those sights, he had a right to object to a fresh tax affecting more especially the agricultural constituencies of England. The reason why such a large sum had gone into the Savings Banks was because the money could not find an outlet in industrial and commercial enterprises. It was thus driven into Government Savings Banks in particular, where a larger interest was being now paid than the Government could properly afford to pay with Consols at the present price. The optimistic figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should therefore be accepted with care. On these grounds, feeling as he did, that the present Budget, so far from being a help, was likely to prove oppressive to the most oppressed industry in this country, he had ventured to take the earliest opportunity of entering his protest against it.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know the present deplorable state of the agricultural industry in this country. The price of produce was so low that it was not worth the farmers' while to cultivate the soil. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted figures to show the Committee that the lower classes had never had a year of greater prosperity than the past year, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that the classes immediately above those classes—the middle class, the farmer, and the small landed proprietor—had hardly ever had a year of greater depression. If the Government intended to carry out their professions, and to do well by all interests in the country, it was obvious that they ought to take some notice of those serious matters in the Budget for the year. There was now a general lock up of capital. It might be asked why landed proprietors did not spend more to encourage scientific agriculture. The reason was because they got no return for their expenditure, although large sums were being expended almost in despair in the improvement of the land. One of the main reasons of this depression was that we were inundated with foreign produce, the effect of which was to prevent all profit to the English agriculturist. It was impossible to produce good butter, and even cheese, at remunerative prices, so long as the country was flooded with foreign and colonial produce. During the last few weeks, again, large foreign bounties had been given, to the consternation of British agriculturists, in order to still further cheapen those articles. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer was most anxious, and justly so, for the welfare of the deserving and hardworking peasantry, he seemed to take little account of the middle classes of the country, who were really the producers, and who advanced their capital to further the interests of the labouring classes. He regretted that there was no modification m this Budget of the financial Act of last year in respect to the Death Duties. If successions took place at short intervals it would be almost impossible for landed estates to bear the tremendous burden now inflicted upon them, and the longer the Duties remained unmodified the greater that burden must become. And there was this further hardship—that the better a proprietor managed his estates the more capital he spent on them, and the better the order in which he left them, the worse it would be for his heirs. So that there was really no incentive for a man to do well by his property. He hoped that when the Second Reading of the Light Railways Bill came on the Government would consider the needs of the remote districts of Scotland. The scheme of light railways in Ireland had had a good effect, and similar works would create a very beneficial change in many parts of Scotland. If a small amount of money was granted by the Government to assist the localities in raising the necessary amounts for the railways, or if the interest at a small rate—2 per cent., for instance, on a reasonable sum—was guaranteed by the State, the lines might be made. They would give a great impetus to agriculture and to other forms of industry and would allay much of the discontent that now existed, for it was felt that, in comparison with Ireland, Scotland had not been dealt fairly by in this matter.

was sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to deal in the Budget with the matter of Marine Insurance So far back as 1869 the duty on Fire Insurance had been taken off, but nothing had been done in the case of Marine Insurance. At present there was an ad valorem duty of 3d. on Marine Insurance in this country, whereas less, or none at all, was imposed in other European countries or in America. This was a great disadvantage to England. The effect of the tax was very detrimental to our mercantile interests, especially considering that a large insurance might be, and often was, taken up by one Company, and the risks immediately spread by re-insuring, thereby necessitating further duty on the original sum, and, seeing that the whole amount obtained by the duty was only about £139,000, he thought it would be a wise act to abolish it. He admitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a small margin to dispose of in the present Budget, and that it might not be possible to deal with the question on this occasion; but he hoped, in the interests of the shipping community, and of trade at large, that it would not be lost sight of. He regretted also that the question of teachers' pensions had not been noticed in the Financial Statement. He recognised that the question was a very large and important one, and that it would involve a vast sum of money; but he should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had made a few sympathetic remarks in order that the teachers might have seen that the matter was neither overlooked nor disregarded.

said he felt bound to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the sensible and excellent Budget he had submitted to the Committee. As a Scotch Member he heartily thanked him for having taken the 6d. off whisky. Last year he resisted the imposition of the tax, and did so because it was a tax on Scottish industry and on the national beverage out of all proportion to the tax on the Englishman's beer. The right hon. Gentleman himself had stated that the tax on whisky was 700 per cent., whilst on beer it was only 36 per cent., a disproportion that was simply indefensible. On the other hand it was shown that the tax on beer had not had a bad effect on its consumption. He thought that those who consumed it moderately were all the better for it and not worse, and he thought the same in respect to whisky. He was well aware that some of his friends on that side of the House were teetotallers, and he did not want to give any offence to their feelings by saying that. In opposing the whisky tax last year and congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, he had done so not because the tax would diminish its consumption, or the taking of it off increase its consumption. If the whisky were adulterated he thought as a medical man that it was calculated to do harm to the social condition of the people. He thought that too high a tax on whisky might do harm to the community if it led to adulteration. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his present proposals.

said it was hardly possible to take too pessimistic a view of the state of agriculture, and those who were most interested in, and knew most about, trade in this country if they did not take a pessimistic, certainly did not take an optimistic, view of it. No doubt a large number of the working classes were in a prosperous and satisfactory condition; but it must be remembered, in considering the receipts of the savings banks, that one reason for their having increased was the insecurity of other kinds of investments, which had led a number of people who could not be described as the working classes to make use of them. The Report of one of the district Mine Inspectors showed that, while mining was carried on under safer and more satisfactory conditions during last year the miners were not so well off, the collieries having been more frequently stopped for want of orders. It was stated over and over again, by several of the most experienced persons, that in the iron and steel industry a great deal of business had been leaving the country and going to Belgium and elsewhere; and thus the means of employment were reduced, while the population increased. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had produced a Budget in which, by maintaining a temporary duty for another year, he was able to escape a deficit; but he thought a great deal of caution ought to be used by the authorities who had made the Estimates on which the Revenue for the year was founded, in having regard to the present condition of the various industries in this country. He was greatly disappointed that, out of the large sums which were to be expended in the course of the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had provided nothing in regard to the light railways scheme, which if it were to be successful must be backed up financially.

said, something like 5,000,000 acres of land were under barley cultivation in the Eastern Counties of England; and the result of the present legislation, coupled with the Local Veto Bill, would be to throw a considerable portion of it out of cultivation. They had heard of derelict Essex, and they would soon hear of derelict Norfolk and Suffolk. The policy of the present Government was to harass and penalise the brewing trade; and, of course, if they were heavily taxed they had to buy their raw materials cheaper. To do that they had to buy foreign barley, and in that case the British barley-grower could not sell his produce when he came to market. The result would be that the same story they had to tell with reference to wheat would have to be told with reference to barley. Land would go out of cultivation; and Norfolk and Suffolk would possibly shortly be in the same unfortunate condition as Essex was at the present day. In his opinion the Budget proposals of the right hon. Gentleman showed a want of originality and a poverty of imagination that he should scarcely have expected from so experienced a financier—because, last year, the right hon. Gentleman had taxed the brewers, and this year all he could do was to tax them again. The right hon. Gentleman had many sources of revenue open to him which he had neglected. The House was aware that in affecting transfers upon the Stock Exchange it was the practice to put nominal values in the documents, in order to avoid the stamp duty. If the right hon. Gentleman were to insist upon the real values of the stock being placed upon the transfers, he would largely increase the Revenue of the country, and would be enabled to reduce the Land Tax, and thus benefit the agricultural interest.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid him the high compliment of quoting from one of his speeches, in order to show that he claimed to be the only man in the House who understood the Finance Act. Of course, he had not come down to that House on that occasion prepared with the speech in question, but having taken the opportunity of referring to it, he found that the right hon. Gentleman, following a practice not unusual on the opposite Benches, had confused two extracts from his speech together, had in each case only quoted part of a sentence, and had thus given an erroneous meaning to his language. He need not say that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether omitted those portions of his speech which had reflected most strongly upon himself. He was accustomed to that kind of thing, and he would not follow the bad example of the right hon. Gentleman by treating seriously what was intended for a joke. It was absurd to suppose that he seriously intended to convey that he was the only man in that House who understood the Finance Act, because he had, in the very speech the Chancellor had quoted, expressed the opinion that both the present and the late Attorney General completely understood that Act, and had contrasted their conduct in making it a point to be present during the Debates on the Act, whilst it was passing, with that of the right hon. Gentleman who was usually absent when its details were being discussed. It was impossible to understand the working of the Act from the language of the right hon. Gentleman who, in referring to it in the course of his speech that night, had denied his own figures ten minutes after he had uttered them.

That is not the case.

said, that if the right Gentleman would refer to the manuscript from which he had read his speech that evening, he would find that his observation was correct. The right hon. Gentleman had first declared that the Legacy and Succession Duties had increased, and then alleged that they had decreased. As a matter of fact, they had both increased (through the panic) by £217,000, as the right hon. Gentleman would see if he would again refer to his manuscript. But these were old duties, and that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to take credit in the name of the Finance Act for that increase which was due to the old duties. In order to ascertain what was due to the old duties and what was due to the Finance Act, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to let the House have the figures showing what had been received during each quarter of the year under each duty during the past 12 months, and also the capital sum on which the duty was charged in each case. He had prophesied that there would be a large increase of Revenue under the old duties during the first quarter of the year, in consequence of everybody who owed anything under those duties coming with a rush to pay their debts to the Exchequer. If the right hon. Gentleman would grant the return he asked for, the House would be in a position to judge of the effect of that masterpiece of legislation—the Finance Act. He, however, did not for a moment desire to detract from the great merits or from the genius of the right hon. Gentleman in having invented the new method of legislation that was embodied in the Finance Act. He believed that in the course of three or four years, when the full effects of the Finance Act came to be seen, this new principle of taxation would be found to be—not a fiscal success, but a fiscal failure.

said, that the rateable value ought to be made the basis of taxation as far as the property tax and House Duty were concerned. He was aware that the Finance Act of 1894 made on the assessment for the property tax, deductions of l–6th in the case of house property, and l–8th on landed property, but the calculations did not work well. One collector had told him he had 800 objections made in his own collection. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it would not be a good plan to even now adopt the rateable value, so that we should have but one value in assessing taxes, and thus get rid of the confusion which now existed? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered the desirability of making the same allowance with regard to the House Duty. It had always been argued it was wrong to collect taxes on what Parliament had admitted to be a false value, that was the gross value. Then, he desired to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the question of the making of an allowance in respect of methylated spirits. Last year the right hon. Gentleman said there was not time to consider the matter, but he (Mr. A. C. Morton) had received a letter from the Treasury in which it was stated that the subject would be considered before this year's Budget was introduced, but he had not heard anything further, and fully expected that the Chancellor would have mentioned the matter to-day. He had only to say, in conclusion, he was very sorry the Government felt obliged to collect so large an amount of money in Imperial taxes—over £103,000,000. He regretted they had been unable to reduce the expenditure, or, at any rate, to apply the proceeds of the taxation for the benefit of the people to a greater degree than they proposed.

I am afraid it is quite impossible to collect Imperial revenue on the basis of rateable value. Rateable value varies in every district according to the convenience of the district, and, therefore, it would be raising Imperial taxation upon a basis which was variable everywhere. The question of an allowance on methylated spirits is really one of detail which we could hardly discuss to-night, but I shall be very happy to go into the matter with my hon. Friend. With regard to the matter of teachers' pensions, I wish it to be understood I do not at all place it beyond the region of hope that we may begin the work this Session. It is a very large question; it will affect posterity extremely heavily; it will not affect us much, and, therefore, there is all the more reason we should be very cautious how we proceed. It is well known that the ultimate charge, according to the estimate, is something between £600,000 and £700,000 a-year. That is a matter which is to be approached with great consideration, but, on the part of the Government, I have to say we are very sympathetically affected towards the question. We desire it to be dealt with—it ought to be dealt with, and 1 am not without hope we may make a beginning this session, though I do not wish to make any pledge on the subject. Now, I really do not wish to be understood to have taken to-night in this Budget a course wanting in sympathy with the distress in the agricultural industry. I recognise that distress as much as anybody, but when I am asked to do this thing and that thing and the other, I must ask what means have I of doing it? There are no means whatever except additional taxation. [An hon. MEMBER: "The Spirit Duty."] What can the Spirit Duty do to relieve agricultural distress? I am afraid uncommonly little. Then there are light railways. The hon. Member for Hampshire has spoken of £17,000 being given to Ireland. I doubt whether the hon. Member would accept £17,000 as being a satisfactory settlement.

I only alluded to the difference between Ireland and England. Something is given to Ireland and nothing to England.

If the hon. Gentleman is willing to negotiate on the basis of £17,000, I think it might be worth consideration, but I do not think that would be considered a satisfactory solution. The question of agricultural distress is a great question, no doubt, and the question of local rating is also a very great subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, very wisely, some months ago, called attention to the fact that a grant of £4,000,000 is represented by a reduction in the rate of 6d. in the £. Now that means—I put it in a rough way—2d. on the Income Tax and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they think they would make a good bargain if they got a reduction of 6d. in the £ on the rates at the cost of 2d. in the £ on the Income Tax? I am bound to say, with reference to the financial condition of the country, that in my belief, in the growth of the expenditure of the country you have very nearly reached the limits of tolerable taxation. Of course, I am responsible, and my colleagues are responsible, and gentlemen opposite will not deny their share of the responsibility. Therefore I make no Party distinction in this matter, but I do ask the House to consider what are to be the results if we are to go on at the rate of adding £6,000,000 in every two years to the expenditure of the country? There is no other result than this—you must have an enormous increase of your taxation, and taxation is very high now. If you are going to demand additional assistance towards the rates you may have it to the extent of 6d. in the £, at the cost of an Income Tax amounting to 10d. in the £. So you may go on pressing these demands upon the House. They are very popular demands. On a Friday evening you can always command a majority for them. You will have at one time a Motion to increase wages in some of the great Departments; and at another time a motion to exempt married women from taxation. All this represents hundreds of thousands of pounds. You cut off the sources of revenue every day, you increase expenditure every day; and the consequence is, that you must meet the question of increased taxation. In my opinion that is a very serious question for the House and the country to face. We are, happily, able to meet an expenditure about double what it was half-a-century ago. It is a strong testimony to the soundness of our system of finance, and of our system of commerce, that we are able to do that with so little pressure, so little suffering, and so little oppressiveness of taxation; and when we look to other States who have adopted other methods, we have no reason to complain of our position. But I feel, in the condition of the country and in the condition of finance, the seriousness of this daily increasing expenditure, and these constant demands to reduce our sources of revenue; and, therefore, when I am called upon for excellent objects, against which I have not a word to say, to produce measures which would cost millions, I must raise my voice in warning. This is not a Party question on one side or the other. The demand for increased expenditure is made by the House, and, so far as I can see, is supported by the country. But if we are able to face that expenditure to-day, shall we be able to face it tomorrow? Shall we be able to face it in the years to come, unless we take a serious view of our position? It is my duty to warn the House on that subject. It may be, and probably will be, the last time on which, from a responsible position, I shall be able to address these words to the House of Commons, or to the country. [Cries of "Why, why?" from the Ministerial Benches.] But I do so now with feelings of the deepest responsibility. You have reached a point where you cannot afford to go on increasing the expenditure of the country at the rate at which you have been going on in recent years; and if you do go on you will find yourself face to face with a burden of taxation which the country cannot, and ought not, to bear. These are considerations which I hope the House will bear in mind on every occasion when it is invited to give a Vote which will lead to an increase in the expenditure or a decrease in the sources of revenue. As there will be future occasions for the consideration of the Budget, I hope the House will now allow this preliminary stage to pass.

said, he had no intention whatever of interfering in the Debate, but he felt compelled to draw some attention to the observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to agriculture. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the question of agricultural depression was one of the gravest questions that could occupy the attention of Parliament at the present time, few Members on either side of the House would be disposed to differ from him. The right hon. Gentleman had often in the course of the last year or two expressed, in language at all events, his deepest sympathy with the representatives of the agricultural interest. But there the right hon. Gentleman invariably stopped. His sympathy was limited entirely to words. If they turned to the actions of the right hon. Gentleman they would find them of an entirely different character. In the very height of the agricultural depression last year, the right hon. Gentleman—against the protests of the Representatives of the agricultural interest inside the House and outside the House—thought it his duty to inflict on that interest one of the heaviest burdens it had ever been called upon to bear. They had to complain also that every proposal made on behalf of the agricultural interest was invariably dismissed by the right hon. Gentleman as unworthy of the attention of the House. They admitted there was weight in the objections put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to increased expenditure; but they had every reason to complain that the Government, knowing well the desperate condition to which agriculture was reduced in England, and while perfectly willing to do something for Ireland, dismissed almost with contempt the suggestion that they should do for England in regard to light railways what they had already done for Ireland. It was really more the spirit in which this question was treated than the actual proposals in the Budget at the present time, of which they complained so bitterly. Whatever they proposed was dismissed at once as being beyond the pale of practical politics. And yet, while he acknowledged the great stress of the position, the right hon. Gentleman had never anything to suggest or propose on his own part, and the whole solution they had from Her Majesty's Government were expressions of deep sympathy with the terrible position of the agricultural interest in this country, and which they had really had almost ad nauseam. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the limits of tolerable taxation had practically been reached. What were they to understand from that? The right hon. Gentleman's position was this: he acknowledged the condition of the agricultural interest, he admitted that nothing could be worse, he was always expressing his sympathy, but, if he understood him aright, at the present moment, as the representative of Her Majesty's Government, he was prepared to accept the complete ruin of that industry with complacency and without making any effort whatever on the part of the Government to relieve it.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; that is not what I said. What 1 said was that the proposal to make further subsidies with reference to local rates would lead to an increase of the Income Tax, which would be a greater burden on the agricultural interest than the relief given.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman at any rate stated that it was impossible to give the relief asked for, because the limits of tolerable taxation in this country had been reached. But the right hon. Gentleman did not restrict his observations to the limits of taxation having been reached, but he complained very bitterly of the constantly increasing expenditure of this country. Proposals of all kinds were constantly being made to increase the expendture. Some of them were, no doubt, judicious and right, but others were extremely improper, unnecessary and much to be objected to. Even during the present Session they had heard proposals from the Government of the latter description. It was not long ago since they heard from the Government a proposition for the payment of Members in that House which would involve a large increase of expenditure, and for a purpose upon which there was undoubtedly a great difference of opinion, and in regard to which he did not hesitate to express his opinion that it was wholly unnecessary, inexpedient, and greatly to be condemned. When the right hon. Gentleman had in his own pocket other proposals or promises of this description, he did not think he was justified in getting up and saying—

"I can do nothing whatever to relieve agricultural depression, however severe it may be, because the limit of taxation has been reached, and I utterly object to all further increase of expenditure."

He should not delay the Committee any further on this occasion. They should have other opportunities, he did not doubt, of dealing with the question that had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the reply he had just addressed to the Committee, and which was the only thing which induced him to make these observations. Before he sat down, however, he could not help saying that he did not believe, and he would not believe, until it was absolutely demonstrated and proved, that it was beyond the genius of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country, beyond the genius of the present Government even, at all events, to make some proposals, in its condition of dire distress, for the relief of that which everybody acknowledged was the greatest, but which, at the present time, was the most unfortunate, industry in the country.

called attention to the fact that during the present Session, on a Friday night, a Resolution was brought forward, and unanimously adopted, to the effect that there should be a re-arrangement of the burdens of taxation. He regretted that so far nothing had been done to carry out that one plank of the Newcastle Programme relating to the taxation of ground values. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that a number of burdens that had been rearranged, and which were supposed to be a benefit to agriculture, really did not affect the agriculturists at all, but the benefits went to the towns, where they were not wanted. The burden, for instance, of the present land tax was incomparably higher upon agriculture than upon manufactures or the coal industry. In the coal industry miners' wages were falling, the profits of the colliery owners were falling very much, whilst the royalty owners' profits were increasing. He thought the time had arrived when some Chancellor of the Exchequer should really take up this question and solve it, placing the burdens on the various interests in accordance with the necessities and circumstances of the time. The burdens now in some districts were much too high, while in others they were too low. Curiously enough, the Government had brought in a Bill to rearrange the payments and quotas of the various towns and burghs in Scotland. Why should they seek to have such a rearrangement in Scotland without a rearrangement also for England? Why was a Bill to be brought in to change the burdens, to slightly relieve agriculture, and slightly add to their payments in burghs in Scotland, and a similar course not to be adopted in regard to England, where the necessity was equally great? He would support the Bill so far as it went, but it did not go far enough. It would still leave the agricultural community in Scotland to pay four or five times as much as the industrial centres, and he did not see why it should be so. If they made a change at all, it ought to be in the direction of placing the burden upon the various industries according to their abilities. He did not know whether this was the last Session in which the right hon. Gentleman was going to act in the capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped not; and that the next Budget would not be of this humdrum character: but that he would in the bold and free fashion of last year try to equalise the burden of taxation. In view of the increased duties on per sonalty, for example, he thought time should be permitted in which to pay them, just as was done in the case of realty; and he intended at the proper time to move an Amendment in thus sense, because if one threw some forms of personalty upon the market wholesale you reduced its value.

stated that, in accordance with what he believed to be the general convenience, the resolution relating to the beer duty would be brought on Friday, May 10th. Copy ordered,—"of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—(Sir John Hibbert.)

in resuming his speech on the Debate said, that he regretted its want of continuity. To discuss this important subject in instalments was inconvenient from many points of view. He proposed to examine the principles and practice, commended by experience, for adoption in trade disputes, and to inquire how far they had been adopted in this Bill. Generally speaking, he had approved the basis of the Bill though there were exceptions to that approval. The chief difference of opinion which existed with regard to the question of arbitration and conciliation was as to whether the plans proposed should be voluntary or compulsory. Some hon. Members thought that it would be possible to have machinery compelling the parties to arbitrate and to abide by the award The noble Lord, the Member for Brixton, for example, had said that any plan must be useless which did not provide for a final compulsory arrangement. Then the hon. Member for Gateshead had spoken of the desirability of appointing trade judges, with power to enforce their judgments, and Lord Dudley had said that there should be a central, and he (Sir A. Rollit) presumed, compulsory authority, and a judge whose decisions ought to be carried into effect even against the wish of the parties, if necessary. If these opinions were embodied in any new Act of Parliament, it would, practically, be as dead a letter, and as deterrent, as many of the measures were that had preceded the present proposal. They could not compel an employer to undertake work which he thought would not be profitable; they could not dictate to him the terms of his employment; nor could they, under any system of compulsion, require men to work for wages or at prices for their labour which they did not think sufficiently remunerative. There were limitations to the sphere of arbitration. Just as nations, while consenting to arbitrate about boundary questions, might reasonably decline to arbitrate on questions affecting their national existence, so in the region of industry there were questions affecting whole classes of the people, which so concerned their very existence, commercially and industrially, their very life and living, that they might decline to submit them to arbitration—at any rate, to arbitration of a compulsory kind. He would point out that there were compulsory enactments relating to this subject in the Statute Book at this moment. There were plenty of powers, and yet they were ineffective. There was the drastic Act of 1824, which enabled a Justice of the Peace to nominate arbitrators, and, failing their award, to determine a dispute summarily, enforcing his decision by penalties. This Act was of course a dead letter, as was the more equitable Act of 1867, which, however, incorporated the drastic provisions of the Act of 1824. That incorporation had been fatal to its success. Even when parties consented to be bound by an award, there were practical difficulties in the way of its enforcement, which must be taken into account. In trade disputes they were not dealing with two litigants fighting about specific issues, but with whole classes of people who found it difficult sometimes to delegate their authority, and whom it was very difficult to represent authoritatively. Charges were frequently made of disloyalty to awards. His own experience pointed, however, to the general loyal acceptance of awards. But there might be a want of authority, misapprehension, and misconception, and it was almost incident to the conditions of these disputes, that one could not have those specific issues, and determinations, and complete enforcements of law which one could have in disputes between single individuals. This was recognised by our own and other codes of law. In the Act of 1872 there were no compulsory powers except upon consent. In 1875, when the Employers' and Workmen's Bill became law, Lord Cross advisedly abandoned the project of requiring specific performance in industrial disputes, in which large bodies of men were involved. In that Act, which had since been spoken of as one of the two labour charters of the working classes, this principle of enforcement was not embodied, and that it was advisable not to embody it, was proved by the experience of the civilised world. Experiments had been tried in Massachusetts, and in the Colonies, which were political laboratories for Europe, but with the one possible exception of New South Wales, there had never been any attempt to enforce specific performance of an award. The Conseils des Prudhommes, in France and in Belgium, were perhaps the best examples of the application of limited compulsory powers; they were representative; they tried in France, some 60,000 cases a year; but even they had altogether abandoned the hope of the possibility of dealing with any future contracts with regard to wages or labour. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he was disposed to adhere to Clause 6, which incorporated the Act of 1889, and so might make a submission to arbitration irrevocable, and an award perpetually binding, instead of being terminable on notice. That Act applied to mercantile disputes, and had no application to industrial matters. He had himself found great difficulty in applying the Act to industrial disputes. Why should it be incorporated? He did not think it was necessary. Why should not the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London and himself be followed, which adopted these portions of the Act which were suitable and applicable, and left out all the rest? Three-fourths of the Act would be wholly inapplicable. The right hon. Gentleman could not have referred to the Act of 1872, which he did not propose to repeal. There was a code almost entirely ready to hand, and they had this condition of affairs before them—if the Act of 1889 were incorporated three-fourths of it would be inapplicable; part of it was incorporated in the Bill at this moment; and, lastly, most of its provisions were contained in the Industrial Arbitrations Act of 1872, which would continue in force. He appealed, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, after all, Clause 6 was necessary or desirable He had not so much to say against the newer device of securing, where there was an agreement in writing, the deposit of a sum of money as security for the performance of the award. For there was a precedent for that in the statute of 1875, the experience of the London Conciliation Board was in its favour, and it had been resorted to in the Boot and Shoe Dispute. Still no one could tell what might happen if the thousand pounds were forfeited. All experience proved that what must be relied on in these disputes was conciliation and mediation; and in this light, by encouraging conciliation, the Bill did a great service to the community. But the country would not always be able to have the mediation of such high authorities as Lord Rosebery, the Home Secretary, and Sir Courtenay Boyle; and such intervention placed a vast responsibility and strain on a Government department. Hitherto such mediation had, happily, been successful: but if it should be offered and should fail or give dissatisfaction, or if it were imagined—and there were great prejudices and suspicions to be overcome—that there had been the slightest taint of political bias, the great work of conciliation might be impeded rather than advanced. Incalculable value would attach to an independent and representative board, ready and accessible in the earliest stages of a dispute to bring the parties together, and capable of formulating the real differences between parties, and of removing the misunderstandings which were often at the root of the lock-out and the strike. The greatest value of such boards was to form and focus public opinion; for the greatest difficulty of the public was to know the rights and wrongs of these industrial questions. No body of men—either of employers or of the employed—could long set at naught a well-founded public opinion. The public had every right to intervene in these disputes, because no trade could harass itself alone. A strike or lock-out meant commercial dislocation, the disorganisation of allied trades, and inconvenience to the whole community. One other condition was very essential to these conciliation boards; and that was, that they should be capable of obtaining accurate knowledge of particular disputes. What was resented in industrial arbitration was anything in the shape of external amateur judgments, in view of the vast consequences of any award. Further, the formation of conciliation committees, as distinguished from conciliation boards, to deal with particular departments of trade, and to include experts who would know the real questions at issue, would be desirable. How far did the Bill adopt all these principles? Clause 1 provided for inquiry and report. It was said that the Board of Trade already possessed the power for inquiring and reporting: but there was one reason for the statutory expression of this duty—it gave a justification for intervention. He could sympathise with a President of the Board of Trade who even allowed a dispute to be prolonged rather than submit his department to a rebuff. Clause 2, he thought, was perhaps a little too strong at present. It put into great prominence the powers of the Board of Trade in appointing arbitrators and a chairman, and even a board, without any conditions. He preferred the terms of Clause 3, which gave the Board of Trade power to aid in the formation of a board. Clause 4 was important because, for the first time, it brought Local Authorities into contact with these proceedings, and he believed the Local Authorities would be willing to undertake the duties. There was this great advantage, which had been experienced in technical education, that the Town Councils and the County Councils were existing organisations, and that they had funds at their disposal; but the clause ought to contain some better statement of the principles on which they were to act—namely, representation equally of both employers and employed. It was a misfortune that municipalities were becoming more and more infected with Party politics; and it might be thought by some that Party politicians would probably constitute the most effective if not the most impartial board. But that would be a result to be deprecated. The clause giving power to Local Authorities to aid in the formation of Boards had a precedent in the reprepresentation of the London County County Council on the London Conciliation Board. He ventured to take some exception to the details of the Bill, but he cordially supported its general principles, because he believed its basis to be good. The provision as to the production of documents was wisely qualified by the limitation that no trade profit should be ascertained by the production of trade books, and that no Trade Union books should be produced. At the Trade Union Congress of 1893, however, a resolution was passed declaring that no Bill would be of any use unless it provided for the ascertainment, definitely and clearly, what profits were being made, and how far a case was made for an increase or diminution of wages. He did not see why the Board of Trade should give powers to a Conciliation Board for a specific occasion, and why it should afterwards be, as it were, shorn of its locks. When a Board had been recognised and registered its powers ought to be general, so that it might act without delay. It was a useful provision, that a report should be made annually to Parliament, because it cast upon Parliament a responsibility and a duty, and might secure a periodical discussion which would assist in developing public opinion. If the Bill did not go so far as some would wish, it escaped the danger of attempting to do too much at the risk of doing too little. It was a tentative measure, and it could be expanded by experience, as confidence was gained among those who had to be conciliated, while they must not anticipate too much from any legislation. If they left themselves to these mediatory and peaceful proposals; if we were spared a thousand industrial disputes a year; if a million and a half were thereby saved in wages; if we averted such dislocations as attended the Midland coal strike, the direct loss by which was estimated at some thirty millions, while it had diverted trade from towns like Hull and Huddersfield, and drawn some of it abroad; if peace could be substituted for war under the present conditions of competition, if Parliament could say to both parties to a dispute: "Strike, but hear," give them an opportunity of listening to reason, and facilitate the consideration of their respective views by an impartial tribunal—they would at least have done their duty in removing difficulties which were a serious disadvantage to commercial pursuits, and in promoting the prosperity of all classes of the community.

shared the regrets which had been expressed by his hon. Friend at the fragmentary manner in which the Debate on this important Bill was being conducted. The President of the Board of Trade had admitted that this was a measure of very great importance, and yet, in spite of that, the discussion was really being carried on by scraps and samples. He would not take the responsibility of voting against the Bill, though he confessed that he was not entirely satisfied with it. Many of its clauses were identical, or nearly so, with those in the Bill of last year; and he could understand that the Government should be anxious to escape the obvious criticism levelled at that Bill, but in reality giving power to the Board of Trade to do things which at present there was no legal obstacle in the way of their doing. He agreed with his hon. Friend in seeing some advantages in declaring those powers in the Bill. He thought it gave to the Board of Trade a locus standi which it did not otherwise possess; and he also thought that it was likely to make the parties to a dispute more willing to submit the cause of their grievance to the Board of Trade. So far he welcomed the Bill, but in the endeavour to make the Bill of this year more ambitious than the Bill of last year, he could not help thinking that the Government had in some respects gone too far. The new proposals were contained in Clauses 4, 5, and 6; and, in his judgment, the drafting of those clauses and their insertion in the Bill rather indicated that the right hon. Gentleman was not really thoroughly master of the difficult subject with which the Bill dealt. In arbitration and conciliation there were two important points to be borne in mind. First of all, there was the distinction between disputes which arose from the interpretation of existing arrangements, and disputes which arose in connection with future arrangements. The majority of really important disputes in this country invariably had reference to future arrangements, and the disputes in connection with existing arrangements were comparatively small. Another point was the distinction between disputes of individual employers and workmen and those which arose between associations of employers and workmen. In addition to that there was the question: "Who has the right to initiate intervention?" Was it to be on the application of one party or of both, or was it to take place without any action on the part of the disputants at all? It would appear that, whereas the conciliator or Board of Conciliation appointed by the Board of Trade could only act on the application of one of the parties, a similar conciliator or Board of Conciliation appointed by the county councils had first to intervene, and in certain cases to intervene with compulsory powers without any application from the parties. No directions were given by the Bill for the constitution of these Boards. If such Boards were to be set up, the Bill should indicate the general lines on which such powers should be given. Clause 4 was calculated to check the formation of voluntary boards. He was aware that the Board of Trade had power to encourage the formation of such boards. But, if county councils had power, he was afraid the tendency would be to substitute official boards for the voluntary boards. On examining the portion of that Bill in connection with Clause 4, he was afraid that the President of the Board of Trade had confounded in his mind two things which should be kept distinct. The Labour Commission recommended that county councils should be empowered to make application for the formation of boards, with a view to trying questions arising no the interpretation of existing agreements as between individuals. In other words, on the application of County Councils, the Board of Trade should have power to appoint a body which should exercise the same functions as were exercised by the Conseils des Prudhommes in France. But the Labour Commission did not recommend the formation of such boards in connection with county councils for dealing with future arrangements. If the bodies appointed by the county councils or voluntary boards were to have the power of dealing with disputes relating to future arrangements, in his judgment it would be unwise to give them even the limited compulsory powers suggested in the Bill. On what occasion did the President of the Board of Trade think the Board of Trade would, as it were, galvanise these Boards of Conciliation into ecclesiastical courts. Would it be on great occasions or small; in connection with such questions as came up for discussion and settlement before the Conseils des Prudhommes in France, or larger questions which caused great and important strikes. Clearly the intention must be that they should have these powers where the case was very important; and that was exactly the case where they ought not to have these powers. He saw no harm in a Board of Conciliation—if it liked to call itself by that name—when investigating the interpretation of an existing agreement, having powers to examine witnesses on oath, and even having powers to decide where the agreement had or had not been broken, and to enforce their decision with penalties. But he thought they were entering on a very dangerous course, if such powers were to be given to boards, on the occasion of their endeavouring to arrive at a settlement of those larger questions which caused strikes on almost a national scale. He was not surprised that Clause 6 had been attacked by Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member had pointed out that the clause as it stood really introduced almost the whole of the Arbitration Act.