said he thought their method of dealing with the clause had been considerably altered by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last evening that he was willing to consider how the public might be indemnified for what they might lose by the access which might be given to them to the works that were to be exempted from taxation. In the Act of 1894 the exemption was given only to articles of that description which were dedicated to the public, but here the exemption was given to articles which still remained in private hands and under private control. The exemption applied to articles which were settled under a settlement.

The exemption from the payment of duty would only be until they were sold or came into the possession of some person competent to dispose of them.

said that, was while they were still under settlement. He quite understood the sentiment which dictated and underlay the clause, but in a Measure of finance of this character it was always dangerous to invade the principles upon which the legislation proceeded. ["Hear, hear!"] He fully recognised that in his Amendments to the clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carefully desired not to attack the principles upon which the Bill was founded. Allusion had been made to the Succession and Legacy Duty. The Estate Duty was not founded upon the same principle as the Legacy or Succession Duty. The Legacy Duty embraced the principle of consanguinity, which, of course, the Estate Duty did not recognise. In the same manner the Succession Duty was governed by the principle of looking at the interest of the person who took. These were distinctions in principle which were discussed at great length in 1894, when they were considering what should be the basis of the new Estate Duty. The Estate Duty looked solely to the property that passed; that really was its foundation. It would be very dangerous to depart from that principle, and if they once did so they did not know what breach they might be making into the public revenue. ["Hear, hear!"] A test had been alluded to which, however, was a test that ought not to be applied to the Probate Duty, and that was the question whether the property yielded an income. It had been sought to apply that test to family plate or jewels, which were frequently made heirlooms. It was said they yielded no income. But they would pass under will, and they had always paid Probate Duty, consequently the Estate Duty, following the same rule, left the articles subject to the payment of such duty. ["Hear, hear!"] Another argument had been used that particular pictures or particular collections might be desirable to be retained in particular families without subjecting them to the charges under the Estate Duty. He quite appreciated that, and if the right hon. Gentleman had found it possible, or found it possible in the future, to make a net to let the small fishes through and which would retain the largo fishes, he, for his part, should not object very much to such a proposal. Upon the other clauses of the Bill, as he had already said, when dealing with indirect taxation he could not himself support any proposition which would go towards the reduction of taxation in the present state of public finance and revenue of the country. But they were now met with the question of direct taxation, and it could not be disputed or denied that these things were the luxuries of the more wealthy, and they must be very careful in cases of direct taxation not to show undue preference to articles which, after all, were articles of luxury. The right hon. Gentleman, or some of those who had argued upon this matter, had said that these were heirlooms, and that it was very hard upon a poor family to be obliged, on coming into possession of those things with which they could not part, to have to pay a large sum as duty upon them. ["Hear, hear!"] But that was not the fact. If a family was in a condition which made it desirable or necessary for the good of the family that the heirlooms should be parted with, the Court of Chancery would be able to order the sale of the heirlooms.

They would have to pay the duty under this clause.

Undoubtedly. But what he wanted to point out was that the duty would then be placed on the family who, ex hypothesi, were in an impoverished condition, and by the mere fact that the things could be sold the duty would be paid by that impoverished family. They all knew that even an historical mansion itself, under circumstances in which the condition of the family required it, could be parted with, and, therefore, the duty would have to be paid upon it. He could not see that this clause really met the case of the persons whom they desired to relieve by it. Then they must look to the other side of the question. They all knew that persons of great fortune devoted a considerable portion of their means to the collection of works of this description. But he did not think there was any use keeping things in the hands of men who, if they could, would at once get rid of them. So long as they had persons who had collections which they were willing to keep, well and good; but if they endeavoured by this Bill to compel collections to be kept in the hands of those who did not value them, but rather desired to get rid of them, they would be extending consideration to people who did not deserve to be favoured at the public expense. If they were making a present of a few thousand pounds a year to wealthy people they would create a feeling in the minds of the public that they were doing an injustice which ought to be avoided. The policy of the Act of 1894 was, as nearly as could be, to make all property pay alike, and if they were now to select a particular class of property, and that, too, belonging mainly to rich people, and make these special exemptions applicable to it, they would create a sense of inequality which he thought would be very unfortunate. ["Hear, hear!"] He recognised the sentiment that had dictated the clause, but he saw danger in departing from principles already established. He believed the clause would involve considerable loss to the revenue in a great many cases where the revenue ought not to lose. He was disposed to take issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon Clause 16, but before criticising it further he would rather wait to see the result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's inquiries into the subject to which it referred. He thought the loss to the public of large sums they would otherwise receive from property of this description was greater than any advantages which might be derived from protecting small persons with small property.

said it was perfectly evident that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had a sentiment in favour of the clause, but it was struggling with his financial conscience; and he thought that, if he could convince the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that his expectations of enormous loss to the revenue that might occur from the operation of the clause were hardly well founded, much of his objection would disappear. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that if he could confine the operations of the clause to persons with small means happening to be possessed of valuable treasures of this description and unable to pay the Death Duties on their value, there would be no objection to it. But he had in his mind millionaires, who, having invested large sums in the purchase of great collections, might escape, through the operation of the clause, from the payment of Death Duties on a large portion of their fortunes.

said it was not only on the value of these things themselves, but what they would pay on the rest of their fortune. A man worth three millions might have nearly a million invested in property of this kind.

said that if it was a question of millions the rate of duty would not be less because this property was not aggregated with the rest of the fortune. Eight per cent. was the highest duty that could be paid, however many millions a man might be possessed of. He had carefully investigated the matter in concert with officials of the Inland Revenue, and he was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the calculation of those officials as to the probable effect on the revenue of any clause of the kind must be received with respect and confidence. In introducing the Budget he stated that the total effect on the revenue of the alteration which he proposed in the Death Duties would amount to no more than £200,000 a year. There were several clauses relating to the Death Duties, each of which would entail a loss on the revenue. This was only one of them, but it entailed a larger loss than any of the other clauses, but the total amount was only £200,000. He had gone into the matter, and he believed that under this clause the probable loss to the revenue at the outside would not be more than £100,000 a year. The clause was strictly limited to objects possessing historic, scientific, or national interest. He believed there were few collections of the value the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. Two or three would occur to all of them. But anyone who followed the course of sales of collections of the kind would see that collections worth half a million or anything like that amount were rare. All valuable personalty of this character had been liable to Probate Duty for many years past. The average annual value of property of the kind liable to Probate Duty, including artistic objects, plate, furniture, jewels, and many other articles which would not come under the operation of the clause, was not more than about £7,000,000. Only a comparatively small part of this would obtain relief under the clause. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, ordinary jewels, plate, furniture, and many works of art would not come under the operation of the clause or obtain relief by it. It was estimated by the Inland Revenue that, at the outside, out of an annual average of £7,000,000, not more than £1,500,000 would be at all likely to obtain benefit under the clause, and putting that at 6 per cent.—a high average—it came to no more than £90,000 a year. He hoped that would diminish the fears the right hon. Gentleman opposite had as to the financial operation of the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]

objected to the clause mainly on principle. It appeared to be a clause full of difficulty, and to be unfair and harmful. There would be great difficulty in carrying out the clause. It would be extremely difficult for the Inland Revenue to determine what were objects of national interest. It would be most unfair to exempt from taxation those who, of all people, ought to pay. Our system of taxation had hitherto been to place the heaviest burden on those best able to bear it. That was a fair system, and he should like to see a further advance in that direction. They on the Opposition side were determined that there should be no going back upon that principle of taxation—the principle that those who could afford to pay should pay—without a strong protest from them. The clause proposed that the wealthy classes should not pay duty for their works of art; but if they could afford to keep those works of art, surely they could afford to pay for them. It was said that those articles did not bring in income; but hitherto articles had not been exempted from taxation because they did not bring in income. On the contrary, they were taxed for that very reason. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had made the proposal that pleasure horses should be taxed, and pleasure horses did not bring in income. Again, carts were exempt from taxation because they were sources of income; while carriages paid taxation because they were not sources of income. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the object of making this proposal was partly in the interest of the public and partly in the interest of the private owner. But what was the public to gain by the exemption of works of art from taxation? The public would be losers rather than gainers. It was said that one of the objects of the clause was to keep works of art in the country. Why, then, not pass a law, as the Italians had done, providing that no works of art should leave the country. That would be the most logical course to take. But he did not think that works of art would leave, the country even if they were brought into the market. He was glad to see that the national museums were spending more money year after year in buying works of art; and, therefore, even if private collections were dispersed, many of the objects would find their way to the museums, where they would be of great advantage to the community. Again—looking at the matter from the point of view of the public—it was hard on the public to exempt rich people from taxation which they ought to bear, because taxation of which one class was relieved was always placed on some other class. Therefore the clause made those who had not works of art pay the taxes which those who had works of art ought to bear. But the clause was not only unfair; it was also anomalous. The clause proposed to exempt works of art inside the house, but not works of art outside the house. Why should a man who spent money on embellishing and beautifying his house outside have to pay duty, while the man who spent the money beautifying and embellishing his house inside got off free of duty? Besides, it was far easier for the public to see works of art outside a house than works of art inside a house. Then—looking at the matter from the point of view of a private owner—he did not think that individuals wanted any encouragement whatever to hoard up works of art. He thought that families were too prone to keep such collections together. He knew cases of families having suffered so that works of art might be retained. It was said that the people who possessed those treasures had a pride in them. But there was family pride and family pride. There was a family pride that was noble, but family picture pride and family jewellery pride was not noble—it was ignoble. Many of these collections of ancient pictures were in new families. Something might be said for the exemption of ancient portraits belonging to an old family; but, as he understood the clause, it proposed to exempt even the ancestors of a new family. A man might go to Wardour Street any day and buy hundreds of ancient ancestors, and the clause proposed to exempt such pictures from duty. (Addressing Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, who shook his head in contradiction to Mr. Luttrell): Will the hon. Gentleman keep his head quiet in order that something may go into it? [Laughter and cries of "Order!"]

I do not think I am out of order in expressing my disapproval of this absolute travesty of what has been said, and what is thought upon this subject. [Cheers.]

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to say what I think upon the subject. I say that if a man goes into an old picture shop and buys some ancient ancestors, of which the market is full——

I rise to order——

Here is another ancestor. [Laughter and cries of " Order!"

The pictures we are considering are national and historical pictures, and not ancient ancestors.

The decision as to the character of the pictures depends upon the Treasury.

Of course the hon. Gentleman is entitled to put any construction he pleases on the clause, but I must say that his remarks for the last few minutes are hardly relevant to the clause. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he would show that his remarks were relevant. If a man bought pictures of ancestors, the Treasury might decide that they were of national interest, and they would therefore be exempt from duty. But he and his friends did not look at the matter from the point of view either of sentiment or finance alone. They objected to the clause on principle; they said it was unfair to the general body of taxpayers; and they were determined to divide against the clause. [Cheers.]

asked whether the hon. Gentleman was serious in thinking that the Treasury would decide that pictures of ancestors out of Wardour Street were of national or historic interest? He undertook to say that not a single ancestor of any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House would be declared to be of national or historic interest—[laughter]—or, for the matter of that, not many ancestors of any hon. Members on the Government Benches. [Laughter.] The truth was that the hon. Gentleman had entirely misapprehended the meaning of the clause. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire had said that the clause was an invasion of the principle of his Finance Act, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was that all should pay alike. On the contrary, he asserted that the Finance Act established the principle that all should pay differently. If a butler were left £1,000 by a millionaire, that £1,000 would pay £80 Estate Duty; but if a millionaire were left £1,000 by a butler, the millionaire would have to pay only £20 Estate Duty on the little all of the deceased butler. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had said, also, that he would accept the clause if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would devise means which would enable the little fishes to escape through the meshes of the net while he caught the big fishes. That was an entirely false principle of taxation. The principle of small profits and quick returns, of small taxes over large areas, was the principle which every sound-minded Chancellor of the Exchequer would apply. The right hon. Gentleman also urged that the relief was not really given. It was given when it was wanted, and it was taken away when it was no longer wanted. When the property was sold or came into the possession of a person who was able to sell it, the duty rightly became payable. He admitted that the section was not a fine specimen of scientific drafting; but for that he was not responsible. [Laughter.] He should be sorry to have it said of him that he had drafted some of the Bills which had been before the House lately. [Laughter.] The true definition was that made in the Legacy Duty Act—the nature of the property and the manner of its enjoyment. But it must be remembered that this clause represented a compromise. This property was previously liable to the Probate Duty, but was relieved from that duty on becoming liable to Estate Duty. He saw the word "analogue" rising to the lips of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer—[laughter]—but he begged him to spare the word. Since 1894 he had spent weary nights in endeavouring to get into the right hon. Gentleman's mind the principles of his own Act. [Laughter.] The Death Duties, whether Probate Duty, Account Duty, Legacy Duty, Succession Duty or Estate Duty, all had this in common, that they depended on two things—death, and property passing by the death. The difference between one Death Duty and another began only when the method of arriving at the rate and amount of duty were settled, where there was no difference, where they all agreed, was in making the duty dependent on there being property that passed by death. Now the contention in respect of the present clause was that no property passed by death, but only a curatorship—an unpaid curatorship involving large liabilities and responsibilities. In many cases the people who possessed these pictures were extremely poor, and he was sure that the exemption would only affect an extremely small amount of duty.

said that the hon. Member was so learned on this subject that he had difficulty in following him. [Laughter.] A great deal was said about "analogues," and as he was not sure, he asked one of the late Law Officers of the Crown what the word meant. [Laughter.] That gentleman explained that it was not a word in the English language, but a species of vague "Mrs. Harris" introduced into legal proceedings. [Laughter.] He objected to these exemptions as being contrary to the sound radical principles of finance. He was quite sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not find it possible to meet the suggestions which had been made from the Opposition Benches, and which practically amounted to securing a right of entry for the public to the places where these pictures were kept. To do that would absolutely destroy the privacy of the owner of the house. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be impossible to oblige persons who possessed one or two valuable historical pictures to admit the public at all times. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester represented an historic house, where the fullest facilities for inspection were given to the public; but the noble Lord must know that forcing the owner to give entry to the public was a different thing from leaving it to his discretion. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, many of those who owned these treasures lived in remote districts, and very few could avail themselves of the right of entry if it were secured. So that the public could not get any adequate quid pro quo for this exemption. The proposed modifications to the clause would be unworkable, and the clause as it stood was unworkable. It was to be left to the Treasury to decide what were objects of national, scientific, and historic interest. How was the Treasury to decide? Was a Treasury clerk to go down and inspect? [Laughter.]

The hon. Member does not seem to remember that under the 15th section of the Act of 1894 precisely the same duty is thrown upon the Treasury, and there has been no difficulty in administering the Act of 1894.

said that in that case the Treasury must have been very considerably done. [Laughter.] It accounted for the small sums received by the Exchequer. [Laughter.] He never knew two "friends of art" who agreed as to what was a valuable picture; and how could the Treasury decide where artists could not? [Laughter.] The exemption was a very clear advantage to the owners of those collections, but where was the advantage to the public? Why did a man collect pictures. As a general rule he collected them from vanity. A rich man first of all bought a pedigree, and then a coat-of-arms—[laughter]—and then he deemed it to be rather a correct thing, like the livery of his footman, to have a collection of pictures and works of art around him. [Laughter.] But he did not see why they should encourage vanity of this description. A man who gave to charity was not exempted, but a man who collected a quantity of pictures in his country house was to be exempted from taxation under this clause. He called attention to these words in the clause—"and other things not yielding income." This was somewhat vague drafting, and he should like to know what the phrase meant. Reference had been made to Chatsworth. On one occasion he happened to be in the vicinity of Chats-worth, and by the liberality of the owner he, among other humble people—[laughter]—was allowed to wander about the place. There were some drawings at Chatsworth which were valuable, but it seemed to him that the historical works of art in the house were in the main utter rubbish. [Laughter.] He would mention two things as an example. There was a picture of the Emperor Nicholas which had been given to a former Duke of Devonshire. Would the Treasury regard that as a work of art? [Laiighter.] Then there was a malachite vase given by the same Emperor; would that be considered an historical object? [Laughter.] What struck him as being beautiful and interesting at Chatsworth were the park and the gardens. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the pictures produced no interest, but the gardens were practically kept up entirely for the public, costing the Duke, of Devonshire a large amount of money. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer include the gardens? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] Why not? [Laughter.] After all, it was just as useful to adorn nature as to imitate nature. [Laughter.] He apprehended that in the reading of this clause a Judge might decide that "other things" would include the gardens. It was urged that owners derived no moneyed interest from the pictures; but that could be said of a great many other things. Owners at least derived some interest, because they obtained the unearned increment in them, and the enhanced value that attached to them during the lapse of years. Supposing a life owner of pictures were to take them out of the country. He would derive a benefit from this exemption, and the public would derive no advantage of any kind. If the owner wanted to sell them he had only to apply to the Court of Chancery to show that his means rendered it necessary to sell. Why interfere with that provision and encourage owners not to go to the Court of Chancery? The public had, and could have no equivalent for the exemption which was being given in these cases. If the Government were to schedule the great works of art, in the country as was done in Italy, and to forbid them from being taken out of the country, then he could understand the owners receiving some kind of quid pro quo. In Italy a man was not allowed to sell works of art out of the country. If he did so he was called upon to pay the amount he had received to the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the amount which would be lost to the Treasury was £90,000 per annum. He suspected that the amount would be considerably more, because as soon as a person knew that he could escape from paying the debt he would seek to escape. But it was the rich who were to receive the benefit of this £90,000. Take the Rothschilds for example. In many things they were very generous, but they were great collectors of objects of art. They were always raising the price of objects of art by one member of the family competing against the other. [Laughter.] At the lowest estimate it might be taken that the Rothschilds had £1,000,000 invested in objects of art; and this £1,000,000 at 8 per cent. represented £80,000. Were the Government going to give to the Rothschild family this exemption, representing to each successive generation of this wealthy and highly-respectable family a sum of £80,000 per generation? [Laughter.] Did the Government not think that the Opposition would go to the country and point out what had been done? [Laughter.] An Agricultural Relief Bill was not enough, but apparently all the rich men were to be benefited in. this way as well. It was not fair and reasonable finance. ["Hear, hear!"]

agreed with his hon. Friend in what he had said. The orthodox exponent of this clause, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, had made it more difficult for the Opposition to deal with this clause than before. He had pointed out its invidious character as shown by the distinction contained in the clause, and the hon. Gentleman had put the dots on the is in the matter, for he had said they could not benefit by it because none of their ancestors were of historic or national importance. [Laughter.] The distinction was apparently drawn by the dividing line between Parties in the House, and therefore the Members of the Opposition were to get no benefit, while the £90,000 were to go to Members opposite. [Laughter.] He presumed that they might claim the hon. Member for Lynn Regis as a person of national and historic importance, and that in time his picture would be hung up in the Treasury as the unsuccessful opponent of the Act of 1894. [Laughter.] The great danger of this clause was the invidious and unfair character of the distinction.

had a great deal of sympathy with the sentimental aspect of this case, but he did not see how hon. Members could forget that, when Liberals sat opposite, this question was raised on the Finance Act of 1894. The present Attorney General brought an Amendment forward on that Act embodying a similar principle to that now embodied in this clause—namely, the whittling down of taxation. But the House then had so little sympathy with the Amendment that the Attorney General was beaten by a majority of 48. Many hon. Members regarded the question from the point of view as to whether the clause indicated bad finance or not. For his own part he thought it was very bad finance indeed, and looking at the matter from a sentimental point of view, he contended that on that ground it was unjust, because it did not go far enough. There was no sentiment entertained for the poor man who had no family settlements. The benefit under the clause was to be given only to those rich families which could afford to have family settlements, but the poor man, who had no such settlements, was disregarded, and would have to pay the duty. For, as he read the clause, it would apply only to those families which had settlements. He thought, therefore, that there was great force in the contention of the hon. Member for Northampton, that the effect of the clause would only be to relieve the rich, and the richest classes in the country, people who were well able to pay the duty. ["Hear, hear!"] He supported the Finance Bill of 1894 because it went on the principle of making people pay who had the ability to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that this particular exemption would not cost more than £100,000, and he could not help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman were rich enough to give up this amount, he might have devoted it to a remission of taxation in a much better and juster form than for the benefit of the wealthy men who did not want the relief. For instance, he might have devoted it to the relief of the distressed tenant-farmers of the country by a reduction of taxation under Schedule B. ["Hear, hear!"] Here was a case of real necessity for relief, but such could not be said of those who were rich enough to keep valuable works of art. The Government, therefore, had an opportunity of really benefiting the tenant-farmers of the country by granting remission of taxation to them under Schedule B to the amount stated, and it could thus be done without extra charge upon the Exchequer. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division, and that it would be supported by Members on both sides of the House, who did not regard the question as one of Party. ["Hear, hear!"]

, who ventured to take part in the Debate, because he had in 1894 endeavoured during the Finance Bill discussion, to secure the immunity of historic manuscripts, which were in settlement from the succession duties, said he believed that large numbers of gentlemen who held valuable manuscripts and collections of works of art would thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the proposed relief, not altogether from financial considerations, but as a matter of justice. Some remarks had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, about certain proprietors of works of art having refused access to their collections, but his experiences of the possessors of such collections and of valuable manuscripts was that they were always ready to give students or inquirers access to them. Evidence of that was furnished by the readiness which had been shown to have valuable manuscripts inspected and catalogued by the Historical Manuscript Commission, and he believed the effect of the clause would be to increase, if possible, the desire of those who held valuable historical documents and pictures to throw them open to inspection, and would thereby lead to a greater diffusion of literary and art knowledge throughout the country. ["Hear hear!"]

said that if hon. Gentle men on the Opposition side of the House believed that the clause would have the effect that the hon. Member for Clapham said it would have, he was sure they would vote for it. But he and they strongly doubted that the clause would have that effect; they doubted that it was a wise provision, and he thought the Committee ought to divide upon it. He certainly believed that the Treasury was likely to be imposed upon to a formidable extent, as had been stated, in regard to the valuation of pictures, because of the well-known fashion which often caused such pictures—perhaps acquired under peculiar circumstances—to rise in value in the market to an extraordinary extent. He could state privately the case of a picture which originally cost £4—just the value of the frame—but which, if put up for sale in the market at the present time, would fetch £20,000. That was not the only case of the kind he could mention. He knew of two other pictures which, though of merely nominal value a few years ago, would now fetch thousands of pounds. Some hon. Members seemed to doubt the statement of the hon. Member for Northampton when he referred to the great value which accrued to pictures and works of art in the progress of time. But the statement was a fact which could be brought to the test of experience. As an illustration they might take the Strawberry Hill collection. They knew the dates and prices of the purchases of the pictures and miniatures when purchased by Horace Walpole, and all those objects were of the historical character contemplated by the clause in question. Well, it was known, in reference to the miniatures especially, that the value of the collection had risen a hundredfold in a period of 150 years. The whole was sold 100 years after Walpole bought it, and a great deal was sold again exactly 50 years later. It was a fact that the value of these collections increased at a remarkable rate in the course of time. These were examples of the enormous rise in works of art of real value such as were contemplated by the clause. In the case of great and notorious collections the Treasury might escape imposition by sending an expert to value, but in that of the small collections, especially of books, he was confident the Treasury would be deceived to a great extent in regard to valuation. As to the enormous value of the collections, and as to the fact that the nation did not receive what it ought to in respect of them, there could be no doubt in the mind of any one—except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the whole the clause was one they ought to oppose.

said the right hon. Baronet appeared to think that these collections did not pay what they ought, and that by this clause the collectors were to be given an enormous boon. He agreed that in many cases the valuation for Probate Duty of collections had been much below the mark, but surely that was no argument against the clause. If valuations could be conducted better in the future than in the past, no one would be more glad than himself. He trusted that now the Committee would come to a decision.

asked for an explanation of the clauses.

said the clause made only the fair allowance in the cases with which it dealt.

said that the hon. Member had raised a very large question without any notice whatever. He seemed to think that to alter the present system of levying the Income Tax would be a very simple, light and easy matter. He could assure him that no one who had studied the Income Tax would be of that opinion. What the hon. Member proposed was that they should adopt the principle of graduation in connection with the Income Tax. There was a great deal to be said in regard to a graduated Income Tax, but his belief was that if an attempt were made to work it out it would be found to be an impossibility. He entirely declined to argue this question now, as it had not been fairly raised, either as regarded himself or as regarded a matter of such great importance.

said he hoped his hon. Friend would press this question to a division. Many of them believed in the system of graduation because they believed it was the only way by which they could make the broadest shoulders bear the heaviest burden. This was an old question, and he was quite sure that, although the question might have been approached hastily, there were few men more able to express their opinions upon it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be almost an impossibility to carry it out, but he would remind him that other countries had carried out and had made proposals in this respect. France made such a proposal only the other day, and the reason why it was not passed was not because of the impossibility of carrying it out. If the French Government were able to make proposals which were feasible, why were we not able? He could not believe that it was inability to draw up a feasible scheme. He believed that the opposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was because he was opposed to it in principle. They (on the Opposition side) were in favour of the principle, and he, being strongly in favour of the principle, would consequently vote for this Amendment.

said he would not deal with the financial arguments. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it was a very important matter. He rather agreed that it would not be quite reasonable to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to this Amendment. He wished, however, that the right hon. Gentleman could place himself in the position of persons with an income under £500 a year, with positions to keep up which involved an enormous strain upon their resources. He could not but think that, if this system was adopted, it would improve the revenue of the country, as there would be less evasion and less friction. He wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go a step further than the admission of the importance of this question, and promise that between that time and his next Budget he would thoroughly consider this matter, and, if possible, meet them in some degree in that Budget. It was so difficult for a rich man like the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented]—at all events, the right hon. Gentleman was not in the position of the man with between £300 and £500 a year.

said the hon. Member seemed to forget the abatements.

said that clerks and others had great difficulty in obtaining these abatements and exceptions, as their time was so occupied.

hoped this Amendment would not be pressed to a division. It would be very ill-advised to do so, in view of the fact that the Committee had not had sufficient notice of the matter the Amendment not having been placed on the Notice Paper. He was not quite sure that his views on the subject were in conformity with Conservative orthodoxy, and it might be that there was much to be said in favour of the graduation of the Income Tax. If the matter was pressed to a division, however, he should have to record his vote against the Amendment, simply on the ground that the matter could not then be suitably discussed. He had not known that this question was likely to be raised.

said the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was not aware of the fact that this question was discussed on the introduction of that Bill, and that Chancellors of the Exchequer for the last dozen years had had this question forced upon them at that stage. He himself had moved practically the same Amendment when the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire was Chancellor of Exchequer, and it was seconded by the hon. Member for East Islington. It had also been raised when the present First Lord of the Admiralty was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had not said that he was opposed to the proposal on principle any more than had previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, but had opposed it on the ground of difficulty. The principle of graduation was due to a large extent to the Conservative Party, as Sir Stafford Northcote had made the greatest progress in regard to graduation, and his limit of £400 had afterwards been increased to £500 by the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire. In the Budget of 1894 they had a still further development of the principle. He pointed out that there were two classes who paid taxes—those who paid on money which they earned, and those who paid on incomes derived from banks or joint stock companies, etc. With regard to the latter class, he did not think there would be so much difficulty as was sometimes stated. It was always difficult to know when to bring forward an Amendment of this character. When it was moved in Committee they were told that it ought to be moved on the Report, and when it was brought forward on the Report they were told that they were too late and that their Amendment should have been moved in Committee. In these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be surprised at the Amendment being pressed at the present stage of the Bill. It must be remembered that the middle classes paid more towards the Income Tax than any other section of the community, and that the greater part of their income was derived from their professions or trades. It was not fair to place burdens upon such people which they were unable to bear. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he could not accept the Amendment, especially as the lower middle class, to whom it would give some relief, were a very powerful class, and paid such a large sum into the Exchequer by way of Income Tax.

thought that upon the question of order it would be competent to hon. Members to bring forward the subject of a graduated Income Tax upon the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he had no objection to a graduated Income Tax in point of principle, but alleged that it was impracticable to carry the idea into effect, because it would be impossible to ascertain with sufficient exacitude the amount of each man's income upon which the tax was to be levied. He should like to know upon what ground it was impracticable to carry out the idea. He admitted there was a difficulty in ascertaining the amount of income which a man derived from undisclosed mortgages, and he believed that the Exchequer was deprived of thousands of pounds every year because men were not sufficiently honest to declare the amount of income which they derived from those sources. There were many people who were enjoying an income of from £1,500 to £2,000 a year, who only made a return to the Income Tax of £300 a year, and it was only after their death that it was ascertained that they had been paying on a less income by £1,200 or £1,500 per annum than they ought to have done. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should object to what he called an inquisitorial inquiry into the sources of income of the millionaire which he permitted in the case of the schoolmaster or of other professional men. The Exchequer had no check upon those who possessed large incomes. Another point to which he desired to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention was that which related to the income derived from joint stock companies. At present Income Tax was paid by the companies themselves upon the dividend which a man received, and therefore he did not include the amount of income so derived in his Income Tax return, with a result that he claimed a reduction of the tax to which he was not entitled. It would be better, in his view, that the companies, instead of paying the Income Tax on the dividend, should make a return to the Income Tax Commissioners of the amounts they paid to each of their shareholders, and thus compel a man to disclose the whole of the income.

admitted that there were great difficulties in arriving at a satisfactory scheme for graduating Income Tax, but he was of opinion that those difficulties were not altogether insuperable. Where the tax was paid by large companies, and also where it was paid by the occupiers of houses, there was extreme difficulty, and he was afraid if they got away from that method of collecting the tax they would lose a great amount of the tax. But it seemed to him that, in the cases of incomes earned in business, or by a profession, or in the cases of salaries, graduation might rightly be adopted. As far as he was concerned, he should be fairly well satisfied if that were done. But persons in the position of deriving income from investments and landed property were not in a position to claim so much consideration. There was a distinct difference between the two cases of income. ["Hear, hear!"] If a man earned an income by his own profession, efforts, or in business, it was, so to speak, a temporary income, that was, an income which was liable to cease in or with his own lifetime. If the income was derived from investment that was something like a permanent income, and there was not the same necessity to give relief in that case. ["Hear, hear!"] There would be no difficulty whatever in graduating the tax on earned incomes, business incomes, and on salaries. In the case of incomes derived from investment the difficulty which had been alluded to had to be faced now to a certain extent, because when the taxpayer claims abatement he has to prove that his total income is under £400 or £500. Though he admitted that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was not the most practicable scheme, he thought the tax might be levied on all incomes derived from investment by a fixed poundage, and abatement be allowed in each case where the payer could prove that his total income was under a fixed amount. He repeated that he thought graduation could be fairly adopted in cases of salaries and professional incomes, but in regard to incomes derived otherwise from investments, he thought that question was not one which had been fairly faced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the officials of the Inland Revenue. He was sure that it would give satisfaction to many Members of the House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he introduced his next Budget, would consider that phase of the question, with a view to adopting it if possible.

said that of course he would consider what hon. Members had said on this question. At present he did not see any solution of the difficulty, but, of course, it was his duty to consider the question, and he would do so.

I rise, Sir, to a point of order. The hon. Member proposes to move a reduction of the Income Tax from 8d. to 7½d., yet, on a matter which he is quite entitled to raise, he is raising another issue altogether, namely, that the farmers, on Schedule B, are not taxed as much as they ought to be. He was ruled out of order in the Amendments he placed on the Paper upon that subject, and I venture to submit that he is really out of order in raising it now.

The hon. Member is entitled to move to reduce the Income Tax from 8d. to 7½d., or to strike the whole of Clause 19 out, but I do not think he is entitled to go into the question of Schedule B. That is specially dealt with in the next clause, and if he deals with it in the present clause it is obvious that the same matter may be dealt with twice over, which would be quite contrary to the rule governing the proceedings in Committee.

I respectfully submit I cannot raise it on the next clause, as you have ruled my Amendments out of order. I was giving a reason now why the reduction should be made.

If the Amendments are out of order on Clause 20, which deals with Schedule B., it is obvious they would be equally out of order on Clause 19 which does not. The hon. Member is entitled to move to reduce the 8d. to any other sum, but he cannot raise the question of how this particular deficit is to be met, which would be caused, supposing his Amendment were to be carried.

I am afraid if I am out of order in discussing the reasons why I wish it to be one halfpenny less, I cannot continue my remarks on this head, therefore I content myself by simply moving the Amendment.

I am afraid I have only to say, in answer to the Amendment, that I cannot spare the money.

said the effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the Revenue from the Income Tax by £10,000,000 a year; and the reason of this extraordinary proposal was that farmers at present did not pay Income Tax enough. [Laughter.] For many years it had been considered by Parliament, in times when farming was far more prosperous, that the assessment for Income, Tax on farmers might fairly be taken on one-half the rent in England and one-third in Scotland and Ireland—one-eighth being deducted from that half on account of the payment of tithe—until in 1894, when, on the Motion of the Liberal Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter—the position of the farmer in England being then notoriously a bad one—the assessment for Income Tax was practically reduced to one-third, as in Scotland and Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He admitted that Schedule B returned very little to the Revenue. But the reason was that farmers, with few exceptions, made very small profits. A more extraordinary proposal than a proposal to increase the assessment for Income Tax on farmers, considering the time at which it was made, he had never heard in the House. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to make it, but any one who knew anything about agriculture, knew that there was no real ground for believing that farmers were not taxed according to their capacity. [Cheers.]

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say—if, as he had asserted, he thorougly understood agriculture—that a farmer who paid £900 per annum in rent had only a profit of £300?

replied that he knew from his own knowledge that farmers who paid £900 a year rent lived in a very different way now from what they did 20 or 30 years ago. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained of the extraordinary time at which the Amendment was moved. But the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the House had just made an enormous addition to the resources of the farmer. [Opposition cheers.]

But you say the benefit of the Rating Bill will go to the landlord. [Cheers.]

said he was accepting the word of Ministers that the benefit of the Bill would go to the tenants. Why, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say that this was an extraordinary time to move such an Amendment he could not make out. But he had admitted that the proposal to reduce the proceeds from the Income Tax by an enormous amount was one the House could not accept. The Amendment was moved by his hon. Friend as a protest against the discrimination which was made in the matter of the Income Tax in favour of a particular class.

said that if the hon. Gentleman wished for an explanation of the discrimination of which he complained, let him go to an authority which he would not dispute—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer that reduced the farmer's assessment for Income Tax from one-half the rent to one-third of the rent, a proposal which the hon. Gentleman himself supported. [Cheers.] But he rose principally to accept the admission from the Front Opposition Bench that the benefits of the Rating Bill were to go to the tenants—[loud Opposition cries of "No"]—and that being so, when Parliament was giving a considerable boon to the tenants with one hand it ought not to take it away with the other. [Cheers.]

said that he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were now dealing with totally different circumstances from the circumstances of last year so far as the farmer was concerned. The reduction by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of the farmers' assessment from one-half to one-third, last year, was intended as a relief to agriculture. The present Government had, according to their own statement, given the farmer substantial relief by the Agricultural Bating Bill, and that justified to some extent a reconsideration of the position of the farmers so far as taxation was concerned. Therefore his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee was not inconsistent, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer insinuated, in supporting relief to the fanner last year and suggesting its revision this year. Again, he did not understand his hon. Friend to have made the admission that the benefits of the Rating Bill would go to the farmer. His hon. Friend merely accepted the statement of Ministers on the point for the purposes of his argument. Certainly, the Opposition had never accepted the doctrine that the Rating Bill was for the benefit of the tenants.

thought his hon. Friend should withdraw the Amendment. It would reduce the amount of Income Tax payable by the landlord on his assured rent to the level of the amount of Income Tax payable by the farmer on his uncertain profit. The Amendment would, therefore, make a still greater present to the landlord than the Rating Bill. He thought the tax under Schedule B was an unjust tax, and he should like to see it abolished altogether. However small the scale on which the farmer might be taxed, he was constantly charged under Schedule B on profits that could never have existed.

said his object in moving the Amendment was to raise discussion, and as he had no wish to put the Committee to a Division upon it, he desired to withdraw the Amendment.

thought that the hon. Member could not appreciate the position of the farmer under the existing law. The farmer never paid Income Tax on more than one-third of his rent, however large the profits made; and, if he made no profits at all, he could apply to be assessed under Schedule D, or might appeal for a remission of the tax, and so escape Income Tax altogether. Farmers' profits were by no means large, but there must be cases where they were more than one-fourth of the rent; and therefore he did not think it would be fair to accept the Amendment.

thought the case against the Amendment was overwhelming, because the present law afforded ample protection to farmers who were making no profits. But where the law was unjust was in making no provision for taxing to the full those farmers in exceptional circumstances who were making large profits.

supported the Amendment. The relief would just make the difference to the tenant-farmer who was earning a small profit.

said that there were few persons with whom he sympathised more than Highlanders. Irishmen, and farmers—[laughter]—but he always regarded with suspicion the attempts of their representatives to obtain for them exemptions from taxation. They were never satisfied. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said that the farmer made no profit. Then how did he live. ["Hear, hear"and laughter.]

He lives on his landlord. [Laughter.]

said that the farmer was able to pay rent, and as long as he was able to do that, he ought to receive no relief from the State. [Cheers.] The hon. Member ought to explain to the farmers of Cheshire that they must make common cause against the landlords; and he should be happy to join in that campaign. [Laughter.]

The farmers of Cheshire always pay the rent.

That is why they are such fools. [Laughter.] Let them go to the landlords together and insist on a reduction of rent. If this relief were given to the farmer, more would be asked for next year. He represented shoemakers and not farmers, and he did not see how they would come in under this Amendment. Therefore he was entirely opposed to it. [Laughter.]

hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a Division. The relief was small, but it would he welcome to the farmers, and the Amendment carried with it an important principle. He did not know whether the words were new, but a sub-clause of this clause provided that the deduction allowed for Schedule A should be discontinued. When Schedule B was charged at one-half the rate of Schedule A, it was arranged that one-eighth of Schedule A should be deducted so that Schedule B was really charged at one-half of seven-eighths of Schedule A. If this deduction were to be discontinued, then the relief offered by the Amendment was the more necessary. Nobody who was acquainted with the condition of the tenant-farmers would say that one-quarter of the rent was not rather a high figure on which to be assessed for Income Tax. It was said that the farmer who made no profits would be assessed under Schedule D, and so escape Income Tax. But that course involved much trouble to the farmer, and he had to produce books which would satisfy the assessor—for many farmers not an easy thing to do. There were many farmers paying small sums as Income Tax, though they were not legally liable to pay any, simply because the difficulty and trouble of proving their claim to exemption were so great. The right course would be to put them altogether under Schedule D instead of under Schedule B.

thought that the time had arrived when farmers might be encouraged to keep better accounts, in the same way as all other tradesmen in the country kept hooks. If it was so difficult for them to do so, hon. Members who had to deal with technical education in rural parts of the country might advise the County Councils to introduce bookkeeping as a part of the curriculum.

agreed that farmers should keep their accounts in the ordinary way, and that they should be assessed in the ordinary way. There was no reason why farmers should have exceptional treatment.

hoped that his hon. Friends who were anxious to do something for the farmers in this matter would note that, if this Amendment were carried, Schedule B would soon come to an end. The result would be infinite trouble to the farmer, who would have to show to the satisfaction of the assessors that he had made no profits. The probable effect would be that many a farmer would be charged with more Income Tax than he had to pay at present.

agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he did not believe in the system of benefiting the farmer class so long as the landlord system existed. The proposal of the hon. Member was to give relief to farmers who were doing well, and he thought that this relief would ultimately go to the benefit of the landlord.

said that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had convinced him that he would be doing right in supporting the Amendment.

believed that the Inland Revenue authorities objected to give assistance to farmers in this way because it would lead to the decrease of returns of profit. The conditions under which the farmer was at present assessed were neither just nor convenient, and he agreed that it was far more desirable that the assessment under Schedule B should be abolished altogether, and that the farmer should be assessed under Schedule D. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to look into the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] The farmers did not wish for any special exemption, and the question was whether they should not be assessed upon the same principle as manufacturers and other people—that was to say, only on the profits they made after deducting even-kind of expense they had had to incur to make those profits. ["Hear, hear!"] The farmer would be only too willing to pay on the profits he made. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he would look into the matter suggested by the hon. Member for Somerset.

, in supporting the Amendment, contended that a reduction ought to be made in the tax upon the farmer in proportion to his rent.

said that what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others since he addressed the House had considerably modified his opinion in respect to the Amendment, and he wished to state that he should not now support the Amendment. [Cheers and laughter]

said he felt it his duty to vote against the Amendment, the object of which was to reduce the duty levied on the farmer. It was a landlord's question really, and if the farmer wanted relief he and the landlord should make arrangements by which it could be given in reduction of rent, or in other ways. Some relief had already been granted to the farmers, and the Committee ought not to be called upon to further reduce his taxes. Since the passing of the Act of 1894, most of the farmers of the country had been brought within the limit of abatement, and, therefore, the majority of them escaped paying Income Tax altogether. He objected to the Amendment also because it was still further in the direction of giving special relief to a special industry. He was opposed entirely to that system of legislation, and he was not to be deterred from voting against the Amendment because the hon. Member for Dundee said the effect of its adoption would be to do away altogether with Schedule B. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.

said the Act of 1894 provided that where a joint income was under £500 a year, and the wife was engaged in some profession, like that of teaching, by which she earned part of that income, the wife and the husband might claim to have, as it were, separate incomes. In that case each might obtain either total exemption if his or her income were under £160, or an abatement if it were over that figure. Therefore, obviously, in such husband and wife were placed by the Act of 1894 in a better position than a single person possessed of an income of £500 and under. His hon. Friend wished to extend this exemption not only to all cases in which the wife earned an income in any other way than by the exercise of a profession, as, for instance, by keeping a shop together with a husband, but also to cases where the joint income of £500 was derived partly or entirely from interest on property or from rents. That was a very large extension of the principle of the Act of 1894, and although it would be much pleasanter for him to agree with his hon. Friend's proposal, yet he felt bound to place before the Committee the fact that it was one of considerable danger to the revenue. He wished the righthon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who had to deal with this subject in 1894, had been in his place, for he was sure he would support what he was going to say. The effect of his hon. Friend's proposal would be this. Supposing a husband and wife had an income of £500, they would say, derived from keeping a shop. It would be practically impossible for the officers of the Inland Revenue to ascertain, if a claim were made for an exemption of this kind on the ground that the wife was a party to the carrying on of the business of a shop, whether that claim was well-founded or not. Nobody could tell how much the wife did, or how much she did not do towards earning the joint income. And it would create this anomaly, that, assuming that in such cases the exemption were generally granted, as he feared it would have to be generally granted, a childless married person, for instance, whose wife could employ herself in this kind of way, would have a great advantage over a married person who had children and whose children would necessarily require the care of the wife, so that she would not be able to devote her services towards assisting the husband in the shop. Again, supposing the wife died, and the shopkeeper was left a widower with children. At once his assessment for Income Tax would be raised because the wife would be dead. He would probably have to employ and pay some person to look after the children, yet the operation of this clause, of which he had had the advantage in his wife's lifetime, would not be extended to him in his new position. It would be a bonus to the married person without children, as against the married person with children, and far more against the widower with children. Of course, the unfortunate bachelor, for whom, he dared say, the Committee would have no mercy—[loud laughter]—would be in a still worse position. Therefore, the effect of his hon. Friend's Amendment, by attempting to extend the exemptions granted by the Act of 1894, would be to create very much greater anomalies than those which at present existed. He would carry the matter a little further, and say that when they once took this clause beyond the point at which the law stood now, where the income was derived solely from personal exertions without any reference to interest on capital, they would find it most difficult to exclude income derived from investments and property. Why should they relieve a husband and wife who had a joint income of £500 a year, they would say, arising from investments in funds or railways, or from rents of houses or lands? Why should they allow each of them to divide, as it were, that income between them and claim exemption on the ground that it was a joint income, and that, therefore, each of them should only be assessed for half of it, while in other cases, where the income solely belonged to one or the other, he or she would be assessed on the full amount? The matter was a technical one, and he could not profess to deal with it with the lucidity that a lawyer would be able to do, but his advisers at the Inland Revenue assured him that the effect of the Amendment would be to create a very large deficit in the returns of Income Tax. He feared he could not face that deficit, but he would undertake to examine this question and see whether, confining the principle, as it was now confined, to incomes earned by personal exertion, cases could be added to the exemption which did not now come under it, ["Hear, hear!"]

agreed that the matter was a technical one, and if he could have framed his Amendment so as to limit it simply to earned—that is to say, industrial—incomes, he would have done so. He was perfectly satisfied with the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

said he recollected perfectly well that a great deal of pressure was put upon the late Government to enlarge the exemptions which were included in the Act of 1894. He was very sorry that his right hon. Friend the Member for West Monmouth was not in his place, but speaking entirely for himself, recollecting as he did the very grave reasons which were given in 1894 against extending the exemptions even though it was to deserving persons, he could not now be a party to any Amendment of this kind. It was found possible to extend the privilege to incomes derived from professions, but when they came to such things as small businesses it was made clear to the late Government that immediately the revenue would be defrauded, because all the profits, or the greater portion would be imputed to the share of the wife, and by that means an enormous gap would be made in the revenue. He was sorry that he should be obliged to vote against the Amendment, because he was sure that it would be the feeling of every Member of the Committee to relieve such cases as were contemplated. The exemption applied to comparatively poor people in whose behalf the hon. Member opposite had always moved—["Hear, hear!"]— and they could not grant it. But they could grant exemptions to people who had stores of pictures worth £20,000, £50,000, £100,000, or even £1,000,000. ["Hear, hear!"] When once they began the game of exemptions from financial impositions they found it extremely difficult to draw the line, because when they granted exceptions for artistic reasons or for sentimental considerations, some hon. Members, with the consistency which had marked the conduct in this matter of the hon. Member for Islington, brought a case forward in respect of persons who were far more in need of relief, and then they found they could not grant it. While he was sorry this was an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not accept, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right, and he would support him in the interests of the revenue.

expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would examine the matter between now and the Report stage.

said he could not give an undertaking to examine the matter before the Report stage.

reiterated the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to do so. It was felt that the concession made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not meet the desires of the Committee at that time, for, while professional incomes received the benefit of the concession, incomes derived from trade did not share in the advantage. And, it being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House. Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.