I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there will be any objection to give a Return of the number of bodies interred in Brompton Cemetery up to the present time?

There will be no objection, I think, to this Return being granted.

How shall we obtain it? Shall I move for it?

I will undertake to present it myself.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of the two Principal Warders Wainwright and Lord, whose deaths have lately occurred at Dartmoor Prison after periods of 25 and 30 years' service, the money which on the principle of deferred pay these officers contributed to the pension fund will be refunded to their families; and, if he will take into consideration the sad circumstances caused to their families and, if possible, alleviate them?

I am afraid the principle of deferred pay is not recognised by the Superannuation Acts, and no contributions are made by prison officers towards pension from their pay. I deeply regret the circumstances in which the families of these two warders have been left, and am sorry to say there are other cases like theirs; but there is no fund at my disposal out of which it would be possible to relieve them.

May I ask the right lion. Gentleman whether, in the sad circumstances in which the Wainwright family are placed, he can lay the matter before the Treasury?

I understand that the Treasury have done all in their power in the matter, but as I have already informed the hon. Member there is no public fund out of which relief in such cases can be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he intends to take steps to induce the Government of New South Wales to bring itself within the scope of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, so that the payment of Death Duties to Her Majesty's Government and to the Government of New South Wales by the representatives of persons domiciled in this country and dying possessed of property in New South Wales may be put an end to; and, if so, will he endeavour to make any such agreement retro-active?

The matter is entirely one for the Government and Legislature of New South Wales, and I should not feel justified in interfering in any way with their discretion in regard to it.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could indicate in what way the Government of New South Wales might be approached on the matter?

I cannot. I must point out to my hon. Friend that we have given self-government to these Colonies, and we must take the consequences. I cannot officially offer my hon. Friend any advice, but I suppose that the Government of New South Wales can be approached like any other free Government, and it so happens that the Prime Minister of New South Wales is at present in this country.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. HENRY KIMBER) I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post- master General, with reference to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee that auxiliary postmen, working five hours daily, should receive boot allowance, sick pay, and holidays, winch were adopted by the Treasury, whether the Postmaster General is aware that several auxiliary postmen in Tooting, who are performing an equivalent to five hours' duty daily, i.e., two deliveries and a collection, and are paid for five hours, have nevertheless been refused the concessions recommended by the Report, and have been asked to refund the boot allowance already paid them on 1st May last; and on what grounds these men were first paid such allowance, and are now asked to refund it; and, whether the Postmaster General is aware that the established duties still range over a period of 15 hours daily.

The auxiliary postmen at Tooting, to whom the hon. Member refers, do not work five hours a day, and are therefore not entitled to the privileges of boot allowance, sick pay, and holidays. The payment which they received in respect of boot allowance was made under a misapprehension by the local postmaster, and there was no alternative but to call upon the men to refund it. The Postmaster General is aware that some of the established duties at Tooting range over a period of 15 hours a day. At present this is unavoidable, but whenever opportunity offers the period will be considered. As, however, these men live close to their work they have practically the nine hours of unbroken rest, which the Tweedmouth Committee recommended.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the vacancy in the staff of the Deeds Office, Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, will be filled up in terms of the Minute issued by Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland, and dated 14th September 1893, or on the recommendation of the Deputy Clerk Register; or will the appointment, as has hitherto been the case, be confined strictly to the Office, which means the promotion of one of the engrossing clerks to the staff?

The appointment referred to by the hon. Member will be made in accordance with the "conditions of admission" stated in Article IV. of the Minute issued by the Secretary for Scotland on 14th September 1893. I may add that this is the first vacancy in the staff of the Office of Deeds since the passing of the Minute, and the Secretary for Scotland does not feel justified therefore in departing from the conditions laid down therein by his predecessor.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what fund have the sums, saved by the abolition, irrespective of the three judgeships now vacant, since 1877 of the offices of a Chief Justiceship of the Common Pleas in Ireland, with an annual salary of £4,600, of two puisne Judgeships and one land Judgeship, each with an annual salary of £3,500, and of a Judgeship of the Court of Admiralty, with an annual salary of £2,500, been appropriated; and what has been the amount of the capital sum saved by the abolition of these offices, up to the present time?

also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) to what fund has the sum saved by the reduction in the number of the Irish County Court Judges, under the provisions of the County Court (Ireland) Act, 1877, been appropriated; and what has been the amount of the capital sum saved up to the present time by the reduction in the number of Irish County Court Judges; (2) whether the reduction in the number of the members of the Irish judiciary effected since 1877 has been accompanied with a corresponding, or any, reduction in the scale of court fees; and whether the reduced expenditure on the Irish judicial establishments has lessened in any, and, if so, what manner, the expenses of litigants?

I will answer the hon. Member's three questions together. Concurrently with the abolition of the Judgeships mentioned, the judicial offices of the Land Commissioners have been created, and the amount of their salaries has exceeded those of the abolished Judges. There has been no saving. [Cries of "Oh!"] I am stating the facts. Similarly the reduction of the judicial staff of the County Courts under the Act of 1877 was part of a larger scheme, which imposed on the votes of Parliament the salaries and expenses of the clerks of the Crown and peace. The result has been a substantial and growing excess of public cost, after making full allowance for the receipts from Court fees payable under the Act. On the passing of the Judicature Act, 1877, new tables of fees were issued, which in many cases reduced the amount payable by the suitor. The result has been that the total amount of fees paid, which was £42,422 in the year of the passing of the Act, has now fallen to £34,769.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would say to what special fund the saving from these Judgeships had been allocated. Was it not the fact that the sum payable to the Land Commissioners was charged in the Estimates for the year, whereas the salaries of the Judges were charged upon the Consolidated Fund? What he wanted to know was where the Jubilee the money had gone to? [Laughter.]

What is saved under one head has been spent under another.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is being done with Ireland's equivalent grant, under the Agricultural Rating Act, now two years unpaid; what is the gross amount of the fund, and what interest is paid by the Treasury upon it; and whether it will be made available for its original purpose this year!

With the permission of the House, I will reply to this question. The sums payable to Ireland under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act, 1896, as the equivalent of the sums payable under the Agricultural Land Rating Act, 1896, have been paid into the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, in accordance with the directions contained in the first-mentioned Act. The aggregate transfers to date are in respect of the year 1896–97, £74,969; and in respect of the year 1897–98, £24,099. The Treasury do not pay interest upon this fund. But in view of the necessity which has arisen to abandon the allocation this year of the money in question, the Bank of Ireland have recently, at the request of the Irish Government, consented to transfer the money into a separate account, upon which deposit rates of interest will be allowed. It is not possible to allocate the money this year.

asked what was the amount of the separate fund?

For the year 1896–97 it was £74,969, while for the year 1897–98 it is £24,099.

asked whether it was to be understood that the Government had finally decided to refuse to make up to Ireland her proper share of the fund.

Order, order. The hon. Member's Question does not arise out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that of course the £74,969 was paid for the year ending Lady Day last. None of it has been paid during the course of the present year.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. D. SHEEHY) I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report for 1896 of the Inspectors of Lunatics for Ireland will be presented to Parliament; and if he can explain why it has not been placed upon the Table before the consideration of the Irish Estimates?

It has not been found practicable, hitherto, to present this Annual Report to Parliament earlier than July or August. The Report for 1896 will, it is expected, be ready for presentation about the middle of next month.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is by a Supplementary Estimate, or a Clause in the Finance Bill, that the resolution of this House of the 11th May last, as to a grant out of the public funds to the Incorporated Law Society of England, is to be carried into effect?

A Supplementary Estimate will be introduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that tenants on the Garvagh estate, county Cavan, who were forced by legal proceedings to pay two years' rent and costs last year and who have since served notices to have fair rents fixed, were again compelled under threat of legal proceedings to pay two years' rent this year; (2) whether he is aware that the practice has become general in county Cavan when tenants serve notices to have fair rents fixed to receive threatening letters calling on them to pay up all arrears, and thus intimidate others from going into court; and (3) whether he can take any action in the matter?

I have no knowledge of the facts alleged in. the first and second paragraphs, nor are the local police aware of any case such as described in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board propose to use pressure on the Cootehill Town Commissioners to induce them to carry out a scheme for the building of labourers' and artisans' dwellings within the township, the necessity of which has been proved by the medical sanitary officer and others?

The Local Government Board have no power to compel the Town Commissioners to carry out schemes for building labourers' and artisans' dwellings. I may add I am informed that there are a large number of vacant houses in Cootehill suitable for labourers or artisans at moderate rents, and while this accommodation is available the Town Commissioners have not thought fit to carry out a scheme for providing dwellings under the Housing of the Working Classes Act.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has recently received an application for a pension from a Crimean veteran, named Owen Smith, of Bailieboro, county Cavan; whether lie is aware that this man was discharged as an invalid after a severe fever in the Crimea, and certified twelve months later as being unfit for further service; that the man got no pension or allowance; and that his sight, which failed while in the service, is now almost gone; and, considering the special circumstances of his case, that his father was wounded in the battle of Waterloo, that his brother served in the 59th Regiment and died at Hong Kong in 1851, and that his two sons are at present in the Army, he will recommend Her Majesty to grant him a Jubilee pension, and thus keep him from becoming a pauper in the Bailieboro Union workhouse?

No such application has been received at the Admiralty. I am forwarding a form of application to the hon. Member, which I would ask him to be good enough to have filled in by Owen Smith, whose case shall then be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Returns of Revenue and Expenditure granted in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, Nos. 336 and 337, of Session 1896, will be furnished to the House before the discussion of Irish Estimates is proceeded with?

The completion of the Return in continuation of No. 337 depends upon the completion of the Return in continuation of No. 336, and the latter cannot be completed until the actual receipts and expenditure of all the different Departments concerned have been ascertained. The last similar Return was completed and presented on the 8th August, and its predecessor on the 21st August. Owing to the large number of outstanding accounts of sub-accounting officers, many of the Departments have not as yet been able to send in their figures. I will endeavour to expedite them as much as possible, but as the hon. Member will see, I cannot promise the Returns before the beginning of August.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of cases the Chief Land Commissioners at Monaghan recently lowered or raised the rents respectively fixed by the Sub-Commissioners who heard the evidence and inspected the farms; whether he can state if two Court valuers in every case valued the farms for the Chief Land Commissioners, and the rent in every case was fixed on the return given by the Court valuers; and whether he can say if the Court valuers in any of these cases heard the evidence given on behalf of landlord and tenant?

There were 29 appeals heard at the recent sitting of the Land Commission Court of Appeal at Monaghan. In eight of these cases the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were increased on appeal, while in one case the judicial rent was reduced; in seven cases the orders of the Sub-Commissioners were affirmed; and in 13 cases the Court reserved judgment. In all the 29 cases heard, the holdings were visited by two Court valuers. In nine cases (which number includes six cases affirmed) the judicial rent fixed on appeal are of the amount which was, in the estimation of the Court valuers, the fair rent of the holding. In no case do the Court valuers hear the evidence given on behalf of either the landlord or tenant. The decisions were arrived at by the Court in each case after hearing the evidence offered by each party, and having before them the reports made by the Court valuers.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say to what purpose the money saved by the reduction of the police force in Ireland will be applied?

The net estimate for the Royal Irish Constabulary for the current year only shows a saving as compared with the previous year. It is higher than any other year since 1886–87. Of course any moneys saved would not be issued from the Exchequer; but any such saving will, I am afraid, be much more than absorbed by the general increase of expenditure on Irish local purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that letters posted in Manchester and sent viâ Dublin reach Carrickmacross, Ballybay, and Castleblaney about 10 o'clock the following morning, and if sent via Belfast do not reach towns mentioned until about 6 p.m.; whether he i saware that the sending of letters viâ Belfast instead of Dublin is a great inconvenience to dealers; and, if he will direct that letters in future be sent viâ Dublin for above towns?

Letters for Carrickmacross, Ballybay, and Castleblaney posted at Manchester before 9.30 p.m. are forwarded viâ Dublin and reach their destination about 10 a.m. the following morning. It is only letters posted too late for the Dublin Mail which are forwarded viâ Stranraer and Belfast, and some of these, at any rate, obtain a distinct advantage, while none of them suffer any disadvantage from being so forwarded.

At what hour does this mail leave Stranraer?

That is no part of the hon. Member's question on the paper. If he will put his question upon the paper I will ascertain for him.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if it has been brought to his notice that recent changes made in the carriage of mails between Monaghan and Ballybay have worked out much to the disadvantage of residents in the sub-districts; is he aware that letters posted at Dunraymond remain 24 hours before being dispatched; and, will he either revert to the former practice or devise a new scheme by which letters may be received and replied to within reasonable limits of time?

Dunraymond, a small place for which there are on an average only six or seven letters a day, is on the route which was formerly taken by the mail car from Monaghan to Ballybay and Castleblaney, and in that position enjoyed the advantage of an early delivery in the morning and a late despatch at night. With a view to an acceleration of the service to Castleblaney and other places in the neighbourhood, a fresh route was recently adopted for the mail car, and Dunraymond lost the advantage which it had previously enjoyed from the fact of its being upon the road traversed by the mail car. The arrangement now made for Dunraymond provides for a delivery of the letters in the morning by a postman on foot, but the cost of maintaining a collection in the evening did not appear to be warranted. Further enquiry shall, however, be made in order to ascertain whether some interval for reply cannot be afforded.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an influentially signed memorial has been sent to the Postmaster General requesting the establishment of a post office at the house of Mr. Peter Freeman, Drummullord, Castleblaney; and whether he will grant the wish of the memorialists?

The memorial referred to has been received, and the matter is now under enquiry. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can say if the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Bill applies to Ireland; and (2) if so, will it be compulsory on traders to buy and sell by the metric system if passed into Law?

The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes; to the second, No. The Bill does apply to Ireland, but it is entirely optional.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what steps have been taken to bring to justice the persons who committed an aggravated assault upon a man named M'Quade, beside the police barrack at Aughnacloy, on the 15th of May last, whose life was for some time in danger; did M'Quade give the names of his assailants to the police; and, were any arrests made?

M'Quade's life was not endangered by the injury he received on the occasion referred to. He summoned two persons for the assault, one of whom was fined, and the case against the other was dismissed. M'Quade gave the police the name of the person who struck him, but there was a conflict of testimony between him and his brother as to the man's identity. The person convicted was proved to be the offender.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) at what figure does the Guarantee Fund of the Irish Land Act of 1894 now stand; (2) what interest is paid by the Treasury upon it; (3) how much of it has been spent since its formation; (4) whether it will be immediately applied as originally intended for the relief of local taxation; and (5) whether the £40,000 due to Ireland under this head will be similarly applied this year?

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Reserve Fund, which, consisting of five annual instalments of the Exchequer contributions of £40,000, forms part of the cash portion of the Guarantee Fund. The required instalments were paid by the close of 1895–96, and were duly invested in Consols, which now amount (with the investment of the interest) to £219,000. The Reserve Fund has not been drawn upon. The inquiry in paragraph four appears to have been made under a misapprehension. It was not intended to apply the £200,000 in aid of local taxation. It was to remain as a reserve fund. It is hoped that the regulations for the distribution of the £40,000 a year now set free will be completed at an early date, whereupon the allocation of the money will be at once proceeded with.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what number of bicycles are in use or have been ordered by the Postal and Telegraph Department up to date; whether any tricycles have been ordered; and whether he has considered the policy of ordering tricycles for use by postmen in some parts of the country?

For postal purposes, arrangements have existed for many years past under which, where the conditions are suitable, allowances are made to Rural Postmen for finding and employing both bicycles and tricycles. The exact number in use for postal purposes cannot be stated without obtaining reports from all parts of the country, but it is not very large. 100 bicycles have been recently purchased by the Department and issued to Telegraph messengers under the arrangement explained in reply to the Question asked by the hon. Member on the 5th March last. A number of bicycles are also used by Telegraph Messengers under the allowance system referred to in the same reply; And the Department is watching the result of the two experiments, with a view to ascertaining which is the more desirable for permanent adoption. The Postmaster General has every desire to encourage the use of bicycles and tricycles in those parts of the country where the roads are suitable for their use. But he believes that it is on the whole better that the postmen who use the machines should have an interest in them, and that the present system, therefore, of granting allowances for their use is preferable in the case of postmen, to the purchase by the Department of the machines.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is now in a position to state the result of the Postal Union Congress or Convention at Washington; whether any, and what, important decisions have been arrived at; and, briefly, what are the principal changes or reforms carried?

The Postmaster General has not yet received the report of the British delegates at the recent Postal Union Congress at Washington, which only closed on Tuesday, the 15th inst. The hon. Member is probably aware that those of the British delegates who returned to this country immediately after the conclusion of the Congress only reached London last Thursday.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Postal Union Congress closed its proceedings on the 3rd or 4th of June, and that a full report of the proceedings, or rather of the results, appeared in three of the principal New York papers on the 10th of June, and had been since published in other papers.

said the only official information he had received from the Post Office was contained in his answer to the Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many prisoners in the military prisons in the Colonies have received corporal punishment during the last six years; and, how many, if any, have received corporal punishment in the United Kingdom or Colonies on more than one occasion during the same period?

Eighty-two prisoners in military prisons abroad received corporal punishment during the last six years. During the same period one prisoner in the military prisons at home was twice corporally punished. Returns on this point from prisons abroad have not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state how many prisoners in the local prisons and convict establishments of the United Kingdom have received corporal punishment on more than one occasion during the past six years; and if there are any who have received such punishment on more than two occasions during the same period?

During this period forty-four prisoners in local prisons and twenty in convict prisons have received corporal punishment twice; six in local prisons and seven in convict prisons have received corporal punishment more than twice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many Members of the House of Commons and how many passengers altogether were on board the steamship Campania at the Naval Review; at whose cost was the luncheon provided; was the allocation of berths to Members who stayed on board all night by ballot, if not, how was it made; did the Admiralty arrange that the Campania should remain at anchor instead of going down the line of ships during the illuminations, or bringing those on board to the quay the following morning; and whether, under the circumstances, any portion of the charge made to Members will be refunded?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that there were 1,800 persons on board the steamship Campania on the occasion of the Naval Review, of whom only 800 were either Members of this House or their invited guests; (2) whether he can explain how tins overcrowding arose, having regard to the statement that the Campania would be reserved for the use and convenience of the House; (3) If he can inform the House whether the sum of £5. 5s. was the charge made to all who stayed on board over Saturday night; (4) into whose credit the aggregate sum so netted has been paid, and its ultimate destination; and (5) whether it is the intention of the Government to place on the Estimates any Vote for expenses of the illuminations for the Review, upon which Members of this House can express their opinions?

Invitations to the Campania issued by the Admiralty were limited to 1,600, full accommodation for which number was guaranteed by the company; 1,082 of these invitations were issued to Members and their friends. The ship was originally intended for the Lords and the Commons, but when the decision was arrived at to take the Lords in the Danube, it was necessary to redistribute the available space. The cost of the luncheon was defrayed by the Admiralty. The five guineas was the company's charge direct to the visitors for the extra accommodation provided outside the Admiralty contract. The allocation of berths was made at the Admiralty. It was stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty that the Campania, after—

"landing those who desire to return to town on Saturday afternoon, will leave Southampton Dock not later than 7 o'clock p.m., and take up a position in the Solent."

I am making inquiries as to the number of passengers embarked on board the Campania, and would ask hon. Members to postpone their questions on tins point until Friday.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the 1,000 tickets distributed to Members were distributed on the basis of one to each Member?

They were distributed on the basis announced by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—one to each Member, and each Member had the opportunity of having one for a friend also.

May I ask who were the 518 guests who were not Members of this House?

They were some of the Colonial and Indian guests—["hear, hear!"]—and a certain number of distinguished naval officers, including former Lords of the Admiralty; and a certain number of tickets were distributed to members of the Admiralty Office.

said no answer had been given to the last paragraph of his Question—whether the Government intended to place on the Estimates any Vote for expenses of time review illuminations upon which Members of the House could express their opinion.

Perhaps the lion. Gentleman will say at the same time why the Campania did not come back to dock on Sunday morning, instead of the passengers being put on a small tug in the rain.

If the hon. Member will be good enough to turn to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in announcing the arrangements, he will see that the programme then announced was exactly carried out.

asked whether there would be any opportunity of criticising the arrangements in connection with the Naval Review.

I am not aware of any opportunity of discussing this question on any Vote which remains to be passed.

Is it not a fact that the Admiralty are responsible, and can there be any objection to its being raised on the Admiralty Vote?

On the Appropriation Bill?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in consequence of the almost total loss of every kind of crop, over an area of 70 square miles in Essex on Thursday last, the Government will consider the possibility of sending a commissioner to report as to the necessity of some exceptional measure of relief?

I requested my hon. Friend yesterterday to put this Question to the Minister of Agriculture, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has not vet returned from his official duties elsewhere, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting him on the matter. In the meanwhile I can only say that Her Majesty's Government do feel most deeply the gravity of the loss which has fallen upon a large part—a considerable part—of the county of Essex; and although I should not be justified, I think, in holding out any hopes of Government assistance—at all events, without very much fuller consideration than I have yet been able to give to the question —I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject of his Question shall receive the most sympathetic consideration of myself and my colleagues. ["Hear, hear!]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a part of the county of South Bucks has been just as severely visited? ["Hear, hear!" "Oh!" and laughter.]

Order, order! That is an entirely different question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has received resolutions from the National School Teachers' Association, Ballyboy, demanding payment direct to them of the residual school grant admitted to be due by the Treasury, and protesting against any portion of these arrears (due to the teachers) being allocated to the pension fund; and also protesting against the action of the Government to further attempt to reduce their salaries by increased stoppages to the pension fund; and, whether, as the teachers have performed their part in contributing to the pension fund, the Treasury will make good any further deficiencies caused by the miscalculations of the actuaries of the Government?

The resolutions referred to have been received. I have nothing to add to my reply to the question addressed to me on the 21st inst. by the hon. Member for Mid Cork on this subject.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of the great public interest shown in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the distribution of science and art grant, whether he will publish the evidence of the witnesses, as well as such memoranda and other documents on which presumably the Report is based?

Yes; the statements oral and written made to the Committee shall be laid on the Table. The Committee had also before it the evidence taken by the Royal Commission on Secondary Education, but I do not think that evidence need be reprinted.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether an inquiry into the Scottish prison system was held in the months of October and November last by a Departmental Committee, composed of three of the chief Scottish prison officials; and (2) whether in the course of such inquiry the Committee visited several of the Scottish prisons and received evidence both in regard to prison hospital arrangements and the association of prisoners without supervision; and, if so, whether he will call for the Proceedings and the Report of the Committee, together with all the papers relative thereto, including the chaplains' and medical officers' reports upon the above-mentioned subjects.

There was no Departmental Committee as is suggested by the first paragraph of the Question. I am informed by the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, that in accordance with ordinary official practice inquiries were made by a private Committee, consisting of a prison inspector and two governors, who were instructed by the Prison Commissioners to inquire and report to them on certain matters connected with the prison service. I will take this opportunity of correcting the reply given by me on the 24th May last, owing to error in the information given me by saying that evidence was tendered to these gentlemen by some medical officers in regard to the treatment of sick prisoners. I may add that Reports by Committees of the above nature are regarded as confidential documents for the use of the Prison Commissioners who are, of course, responsible to the Secretary for Scotland.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if a medal was granted for all the operations in the Chin Hills in 1891 and 1892; and whether he is aware that many who were engaged have not received the medal?

A medal was granted, but it was not awarded to columns which met with no opposition.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether free kits have been issued to the soldiers who behaved so well on board the Warren Hastings, but who lost their kits and all their other belongings?

Yes, Sir. Free kits have been issued, and compensation given for private property lost. A special allowance of £1,000 has been distributed in this manner.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what system are deductions for repairs now allowed in assessing the annual value of agricultural estates for payment of Death Duties; and can he give the House any figures illustrating the present practice of the Revenue Department in making such allowances?

In assessing an agricultural estate for payment of Estate Duty, the cost of repairs is allowed as a deduction from the gross annual value of the estate. The amount on this account is fixed in each case by agreement between the accounting parties and the Inland Revenue authorities. I have looked into a number of cases, as many as 29, of agricultural estates of an annual value varying from £120 to nearly £30,000, and I find that the deductions which have been allowed for repairs range from 20 per cent. downwards. The cases in which more than 10 per cent. was allowed numbered 44 per cent of the whole, and in 72 per cent. of the cases more than 7½ per cent. was allowed. Of course, the allowances cannot exceed actual expenditure claimed for; but the above figures show that where a claim for these deductions is fairly made it is the practice to allow it.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is possible to make the footpath from Hyde Park Corner to the Albert Memorial suitable for pedestrians; and, if it be, whether he will, during the autumn, take the necessary steps to make the footpaths in Hyde Park and St. James's Park as convenient for the use of the public as are the footpaths in the parks under the control of the County Council?

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the path in question is unfit for pedestrians. There are, certainly, sections of the walk at present in a rough state, especially opposite the barracks, but, considering the enormous extra traffic of the last ten days, and the fact that the park has been recently used as a rest camp for 12,000 men, this is hardly to be wondered at. I will, however, take care that during the autumn special consideration shall be given to the question of the proper construction and maintenance of the paths.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he recollects that he gave nearly the same answer last year to a similar question, when there had been no Jubilee festivities, and when the path, not being properly gravelled, but covered with shingle, was as inconvenient as it is to-day?

I understood that the question was directed to one portion of the park.

No; it is directed to the footpaths.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return of the Local Government Electors, ordered on 2nd March, will be laid upon the Table?

This Return was presented yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will, in order to give effect to the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons of the 13th April 1894, introduce in this Session a short Measure to give boards of guardians in Ireland power to provide allotments of land similar to the power possessed by parish councils in England without the necessity of building houses.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question addressed to me on this subject by the hon. Member for South Mayo on the 8th February last. To that reply I have nothing to add, except to say that in view of the legislation promised for next year it would be obviously inadvisable to introduce in the meantime a Measure such as that proposed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to prevent the deportation of paupers from England, Scotland and Wales to Ireland.

The subject, in my opinion, is well worthy of consideration, but I cannot hold out any hope of bringing in a Bill dealing with the matter in the present Session.

If a private Member introduce a Bill on the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman help to get it passed?

Promises in favour of private Members' Bills are not promises which are readily made by the Leader of the House if he wants to lead a quiet life. [Laughter.] In any case I am afraid I could not promise anything in regard to a Bill, the terms of which are not before me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, inasmuch as there appears to be some doubt as to whether any new Commission will be formed to enquire into the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland, what steps the Government intend to take with reference to the finding of the Commission which has already examined into the question and reported upon it?

The views of the Government with regard to the report made by the recent Financial Commission have already been very fully laid before the House by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty in the course of the Debate specially devoted to this subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when, and in connection with which Vote, it is proposed to make the promised statement with reference to the minimum wage of Government employés

I am not sure that my memory quite carries any pledge such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman in Ins question; but undoubtedly there will be an opportunity for discussion of the subject on the Ordnance Vote.

inquired what would be the business on Thursday.

So far as has been at present fixed, the Scotch Education Bill will be the first Order on Thursday.

rose to move the following clause:—

In lieu of the duties of Customs now payable on tobacco there shall, on and after the twenty-first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, be levied and charged upon tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland the duties following (that is to say):—

Tobacco, manufactured, viz.:		s.	d.
Segars	the lb.	5	0
Cavendish or Negrohead.	the lb.	4	6
Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond	the lb.	4	0
Other manufactured tobacco	the lb.	4	0
Snuff containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof	the lb.	3	9
Snuff not containing more than 13 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof	the lb.	4	6
Tobacco, unmanufactured, viz.:—
Containing 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof	the lb.	1	0
Containing less than 10 lbs. of moisture in every 100 lbs. weight thereof	the lb.	1	4

He said that the tax produced from tobacco which was a very elastic one, and which had been considerably increased in recent times, formed a. very large proportion of the revenue of the country. And not only was it a chief source of revenue, but it was also one of the main incidents by which a financial grievance was inflicted both upon the people of Ireland and upon the poorer classes of this country, because there was no tax which pressed so unfairly upon the working classes as this tax upon tobacco. ["Hear, hear!"] The three taxes which pressed most unfairly upon the working classes were those upon spirits, tea, and tobacco, and while many people had no sympathy with the unfair burdens cast upon the working classes by the tax upon spirits, because they considered that was a grievance which could very easily be remedied by drinking less spirits or beer, he did not think any similar contention could be maintained in regard to the tax upon tobaccos because, while tobacco was undoubtedly one of the main luxuries of the poor in this country, it was not by any means a luxury of an objectionable or deleterious character. ["Hear, hear!"] He was therefore justified in saying that, of all the taxes known to the fiscal system of Great Britain, the tax upon tobacco was that which most unjustly pressed upon the working classes, and more especially upon the population of Ireland. The Financial Relations Return, issued in the Session of 1896, showed that the sum contributed by England to the revenue, under the head of the tobacco tax, was £8,400,000, by Scotland £1,100,000, and by Ireland £1,200,000, so that, out of a total of £10,700,000, Ireland under the tobacco tax paid one-eighth, or something between two and three times more than her fair proportion. [Cheers.] Now the history of the tobacco tax was a very curious one, and, when looked into carefully, the grievance which Ireland suffered under this tax would be found to be very much greater than it appeared at first sight. The tobacco tax was an old tax in the English financial system. Under Mr. Pitt's Bill of 1787 the duties were, for Spanish and Portuguese tobacco, 3s. 6d. per lb., and for tobacco from the colonies, the United States, and Ireland, 1s. 3d. per lb. Under that Bill Ireland, which was a tobacco growing country, was protected to the extent of 2s. 3d. per lb., and up to 1832 tobacco was profitably grown in Ireland, and Ireland enjoyed great advantages from the protection afforded her. In 1827 the duties upon foreign unmanufactured tobacco was 3s. per lb.; upon tobacco from the British possessions, 2s. 9d. per lb.; and upon manufactured tobacco and cigars, 9s. per lb. The production under the tax on an average for the next five years was, for Great Britain, £2,250,000, and for Ireland £600,000, so that for that period Ireland paid more than one-fourth of the amount paid by Great Britain. In 1834 a Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the Excise, which sat for a considerable time and inquired into the whole question of the Excise duties, and into the question of the duties on tobacco, and that Commission recommended a considerable reduction of the tobacco tax, and in a work by Sir Henry Parnell, which was then considered of great authority, he also advocated a reduction of the tax upon tobacco. In 1842 Sir Robert Peel equalised the duty on tobacco from all parts of the world. In 1863 Mr. Gladstone reduced the duty on manufactured tobacco, and increased that on unmanufactured tobacco. Colonel Dunn, Member for Queen's County, then spokesman for the Irish Party, protested against the alteration on behalf of the Irish people, because it bore unjustly upon them, and on account of the injury it would inflict upon what was then an important branch of industry in Ireland. It was advocated on the ground of Free Trade, but Colonel Dunn pointed out that that argument could not be maintained. Free trade in tobacco was, he said, entirely nonexistent, inasmuch as the growth of tobacco had been prohibited in Ireland. Colonel Dunn said tobacco had been grown successfully in Ireland, and when the Act was passed to prohibit its growth the Government purchased the year's crop for £30,000. If the crop were then worth £300,000, it was probable that the tobacco industry would now have been a valuable one in Ireland. By the revision of the tobacco duty in 1863 an additional burden of £100,000 a year was imposed upon Ireland. This was another instance to be added to the many that had already been given of the unfair increase of the taxation of Ireland between 1850 and 1870. In 1877 Sir S. North-cote added another 4d. to the duty on unmanufactured tobaccos, and it was on that scale that the present duties stood. The proposal he had to submit was that the scale on manufactured tobacco should remain as at present, but that the duty should be reduced by 2s. in the pound on all kinds of unmanufactured tobaccos. By such a reduction they would, to a large extent, relieve the financial grievance of over-taxation under which the Irish people laboured, because it was through the instrumentality of the tobacco tax that the British Government managed to extract from the poverty of the Irish people more than their just share of contribution to the Imperial revenue. He recommended the reduction of the duty on unmanufactured tobaccos not only from the Irish point of view, but from that of the English working classes. The tobacco duty pressed unduly on the shoulders of the poorer classes. In the days of William Pitt the tax on cigars was 9s. in the pound. They were smoked by the rich. But in 1863, applying the principle of Free Trade to a case in which it had no application, the 9s. was reduced to 5s., while the tax on the tobacco used by the poorer classes was enormously increased. Mr. Ayrton, Member for the Tower Hamlets, said in the Debate in 1863 that when the growth of tobacco was beginning to flourish in Ireland it was stopped. Nothing was more illustrative or instructive in the history of the government of Ireland by England. When Ireland was allowed in 1779 to grow tobacco, the reason given was that it was

"necessary to give every attention and encouragement to such produce and manufactures in Ireland as would not materially interfere with the commerce and interests of Great Britain."

Tobacco was really the sole luxury enjoyed by the poor in Ireland, and yet, while they had reduced to one-half the tax on the cigars of the rich, they had More than doubled the tax on the tobacco of the poor. Moreover, they had killed this industry in Ireland by refusing permission to grow tobacco there. To the poor labouring man in Ireland, and to a large extent in this country, the only solace by way of luxury which he had in the world was a pipe of tobacco, and it was for this reason that he protested against this unjust tax. He begged move the clause. Clause read the First time.

I hope the hon. Member will pardon me if I do not dwell at any length on his observations as to the restrictions on the growth of tobacco in Ireland. I believe in the year 1886 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire gave permission for experiments to be made without restriction, and certain experiments were made, but I believe, after a year or two, they invariably failed. I can assure the hon. Member that, if at that time the experiments were not extended to Ireland, if any cases are brought under my notice where it is desirable to try them there, I shall be very ready to grant permission. I fear it will not have the effect imagined, but I say that much to show that it is my desire to treat the two countries equally in that respect. The him. Member has not proposed to repeal the tobacco duty altogether, but only to reduce it, so that it is obvious that if any restrictions are necessary as to the growth of tobacco in this country in order to maintain the present duty, those restrictions would be equally necessary if his proposal were adopted. The argument of the hon. Member is, first, that the duty on tobacco presses more unfairly than any other tax on the working classes; and, secondly, that it is exceptionally unfair to Irishmen as being part of a general system of indirect taxation which, according to the Report of the late Financial Relations Commission, exacts a larger contribution from Ireland than is justified. The hon. Member did not, I think, produce any very strong arguments in favour of his first contention. I must say that, so long as it is necessary, as I believe it always will be, to retain indirect taxation as a part of the fiscal system of this country, I do not agree with his views as to the unfairness of a tobacco tax. ["Hear, hear!"] Perhaps I may be considered to be rather prejudiced against smoking, but I am quite prepared to admit that tobacco, although I think it a luxury, is yet more necessary to the poor, and especially to those who are ill-fed, than to those who are well fed and who have a higher position in the social scale. Therefore to that extent it does press more hardly, as all indirect taxation must press more hardly, upon the poorer classes. The general balance, I believe, is fairly set right by the system of direct taxation, and I do not think it would be easy, assuming that a certain sum is to be raised by indirect taxation, to substitute ally indirect tax for the tobacco duty, which would indict less hardship on the poorer classes. The lion. Member could trot, I think, say that if this duty could he looked at entirely by itself it is specially unfair to Ireland. I find that the produce of the duty per head of the population, according to the best statistics which are at our disposal, is in England 5s. 7d., in Scotland Ss. 5d., and in Ireland 5s. 4d. I would say that I do not think that those statistics, which, of course, were used by the Financial Relations Commission, can possibly be considered final, but they were the best that could be obtained without interfering with trade between the two countries. The produce of the tax per head of the population is increasing in England, largely, I believe, owing to the greater consumption of cigarettes in this country. The duty, though high, does not check consumption in Ireland, and is not, after all, high as compared with the tax on tobacco in Ireland before the Exchequers were united. I find that before the amalgamation of the Exchequers the tobacco duty was 3s. 2d. on the pound. Of course the great bulk of the tobacco duty is paid by unmanufactured tobacco, and the result of the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal would be, I am informed, that the revenue would be reduced by about seven millions a year in order to save Ireland about £800,000. I must say that does appear to me a very wasteful method of dealing with the Irish grievance ["hear, hear!"] —and I do not think it is one which this Committee would care to support. Then, again, this seven millions would have to be found in some other way, and, as I have said, I do not believe it could be raised by any indirect tax which would press less hardly on the people. I am not prepared to find it by adding the sum of 3d. in the pound to the income tax, and therefore I am obliged to resist the proposal of the hon. Member. But if the tobacco duty were to be dealt with at all, I should have a great deal to say as to the method by which lie proposes to deal with it. He took the view that the duty on unmanufactured tobacco should be reduced because that would specially relieve the poor, while the duty on manufactured tobacco should be retained because that was the luxury of the rich. Well, that is true, no doubt, of a part of the manufactured tobacco—namely, Havana cigars, which I am afraid at present are very scarce indeed, but it cannot be said to be true of a very considerable quantity of the imported manufactured tobacco. Cheap cigars come to this country from Manila, India, Ceylon, and European countries, which are certainly consumed by the poor rather than by the rich. In 1863 the relation of the duty between manufactured and unmanufactured tobaccos was fixed by Mr. Gladstone, and what was taken into consideration was this, that the duty should be so fixed as to be fair both to the foreign and the home manufacturer of tobacco. It we were to reduce the duty on unmanufactured tobacco by 2s. 2d. on the pound, leaving the duty on manufactured tobacco alone, the result would be to enable the manufacturer of cigars in this country to sell his cigars at a price which would absolutely deprive the consumer of this country of the advantage of any foreign competition in the matter of manufactured tobaccos. I represent a constituency, the city of Bristol, in which the manufacture of tobacco is a very profitable and a very great industry, and I have never heard from any of my constituents that it required the enormous amount of protection which the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would give it against the competition of foreign cigars. In fact, if it were necessary for me to go at length into the matter, I could show that since 1863 the changes in the importation of unmanufactured tobacco have been such that the home manufacturer has been placed in a position of greater advantage over his foreign competitor than he held then. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the British and Irish manufacture of cigars as being a small matter. That is not so. It is a very large matter indeed. I am informed that an enormous quantity of tobacco is manufactured into cigars in this country, and that the total amount of cigars manufactured at home very largely exceeds the total amount of imported cigars. Unmanufactured tobacco used to be imported formerly in leaves with the stalks. It is now being imported without the stalks, which were a waste material in the manufacture, and therefore from every pound of unmanufactured tobacco imported the home manufacturer is able to obtain a larger number of cigars than he was when the stalks were imported with the leaves. There is one observation of the hon. Member with which I have some sympathy. He spoke of the high rate of duty on tobacco as compared with the value of the article. There is no doubt that the duty as compared with the value of the article is very high indeed. I have to some extent looked into this matter. At one time I was a little hopeful that I might be able to make some proposal this year in regard to it, but I found that it would require a very considerable remission of duty in order to reach the consumer at all. Tobacco is purchased by the poorer classes in very small quantities, and a mere remission of 4d. in the pound would never reach the consumer. It would be absorbed by the manufacturer and by the dealer in the article. Therefore, until the finances of the country can allow a large reduction in the duty on tobacco, it would not be wise to attempt it. But I will keep the matter before my mind, and if I find myself in a position to reduce indirect taxation tobacco is an article on which I shall look with considerable favour, and all the more because the reduction would give some relief to the country the hon. Gentleman represents. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the right hon. Gentleman had stated that before the single Exchequer was established for Ireland and Great Britain, the tobacco tax in Ireland was 3s. 4d. in the pound, but the Committee should remember that the tobacco tax was at the same time 15s. in England; and the average amount per head of the inhabitants was then not more than 2s. in Ireland, while now it was 5s. 4d. That illustrated the great difficulty in the argument that was sometimes heard in regard to those indirect duties. It was assumed because the amount of duty was reduced that therefore the section of the people who pay this class of taxes was benefited. That was not always the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer often collected a larger amount from the individual when he reduced a duty than he had collected before. When only a small quantity of tobacco was used per head in Ireland, the people spent their money on something else. For instance, they used more meat than they were able to use now. They did not export the whole meat produce front the country then as they did now. They produced their own flour and oatmeal, and they did not bring in the cheap provisions from America on which they had to subsist now. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded to the fact that the large manufacturers of tobacco, in his constituency never complained of the duty on tobacco. But it must be remembered that the large manufacturers who paid large amounts of duty were interested in the maintenance of the duty for they made a profit out of the duty as well as out of the article. Therefore no argument could be adduced from the fact that the manufacturers were in favour of the duty. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo was taking a rather troublesome way to get a small relief to Ireland by making a proposal which would entail a great loss to the Imperial Exchequer. He was not in favour of indirect taxation, he believed that the indirect taxpayer paid more than he had a right to pay, but he could not say that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would go very far to meet the Irish financial difficulty. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the working classes in Great Britain paid a large portion of those taxes, more of it was paid in Ireland in proportion to the population. In a. very remarkable document furnished by Mr. Micks, the Secretary of the Congested Districts Board, it was shown that the average cost of tobacco to the people who lived in those districts in Ireland was about 1s. per week out of a total weekly expenditure of 6s. or 8s., and Mr. Micks declared that a great advantage would accrue to those people if the tobacco tax was removed, as in many cases it represented more to them than their rent. It could not be shown that in. Great Britain such a large amount was spent on tobacco per head, and, therefore, the grievance of the tax was greater in Ireland than in Great Britain. To his mind the best way to proceed would be to abolish the tobacco tax altogether in Ireland. That would mean a reduction in the revenue of about one and a quarter millions, whereas if his hon. Friend's proposal was accepted, to get this relief for Ireland, would mean a loss to the revenue of 7½ millions. Besides a much stronger case could be made out for relieving Ireland than it could be found for relieving Great Britain. He knew that a prejudice existed against taking off a tax for one part of the kingdom, while leaving it in force in other parts. The argument of his hon. Friend was that there was one common purse, and that any relief that was given should be given all round. No such doctrine prevailed in the Exchequer. There was a precedent in almost every year since 1817 for some tax being taken off one part of the Kingdom and not being taken oft the kingdom altogether. In 1825 there was a tax of nearly half a million remitted in Great Britain but not in Ireland; and from that year down to 1890, continual remissions of taxation were made in Great Britain alone. Thus the difficulty with which they were now struggling was created. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given £800,000 to Great Britain for education, and nothing to Ireland; and the relief for agricultural rates granted last year was not extended to Ireland. Therefore, the precedents were all in favour of giving relief to one island without giving it to the other. If that relief had in the past always been given to Great Britain alone, and not to Ireland alone., it was because there were six British representatives in the House of Commons to one Irish representative. There was a remarkable letter in The Times a short time ago from Mr. Mitchell Henry, recounting how, in the West of Ireland, the coarse tobacco which the peasants used to grow was seized by Revenue Officers and burnt on the spot. Of course, it would be urged that if the Tobacco Tax were remitted in Ireland and not in England, Custom House arrangements between the two countries would be necessary. But there would only have to be a Custom House on the English side, and as the examination would be for tobacco only, the cost would be small. There was no foundation for the assertion that the principle of Free Trade would be interfered with. In many parts of the Empire we had varying duties without any infringment of Free Trade. Under the present fiscal system, applying equally to both countries, the result was that Ireland was heavily taxed while Great Britain was very lightly taxed. He thought his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment would best consult the interests of his country by confining the demand fur relief to Ireland alone. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a very strong hint in that direction. But he should support the Amendment in any case if it were pressed to a Division.

said that the hon. Member was accurate in his statement that there had been a great many cases in which taxation had been reduced in Great Britain without any corresponding reduction being made in Ireland. The reason was that there had been so many taxes levied in Great Britain which were not levied in Ireland at all. From 1817 to 1821 the people of Great Britain paid on an average £20,000,000 a year in taxes which were not levied in Ireland.

"Hear, hear!" And they ought to still. [Laughter.]

said that the hon. Member was a London Member. Did he think that the London people ought to help to pay £20,000,000 of taxation not levied in Ireland?

Certainly.

Will the hon. Member tell his constituents that?

I have done so frequently. They are better able to pay, and they are quite willing to do it. [Laughter.]

said that that was one of the most extraordinary statements he had ever heard. He should have thought that there was as much poverty in many parts of London as in any part of Ireland. [Cheers.] Since the Union £700,000,000 had been paid by this country in taxes which were not levied in Ireland at all. He did not know what would satisfy hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for West Islington complained that the recent grant for education had not been extended to Ireland. He forgot that already the Imperial Parliament paid for the education of Ireland. [Cheers, and Mr. Loran: "The Irish taxpayers pay for it."] The hon. Member now advocated the reduction of the Tobacco Duty, but in his evidence before the Royal Commission it was the remission of the Whisky Duty which the hon. Member pointed to as the salvation of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown clearly that the tobacco tax did not press more heavily on the people of Ireland than on the people of Great Britain. He himself greatly doubted whether we had the real incidence of this tax; but when hon. Gentlemen opposite complained they forgot that whereas every Irishman contributed 9s. to the Imperial Exchequer, every Englishman contributed a much larger amount. In the evidence before the Commission this remarkable fact about the tobacco duty came out—that in Ireland not only did they consume nearly as much tobacco as in England but tobacco of a better quality. The Irish also drank a better quality of tea than the English or Scotch. This seemed to show that the duties did not press unduly on them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that tobacco might perhaps be more necessary for a poor man who could not afford a full supply of food. But, though tobacco might give immediate satisfaction, a man who could not afford both had much better purchase good nourishing food. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself in the happy position of being able to reduce indirect taxation he hoped he would lower the duty on tea rather than that on tobacco.

said he had found from various Bet urns in the Library that up to 1861 England had remitted taxation of her own amounting, to 63 millions, but only £2,300,000 of Irish taxation. In 1819 the taxation per head in Ireland was 15s. 5d., and in England. £3 14s. 8d. In 1889 the taxation per head in Ireland was £1 13s. 5d., whereas in England it was £2 11s. 5d. That showed that Ireland had been a source of very considerable profit to the English Exchequer. Now it was high time that some remission of Irish taxation should take place. As regarded the tobacco duty some consideration ought to be shown to Ireland, because up to 1830 they were allowed to grow t heir own tobacco, and it was a source of wealth to the people of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted whether tobacco could be grown in Ireland. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman that he had himself grown tobacco in Ireland.

I said it had been crown in England, but not at a profit.

went on to say that tobacco was formerly grown in Ireland to a considerable extent, whereas it was never much grown in England. He really thought, the Government ought to do something towards encouraging the revival of tobacco growing in Ireland, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take off the taxes upon tobacco in that country.

demurred to the position taken. up by the lion. Member for Mayo in his objections to the taxation of the working classes. It should not be forgotten that the working classes were not taxed except in their use of articles of luxury. They were exempt from every branch of direct taxation paid by the wealthier classes. Their taxation was confined to articles which they used at t heir discretion, so that by moderating their luxuries they reduced their taxation. It was not at all desirable, now that the working classes had been so largely intrusted with political power, that they should not contribute somewhat to the general expenditure. If they did so contribute they would have an interest in economy. It could not be said that the working classes were unfairly dealt with in being taxed in an indirect manner according to their own consumption and their own requirements. There was hardly any other country, including our own colonies, where articles of necessity were not taxed. In France and Germany, our competitors, the first necessities of life were highly taxed, thereby raising the price of those articles, not only in respect of imported articles but also of homegrown; and it was in competition with countries in which the working classes were so taxed that our people had to pursue their various industries. His contention was that it was not desirable nor just that the working classes should be entirely relieved of taxation. He did not believe they wished it. He believed they were perfectly ready to bear their fair share of taxation. He rejoiced very much that they were relieved from taxation on articles of the first necessity. He would remind the hon. Member for Mayo that at the time when tobacco was taxed at a lower rate in. Ireland the working classes then were obliged to pay higher rates for various articles that were protected by duties. Therefore he would express his belief that the tobacco tax was not a tax that called for reduction; and probably there was a large body of opinion in the House that the working classes, relieved as they were from burdens which pressed heavily upon them in times past, ought now to bear their fair share of the expenditure of the country through taxes in respect of these luxuries.

expressed Ids surprise at the speech of the right lion. Baronet the Member for London University. He had spoken of the large remission of taxation which had taken place in this country. No Irish Member had ever grudged any reduction of taxation on the working classes of England. But their own case was entirely different. Their case was that while there had been this enormous remission of taxation in England, there had been an enormous increase of taxation in Ireland. And further their case was this—and it must have given many migivings to hon. Gentlemen even during the Jubilee week, which he did not grudge them as Englishmen—their case was this, that this enormous reduction of taxation in England had been accompanied by an enormous increase in population and prosperity, while the increase of taxation in Ireland bad gone on side by side and step by step with the most enormous reduction of population ever known in the history of any country in any age. Let hon. Gentlemen try to get around the fact that in England during this reign the population had doubled while taxes had been abolished, but that in Ireland the population had decreased one-half and taxation had almost doubled. Any Gentleman, especially one who called himself a Liberal Unionist, who was supposed to be in favour of equality as between England and Ireland, who would get up and say that no case had been made out on the side of Ireland against the present system of taxation was really one of the most marvellous pieces of self-deception he had ever seen even in the Liberal Unionist ranks. The argument of his hon. Friend had met with two sets of criticism. It was said he was far too generous in proposing a reduction of taxation for England as well as for Ireland. Of course the difficulty he saw was that to repeal the tax for Ireland, and leave it operating for England would mean a Custom House as between the two countries. That, no doubt, was a matter which concerned Englishmen a great deal more than Irishmen, at the same time he did not think it was a concession they were likely to obtain, and his hon. Friend had to move by steps. A great deal had been said, especially by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about the smallness of the relief that would be given to Ireland. He did not think £800,000 would be a small relief at all. He remembered that when they were discussing the Home Rule Bill brought in by the last Government of Mr. Gladstone, they had some doubts as to whether the financial proposals of the Bill were sufficiently favourable, and the able financiers responsible for the Bill told them that they had a free half-million; and if a free half-million was a matter of importance, the relief now proposed by his hon. Friend was surely worth having. The hon. Member who last spoke laid down a principle none of them would be prepared to dispute—viz., that every class of the community should make some contribution to the taxation of the country, in order to bring home their responsibility for the administration of the country and its expenditure. At the same time, it must be remembered that when a country went to war the first class to suffer was the working class. They formed the majority of the rank and file of the army, and they were the first to feel the loss of employment which must come as the result of war; so that the burden fell primarily more heavily on those whose only capital was the wage they earned by their own right hand. As to tobacco being a luxury, personally he considered it an obnoxious indulgence, the fascination of which he had never been able to discover. But that was not the opinion of the majority of the inhabitants of the country, and he was convinced that tobacco in England, and still more in Ireland, was regarded among the working classes as nearly if not entirely a necessity. He therefore sympathised with any attempt to reduce its price.

said that when discussing the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer triumphantly challenged the Irish Members to name a single tax that bore unjustly on the Irish people. It was in reply to that challenge that he had proposed a reduction of the tax on tobacco. He was criticised because he proposed to extend the same relief to the working classes of this country as it would bring to those of Ireland. He replied that they must endeavour to remedy this Irish grievance in every possible way. That was their platform. A financial system that was good for England, would never be got to suit Ireland. They could not successfully run on the same financial system, a poor agricultural country and a wealthy manufacturing country. What suited the one admirably would break the back of the other. That was their political creed, and he believed that time would prove that they were right. But they had been denied the right, and had been treated with ignominy when they had tried to remedy the Irish situation by establishing a differential system. They were told that the two countries must be treated as one whole and not as two entities. He came forward, therefore, with a proposal based on that. He said, "if you won't apply a separate remedy, apply a general remedy." Then, when he accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's challenge and proposed to abolish a tax which pressed cruelly on the Irish people, lie was met with the statement:—

"Your proposal will make too big a hole in my Budget; the English are well off as they are— they don't grumble."

That answer was only an illustration of the impossibility of the situation as regarded Ireland. Then the right hon. Gentleman compared London financially with Ireland. If ever an illustration could be given of the incapacity even of English Members of the highest ability, especially of financial ability, to deal with this Irish question, that certainly was one. It almost led one to despair. In politics all theories were overcome and dominated by practice and results. Whatever might be the opinion of the hon. Baronet the Member for London University, the facts were with them when they said that the existing financial system had robbed and plundered Ireland and had resulted in reducing its population by one-half, while it had plunged the remaining half into deeper poverty than existed 60 years ago. That was a situation which afforded a sufficient answer to the criticisms that had been raised. He knew that he had lain himself open to the charge of showing too much interest in the working classes of England. But that was a charge he was compelled to submit to, for they were obliged to raise this question in every shape and at every opportunity that offered. He himself did not consider it a fair matter of reproach if, in doing some measure of justice to the Irish people, they also applied a remedy to what he considered, even with all England's wealth, to be the unfair taxation of the working classes of this country. An hon. Member had said it was inexpedient and unjust that the working classes should be relieved of all burdens of taxation. He wanted to know who ever proposed such a thing? The fact was generally admitted that in the past the working classes had been made to bear an enormously excessive burden of taxation in proportion to their resources; and what he proposed in this Motion was to continue one step farther that most beneficial tendency of shifting taxation from the shoulders of the working classes on to the shoulders of those who were infinitely better able to bear it. When hon. Members told him that in foreign countries the necessities of life were taxed, and that the burden of taxation on the shoulders of the working classes was much heavier than in this country, then he replied, "So much the worse for foreign countries." The unjust burden of taxation that now lay upon Ireland arose from indirect, and not direct taxation. If the whole of the taxation of this country were raised by direct taxation, Ireland would only have to pay something like one twenty-fourth. It was owing to indirect taxation that the proportion of Ireland was raised to nearly double. It was for those reasons that he moved the Amendment, which he should press to a division.

I believe the Report of the Royal Commission establishes that indirect taxation levied in the United Kingdom bears much more hardly upon Ireland than upon England or Scotland. Of that fact there cannot be the least doubt. Indirect taxation bears more hardly upon the poor than upon the rich; Ireland is essentially a poor country, therefore I do believe that to a considerable extent the redress of the financial grievance of Ireland must be looked for in the reduction of indirect taxation. It is also to be looked for in the case of the poorer community in England in the same direction. You may have a state of things where, if you reduce indirect taxation, you must impose additional taxation of a different character. But that is not our case this year or last year. I ventured to point out upon the Second Reading of the Budget Bill that there was a considerable surplus, and that there was money available by which. the tea duty might be reduced by one-half. That would have been another way of appropriating money which was actually in the Exchequer and at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but which has been appropriated in a different manner. The reduction of the tea duty from 4d. to 2d. would have been perfectly within the scope of the financial arrangements of this year, and I should have very much desired that to be done. We are told we are to have a new Financial Commission, which will solve the difficulties which leave not yet been solved. We have the great fact of what I consider the financial grievance of Ireland, which consists in the indirect taxation, and I, for my part, shall always be ready to welcome an opportunity of remedying the injustice by reducing indirect taxation. One of the greatest blessings of this country, not merely financially, but socially and politically, has been the manner in which the wealthier classes have been willing to accept a larger portion of the burdens of taxation than those to which they had been previously accustomed. We have seen in other countries—we have seen it in America—a refusal to accept this principle of increased direct taxation as a substitution for indirect taxation. I believe that unwillingness on the part of the wealthier classes to accept a just share, according to their resources, of the burdens and the increased burdens of the country is one of the greatest evils by which any country can be affected. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe one of the chief sources of the contentment which happily reigns in this country is due to the fact that the wealthier classes have been willing to relieve the poorer classes by increasing the direct taxation of the country and reducing the indirect taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] I concur with my hon. Friend below the Gangway in the view that the whole tendency of future finance ought to be in the direction of still further diminishing indirect taxation in this country, and so making the taxation more tolerable to the great masses of the people of this country and consequently producing greater contentment. [Cheers.]

thought the discussion had turned too much upon the question. between Ireland and Great Britain. The Motion had no reference to the mutual relations of the two islands, but it was a Motion for the relief of taxes which affected the inhabitants of the two islands. The real question did not lie between the inhabitants of one island and another, but between the poorer and the richer classes of the community. If anything had been proved by the recent investigations of the Financial Relations Commission it was that the poorer classes of the United Kingdom, wherever found, paid too large a share in respect of the fiscal burdens which the national establishment required. Their defence as against the Irish remonstrance of injustice was not that too much money was not extracted from Ireland, but that the greater portion was returned to Ireland. If they had a large process of extraction alone, and did not look to what was spent in Ireland above what was spent in Great Britain, they should have to confess that relatively too much had been extracted from Ireland. They saw at once that a confession of that kind involved the confession that their financial system as it at present stood was unjust to the poorer classes. A system which, was properly balanced ought not to be unjust to any section of the islands, and why their system operated more severely in one island than in the other was because there were a larger number of poorer persons there. ["Hear, hear!"] These poorer persons were not more hardly taxed than the poorer persons in Great Britain. The man who bought whisky in Tipperary did not pay more in relation to his means than the poor wretch in Drury Lane who drank gin and whose means were the same. The hon. Member for East Mayo was moving in the right direction in wishing to amend the inequality of the burdens imposed on rich and poor, and he saw in the reduction of the tobacco duty a means of redressing a burden that pressed on the poor in Ireland and the poor in Great Britain also. The hon. Member thought a great wrong had been inflicted upon Ireland because the cultivation of tobacco there had been abolished. But experiments had shown that tobacco and beetroot for sugar could not be cultivated at a profit. The hon. Member objected to the relation between the duty on cigars and the duty on un-manufactured tobacco, and he derided the argument used in 1863 that the revision of the duty on tobacco was founded on the principles of free trade, as if there could be any question of free trade in reference to the production of a commodity which was forbidden in the United Kingdom. But the question of free trade was applicable to the taxation of that commodity, and it was in the interests of free trade that the duty on cigars was reduced, so as to place it more nearly on an equality with the tax on tobacco generally. Cigars were made in this country of un-manufactured tobacco, and if there was a great difference between the duty on unmanufactured tobacco and cigars a premium was offered to the manufacturer of cigars, and Mr. Ayrton, a man of great ability, defended the interests of his constituency, which contained a large proportion of the cigar manufacturers of the United Kingdom, and fought against free trade in the interests of those engaged in the tobacco industry who worked in Whitechapel. The alteration of the tobacco duty in 1863 was made strictly in deference to the doctrines of free trade, and was done to prevent an unjust advantage being given to the manufacturer of cigars at home. The inequality of taxation between the different consumers of tobacco ought to be redressed, and Parliament had endeavoured to redress it by increasing the duty in favour of the consumers of low-priced tobacco. This was not a controversy between two islands, but between the upper and lower social strata. But the inequalities of taxation between the upper and lower social England than in any country in the civilised world, and were certainly fewer than in France or in the United States. But still we had not realised, what must be the aim of every financier, that the proportion of the contribution of every class of the community should bear a right relation to their means. The result of the Financial Relations Commission was an uncontrovertible demonstration of that fact. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his arrangements for the year, but the hon. Member for East Mayo might derive satisfaction from the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that he had been considering the tobacco duty with a view to doing something substantial. For himself, he would rejoice if means could be found, without the imposition of fresh taxation, to gradually diminish and ultimately extnguish the inequalities of taxation which still existed and which were at the root of the complaints of the sister isle. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that Ireland was a spirit-drinking country, while England was a. beer-drinking country. In proportion to alcoholic strengths beer was not taxed as heavily as spirits, with the result that the poor man in Ireland, who took his liquor in spirits, paid more than the noun who drank beer.

reminded the hon. Member that the clause referred to tobacco, and not to beer or spirits.

remarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said no means were provided for making good the loss that would be involved if the proposal of the clause were adopted, and he was suggesting means that might be available. The money taken from tobacco duty should be levied on beer. In that way the inequality would be rectified. The Exchequer would take mere money from the Englishman and less from the Irishman. Early in the century beer was taxed three times as notch as spirits, and if they went back to the original tax on, beer they would greatly relieve the grievances of which Ireland complained.

rose to move the following Clause:—

Section two, Sub-section one (b), of the Finance Act, 1894, shall he read and have effect as if after the words "Property in which the deceased" the words "at the time of his death" were inserted, and as if after the words "any other person" the words "at the time of such death" were inserted.

He said it was possible under the terms of the Finance Act of 1894 for any person who was the absolute owner of any property to transfer any portion of that property during his lifetime, in which case any property so transferred did not become liable to duty. But, with regard to settled properties, any person who had a life interest in them was held to be unable to divest himself of that interest, and if he should during his lifetime transfer it to any other person, and thus at the time of his death should have no interest whatever, it was still held to be liable to duty exactly the same as if lie had retained it until the time of his death. He cited the case of a man who died leaving a widow and some young children. The property of the father would naturally pass direct to the children if those children were of age at the time of his death, but if they were under age it was customary that he should give to his widow a life interest in the property, and that the children should take her interest at her death. It was a very common thing in such a case for the widow on one or other of the children coming of age to transfer to the child some portion of the life interest vested in herself. That property then passed entirely from the widow and was enjoyed by the child absolutely from the date of the transfer; but on the death of the widow seine years after the transfer Estate Duty was claimed to be payable on the property exactly as if she had retained it to her death. He had put down the Amendment to the Finance Bill of last year to meet the hardship of such a case as that, but on the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who pointed out that the point was one of an extremely doubtful nature, he withdrew the Amendment. On looking into the matter it was found that at first the Finance Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire was interpreted by the Treasury in the sense that a person had an absolute right to transfer his or her life interest in a property exactly as a freehold was transferred. That might be taken as the original view of the authors of the Act.

expressed dissent.

said the way the Act was administered by the right hon. Gentleman when he was in charge of the Treasury was that duty was not claimed in the case he had just described. Just before the Liberal Government went out of Office advice was given by the then Law Officers of the Crown that duty was chargeable in that particular case, and the Treasury proceeded to claim duty in all cases. But it was found after a time that this created enormous difficulties in regard to settlements made prior to the passing of the Act, and then the Treasury proceeded to administer the Act in a third sense—namely, that duty should only be claimed when the settlement was made subsequent to the passing of the Act. It was therefore evident that the interpretation of the Act was a matter of extreme doubt and difficulty, and, in the circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Amendment was before the House last year, expressed the wish that the proper interpretation of the Act as at present worded should be made clear in the Courts of law before the House was asked to deal with the point raised in the Amendment. It appeared to him that it was hardly fair that any private individual should be asked to bear the cost of art action against the Crown in order to have this doubtful point settled, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recognising the force of the argument, agreed that if a case should be found which, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown distinctly raised this point, the Treasury would pay the reasonable costs of both sides. On that understanding he postponed his Amendment until this Session. He was glad to say that within the last few weeks a case had arisen which had been accepted by the Law Officers of the Crown as raising the point in question in a clear and definite manner. It was rather curious that in this case the widow should have borne the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the son to whom the property passed should be one of his constituents in the Woodbridge division of Suffolk. (Laughter.) He therefore asked the leave of the Committee to further postpone his Amendment until the case was decided by the Law Courts.

called upon Mr. Lough in whose name stood the next Amendment on the Paper.

rose to a point of order. He asked whether any opportunity was to be given for a reply to the statement of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division, who was mistaken in regard to the law?

There is no question before the Committee.

said he should like to have it made clear, in the interest of the Committee, whether a Member could make a long speech in reference to an Amendment he did not move, incorporating in that statement a number of extremely controversial topics, and then that no opportunity should be given for a reply. If so it was a great waste of the time of the Committee. ["Hear, hear"]

I was under the impression that the hon. Member was going to conclude his speech by moving his Amendment.

said he had not been aware that any one desired to enter into a discussion on the matter. He now begged to move his Amendment, and after the discussion would withdraw it by leave of the Committee.

said that the point raised by the Amendment, about which there was considerable doubt, was now before the Courts, and he ventured to suggest that in the circumstances debate on the Amendment was unnecessary and would be a waste of the time of the Committee.

said he did not desire to see a debate raised. But what he objected to was that the statement of the hon. and gallant Member, winch was in the highest degree controversial, should be made and that no opportunity should be given for a reply. He would urgently press on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that if the Amendment were accepted a portion of the Finance Act would be seriously imperilled. Take the case of a man having an estate for life with some one else having the estate in remainder. The man with the estate for life had only, when it was declared he had but a month to live, to sell the value of his life estate, for perhaps a third of the year's interest or less, and the effect would be that the property would escape from Estate Duty altogether. He did not wish to argue the question; but it must not be supposed that those who helped to pass the Finance Act of 1894 were willing to see a coach and six driven through it as the hon. Member proposed in his Amendment. If the decision of the Courts were opposed to the contention of the Attorney General, he wished to point out what a necessity there would be for rescuing the Act.

pointed out that if the Amendment were carried the administration of the Act of 1891 would only be restored to the principle on which it was conducted for a whole year after the Act was passed. The present system was not carrying out lie intention of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth. It was a refinement of the Law Officers. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

said that he had promised to consider this question, and the Customs officials had assured him that the clause proposed. by the hon. Member would involve no injury to the revenue, and might give facilities to the coffee trade. Therefore he was willing to accept the clause. ["Hear!"]

said that at present Estate Duty was paid out of the residuary estate, and many wills had been made by testators on the basis of the existing law, and he was advised that to carry out the proposal of his hon. Friend would cause great difficulty and confusion, and lead to a considerable increase of payments to lawyers by requiring these wills to be recast. He must therefore refuse the Amendment. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

pointed out that the whole object of the enactment in question was to make property, wherever situate, subject to the duty. If a distinction were made between property abroad and property here it would give an enormous advantage to foreign investments over investments in this country. That was to say, if a man invested in the British Funds he would pay the duty, whereas if he invested in, say, Russian Funds, he would pay no duty at all. He confessed to sonic surprise that the hon. Member should propose Amendment founded upon such a. principle as. that.

was of opinion tied the Amendment, if accepted, would open the door to considerable evasions of the Death Duties, and would be very unfair to investors in this country. The amount of foreign personalty which paid the Estate Duty in 1896–97 was £3,334,000, representing about £160,000 duty. He had little doubt that a much greater loss than that would have occurred if it were known that foreign property could be exempt. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

said it was evident that his hon. Friend knew very well what his duty was with regard to the Amendment. His hon. Friend adhered to his own opinion; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must also adhere to his own. The hon. Member had admitted that a gift made a short time before death ought to be looked upon with the gravest suspicion. He almost admitted, in fact, that three months was not an unfair term. But, as a matter of fact the three months limit was tried, and was found to be insufficient to prevent great evasions; and in 1887 it was extended by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. It had been found that twelve months was absolutely necessary to prevent evasions, and he was afraid that even twelve months did not always prevent them. ["Hear, hear!"] He must, therefore, oppose the Amendment.

said it was hopeless to argue with the master of many legions, and, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Motion. ["Hear, hear," and cries of "Divide"]

supported the Clause. He did not know whether the Committee was aware that in giving the decision as to these matters to the Treasury they were really appealing from Cæsar to Cæsar, because the Inland Revenue was the Treasury. The Inland Revenue was bound to act under the direction and control of the Treasury; it could not call itself its own master, so much so that, the Comptroller of Legacy Duties positively told the Public Accounts Committee that if an unlawful order were given to him by the Treasury he would consider it his duty to obey. There was another reason. Their recent experience of the Treasury should disincline the Committee to leave in its hands the construction of an Act of Parliament. The Treasury, in a case which had become notorious admittedly against the law, sanctioned a remission of Death Duties in the case of the Tsar of Russia. The Public Accounts Committee reported that this was against the law; and yet this was the body forsooth to whom the Committee were going to leave a decision which might affect property valued by millions. They gave to the Treasury the power to decide as to whether a work was of historic, national or scientific interest. It was a most improper body to arrive at such a decision on such a subject. The Treasury was only another name for the Inland Revenue, and it would be better to give the decision to the Inland Revenue than to give an appeal from the Inland Revenue to the Treasury. The proper way moreover to decide the intepretation of an Act of Parliament, was to employ the proper machinery which was provided, and which ill the last resort was the courts of law. The first agreement was that between the parties, and in 999 cases out of 1,000, the Inland Revenue and the persons interested in: Legacy Duty would come to an agreement between themselves as to what was brought within the meaning of this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might give his decision in regard to one matter, but another Chancellor of the Exchequer might take an entirely opposite view. Fancy some new, Philistine, inartistic Chancellor of the Exchequer being called upon to decide as to whether a Madonna of the 16th century was or was not of historic interest.

suggested that the two new clauses on the Paper of the hon. Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire should be combined and put forward as one new clause.

accepted this view, and moved to add to the proposed new clause:—

"Section 20, Sub-section 1, of the Finance Act 1896, shall be read and have effect as if after the words 'to be of national, scientific,' the end "artistic' were inserted."

He said that the expression "not yielding income" had led many persons to suppose that heirlooms were exempted from duty. Those who knew better were well aware that the concession obtained from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was of a very narrow character. By the wording of the section objects which were to be exempted from duty were to be of national, scientific, or historic interest. Take the most common instance, the case of family pictures. It was extremely improbable that the bulk of family pictures would come within the category of being national, scientific, or historic"—nay, how many pictures in the National Gallery itself would come within this category? The view of the right hon. member for West Monmouthshire was that the only persons in possession of works of art worth anything in this country were millionaires. Everybody at the present moment professed an extreme interest in art, and the object of the exemption made in the Act was mainly to enable valuable works of art to be retained in this country. Where the national interest came in was when such works of art were sold and found their way to foreign countries. One of the results of the financial achievement of the right hon. Member for Monmouth was that a very large number of works of art had left this country. He had been assured by a gentleman who was probably the highest authority upon this subject in the kingdom, Sir William Agnew, that no less than three-and-a-half millions worth of pictures had left, this country and found homes abroad since the Act of 1891 was passed. ["Hear, hear!"] That was an important fact, and it would be a misfortune to this country if works of art were to continue leaving at that rate. ["Hear, hear!"] flu would also point out that in consequence of the extremely narrow character of the concession made under the Act there was no encouragement to private individuals to form collections. He had heard of public-spirited people who had left valuable collections to public bodies, but who had made it a condition that if any tax was imposed the bequest was not to be effective. Mr. Franks left a very valuable bequest to the British Museum on the condition that no duty should be exacted. He thought this was a very valuable argument in favour of widening the scope of the section, and, as a matter of drafting, as it was already stated that scientific collections must be scientific if they were to be exempt, it stood to reason that works of art ought similarily to be "artistic." If, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to accept the word "artistic," it was only logical that the word "scientific" should be eliminated.

observed that it was much too early to raise any point as to the working of the clause of last year, because in the financial year ending March last there had not been a single case decided under it. The fact was that collections of this kind were not very common; but there were two cases now before the Inland Revenue. One of them would very soon be decided, and the other one, he imagined, would shortly follow. He was pretty certain that when the decisions were known his hon. Friend and those who sympathised with him would find that the views of the Inland Revenue and the Treasury were much more favourable to them than they seemed to imagine. His hon. Friend had alluded to the extraordinary suggestion which had been made that persons should be enabled to discover whether their collections would be exempt from Death Duties or not before they died. That was quite impossible. ["Hear, hear!"] It would certainly be impossible if the Amendment were accepted and the operation of the Courts substituted for that of the Treasury, because the Courts must interpret the section somewhat narrowly, and they could not decide whether certain articles were exempt from duty before the death occurred upon which the duty would be payable. Lists of collections had been sent to him, and he had been asked to decide whether the articles named in them would be exempt from duty when the person to whom they belonged died, perhaps, 30 or 40 years hence. (Laughter.) He need not say he had declined to undertake such an impossible task. ["Hear, hear!"] The effect of the section could only be tested by its working, and so far as the Amendment went he believed that to transfer the decision from the Treasury to the Law Courts would be to act directly contrary to the interests of those on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke, and would narrow the operation of the clause instead of extend it. ["Hear, hear!"] He should like to state the way in which, in his judgment, the clause would be interpreted. His hon. Friend proposed that the word "artistic" should be inserted. That was absolutely unnecessary. This was the manner in which, as he had indicated, the Inland Revenue proposed to interpret the section: The section was held to apply to particular works of art which were of such national or historic interest that they would be purchased or accepted as a bequest by one of the national collections, and the Inland Revenue would employ an expert to give his opinion upon the subject. If there was any doubt as to the decision of the expert the matter would be referred either to the Trustees of the National Gallery, or of the National Portrait Gallery, or of the British Museum, as the case might be, whose opinion would certainly, so far as he was concerned, be accepted by him as a sufficient guide. ["Hear, hear!"] He ventured to say that no Court of Law in the world would interpret the clause more liberally than that. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended, indeed, that they would interpret it much more narrowly. He would point out that the interpretation he had quoted rendered the word "artistic," which his hon. Friend desired to insert, quite unnecessary, and that he would gain nothing by its insertion. In deciding whether a picture or series of pictures was of historic interest regard would be had not merely to their merits as works of art, but to the persons whom they represented; and not merely the history of the country but of a county or a county family would be taken as justifying the exemption of those pictures from duty. He could not go beyond that interpretation of the clause, and he hoped that the Committee would support him. ["Hear!"]

confessed that he would rather see the won "artistic" inserted in the clause or some equivalent than trust to even the very liberal interpretation placed upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They might not al ways have the good fortune to have a gentleman of such great ability and such large views holding that position. He could corrobate the statement of his hon. Friend as to pictures leaving this country. It was an immense misfortune that men of moderate means having valuable pictures were forced, or believed themselves to be forced, by fear of the death duties, to part with pictures of inestimable value to wealthy American arid foreign purchasers. If things went on as at present in a few years we should have parted with hundreds and thousands of art treasures which we would then give worlds to replace. Surely if the addition of a few simple words would do anything to prevent those pictures going out of the country it would be a boon to the everincreasing number of people in this country who took an interest in art. ["Hear, hear!"]

supported the Amendment, and expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do something more than enunciate a liberal interpretation of the clause.

appealed to his lion. Friends. He had told them that the section of the Act would be interpreted by him in the way lie had stated, and he thought the manner in which they had criticised the wording of it was somewhat ungracious to himself. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that although he should much prefer that the intentions of his right hon. Friend should be enshrined in the Act itself, he thought Ins hon. Friends ought to be satisfied with the liberal interpretation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given to the clause. He thought a great concession had been made.

said he was not altogether satisfied, but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was undergoing a process of conversion—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer: "No, I am not," and laughter]—he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said if the language of the Amendment were closely criticised it would be found to go fir beyond the expressed intention, and give persons power to indefinitely postpone payment of estate duty. But he thought he could satisfy his lion. Friend that the grievance referred to did not really exist. Property having been settled on A for life and remainder to B as tenant in tail, they joined to break the entail, and the estate entailed was converted to remainder in fee, and so resettled on B for life with remainder to his son. Such was the case put by his lion. Friend. After that resettlement and after the Finance Act, 1894, came into force, A died, and estate duty was paid on the transmission of the property from A to B under settlement, and his lion. Friend said that on the death of B estate duty would be claimed again. To that he had to say—and he spoke with the full concurrence of the Attorney General that under the circumstances described by his hon. Friend the fact of duty having been paid on the death of A made it impossible to claim it on the death of B. It would be seen on reference to the subsection of the Act, that if estate duty had already been paid in respect, to any settled property since the death of the settlor duty would not again be payable until the death of the person who at the time or since was competent to dispose of the property.

said he was perfectly satisfied with this declaration, but he justified himself to the Committee for raising the point. The words in the Act referred to by the Solicitor General were a little doubtful, and an authoritative interpretation was required. The words declared that duty should not be payable except on the death of the person competent to dispose of the property. As the person in the case he had cited had been held competent, and was charged as absolute owner, the point naturally arose whether the property would be again liable. The point appeared doubtful, and the case being submitted to competent lawyers, it was considered doubtful how it would be interpreted by the Inland Revenue. He was perfectly satisfied with the authoritative decision given. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

asked for an explanation as to how it came about that after the Secretary for Scotland had given a certain provisional promise to sanction certain public works in the Island of Lewis, no provision was made in the Estimates for carrying out these works. The local parties concerned had expended considerable sums of money in advertising these works, in preparing plans, and in making all the arrangements necessary to entitle them to obtain the grant provided for under the Highlands and Islands Act of 1891. The refusal to implement the Secretary for Scotland's promise was likely to have a very evil effect in the district. The County Council of Ross and Inverness and the Lews had made representations to the Scottish Office in regard to this matter and as it was a matter peculiarly personal to the Secretary for Scotland, it was unfortunate he could not be present to answer for himself.

said that, as he had already explained on the Highlands and Islands Vote, the reason why the Estimate was diminished this year was that the £170,000 which the Treasury had undertaken to pay had been exhausted. But though the Vote had been diminished assistance was being given to the Highlands and Islands in another way—namely, in the form of the grant of £35,000 for congested districts. The Secretary for Scotland had no power to enter into engagements as to any particular work, and the hon. Member was quite right in saying that it was only a provisional promise, though even that term was perhaps a little too strong. He was very sorry if any money already spent in the locality should be wasted, but if it were it was just one of the risks incidental to the situation. Before any consent could be given the money must be voted by Parliament to carry out the work. Not sufficient money was voted to go on with the work, but they were entering upon a new chapter, so to speak, in the Congested Districts Bill, and, although he could understand the feeling of disappointment in the Highlands, he did not think that anyone could justly attribute any blame to the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, because all that was done by the Scotch Office was to give a sort of preliminary consideration to the matter, which could scarcely be called even a provisional consent. As to the presence of the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons, that was not for him to go into, but it seemed to him to raise the point as to whether they were to have any Ministers in the House of Lords at all.

said he was greatly disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. H the Secretary for Scotland or the right hon. Gentleman would only approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury, more money would be got for Scotland. A little more firmness was all that was necessary. He did not approve of the policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. He therefore asked, why should not the money for the works in the Highlands be provided outside the money to be given under the Congested Districts Bill?

said there was not a single word in the Act of 1891 about £170,000. There was nothing in the Act to prevent the Secretary for Scotland giving the money.

complained that in many parts of the Highlands children who did not know a word of English were put under masters who did not know a word of Gaelic. He wished that in those districts where the children spoke Gaelic only, the schoolmasters should be Gaelic-speaking.

said there was nothing to prevent the School Boards appointing competent Gaelic-speaking teachers. Certainly the question was one which was properly left to the School Boards to deal with.

said that the idioms in the Gaelic language were entirely different from those in the English language, and it was well that a teacher should comprehend the forms of thought passing through a child's mind, and that a child should be able to understand what his master really meant. It would certainly tend to make education in the Gaelic-speaking portions of the north of Scotland much more efficient if care were taken that a certain number, at all events, of school instructors understood the language of the children they were employed to teach.

said that lie and his hon. Friends were anxious that by means of a Gaelic-speaking teacher a child would at a very much earlier age and at very considerably less trouble acquire the English language than it did under the present system. He was certain that if the Education Department were to show a greater desire to encourage employment of Gaelic-speaking teachers the authorities in the Highlands would gladly employ them At present the Government gave a special grant—it is only a small one—in cases where Gaelic-speaking teachers were employed. But to employ such men it cost the authorities considerably more than the grant they received.

said it seemed to him that the attitude of the Scotch Office in this matter was very similar to that of the Irish authorities. The authorities in both countries did not appear to be friendly to the Gaelic language: their policy seemed to be directed towards—he would not say stamping the language out, but offering no facilities for its extension. That was a very great pity. Gaelic was one of the oldest languages in Europe, and it ought to be a care of the Government to preserve it. The hon. member for Ross and Cromarty merely asked that in those districts where the children spoke Gaelic a man who understood Gaelic should be employed to teach their. Surely a more modest request could not be made.

said the Gaelic-speaking children could never think in English. They thought in the language they were accustomed to speak in, and whenever they wanted to learn English they naturally used their own language as a basis. The encouragement given by the Education Department for the study of English through the medium of Welsh ought to be taken as a precedent and an illustration in this ease. ["Hear, hear!"] In Welsh schools children learnt both English and Welsh simultaneously and with marvellous results, as is abundantly shown in Mr. Legard's recent report on Primary Education in the Principality. ["Hear, hear!"] In the interest of true education it was well that the mother tongue should be regarded as the basis of education; and, therefore, teachers in the Highlands of Scotland ought to be familiar with Gaelic. [Cheers.]

said that he hoped the concession which had been asked for would not be granted. If the people of the Highlands were to he handicapped with the Gaelic language their career in life would be very poor. This demand was a pure matter of sentiment. [Cries of "No!]"

said that the hon. Baronet misunderstood the position. He talked about, "handicapping children with Gaelic," but he forgot that nature had already done that. The question was, how were Gaelic-speaking children best to be taught to speak English? To send a teacher who could not himself speak Gaelic was absurd.

said that he was perhaps the only Member of the House who could speak Gaelic, and the knowledge of that language had been an unspeakable pleasure to him. It would be a great pity if such a poetical and fluent language were allowed to die. The child who had been taught Gaelic literature properly had a great advantage over the ordinary English-speaking child.

wished for information as to the communications with the outer islands. It was singular that the Jubilee year should be marked by a reduction of the means of communication between Oban and the islands.

said it was very curious that the communications with two of the counties which returned Conservatives should be cut down from two steamers to one. When the subject was last before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a provisional promise that he would consider this matter. This was the year in which they had been asssured that letters would be delivered to every householder, and now they were going to cut down the means of delivering letters in the Highlands. He hoped the Government would reconsider the subject and bring in a supplementary estimate, thus assuring the people that the service would be continued.

said the line of steamers had not been a success, and the Department had recommended that the two steamers should be replaced by one steamer of a larger size. The promise given with regard to postal facilities would lie carried out, but it was impossible to do that without time to look into the subject which should be considered from the point of view of trade, and also from that point of view of the postal facilities.

protested against the rushing through of this Bill, —[laughter]—not to correct any departmental mistake, but to satisfy an ecclesiastical interest. Of the 20 persons who signed the petition 12 had been induced by fraud to affix their names. Only eight names remained, so that there was no irregularity, and the scheme need not have been laid before Parliament. In the circumstances the House ought not to, pass a Bill which was fraught with injury to the inhabitants of the district, and especially to the children.

said that the scheme as it originally stood was almost unanimously desired in the educational interests of the district. It was a well-known fact that 12 men had signed a petition against it, because it was misrepresented to them that a new rate would be levied in consequence of the passing of the scheme. The joint Educational Committee of the county of Montgomery, composed of three Churchmen and two Nonconformists, had received absolutely no evidence against the original scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] Out of 381 County Council electors in Berriew, while 14 had refused to sign, and 18 had not been asked, all the rest had signed a petition against this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] This clearly proved the Bill is diametrically opposed to the wishes of those who knew the educational needs and interests of the parish best. [cheers.]

said he had an Amendment to move with reference to the constitution of the Congested Districts Board. He suggested that the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh should be members of the Board. They were men of wide experience, and both in Glasgow and Edinburgh there was a considerable Highland population who were very much in sympathy with the population of the Highlands. To add these two gentlemen to the Board would have the effect of putting the Board on a more popular basis, and would give great satisfaction.

said that this was a tentative Measure, and no doubt there was a difficulty in knowing exactly how to form the Board; but the Government had done the best they could, after mature consideration, and they seemed to have pleased at least some of the Gentlemen who sat on the opposite Benches. No doubt the Commission as constituted by the Bill had a good deal of the official element, but the officials placed upon it were for the most part permanent officials, and be was afraid the Government must stand by their scheme. Both the gentlemen suggested in the Amendment were very busy men, and accordingly, without doubting for one moment that the Board would obtain two very good men if they were added to it, lie did not think they would be a practical element on the Board, because it would be too much to expect that they would be able to give much of their tinge to the affairs of the Board. He thought the constitution of the Commission was a matter which must really be left to the Government, and he could not accept the Amendment.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

pointed out that there was no representative of the Treasury on the Board. It was entirely a Board for spending purposes, and he would be glad to know whether it was not usual to have a representative of the Treasury on such a Board?

said that if the lion. Member looked at the Bill he would find that, although there was no representative of the Treasury on the Board, the Treasury had a good deal to say as to the spending of the money.

observed that it was admitted by the Lord Advocate that the formation of this Board had been a matter of great difficulty, and he could well understand the difficulty of constituting a Board which should be satisfactory to everyone concerned. But in its proposed form the Board would not give complete satisfaction, nor would it supply a sufficient guarantee that the object which the Government had in view would be carried out. Who were to be the members of this Board? In the first place, there was the Secretary for Scotland, and every word that had been uttered by the Lord Advocate with reference to the Lord Provosts of Edinburgh and Glasgow applied equally to the membership of the Secretary for Scotland, who was a very busy man, engaged in London. It seemed to be the object of Parliament to keep on heaping work on the Scotch Secretary, and so to diminish the importance of the ancient office of the Lord Advocate. The present Secretary for Scotland might have a thorough knowledge of the congested districts of Scotland, but it did not follow that his successors would all have the same knowledge. The power of the Secretary for Scotland on this Board would be very large, because he was to be supported by the presence of the Under Secretary, and would have the right of appointing other members. If the Government wished to snake this Bill effective and to do some good in the Highlands, they should take care that the persons who were to administer the Measure were men possessing local knowledge. The Amendment of his hon. Friend seemed to provide machinery for the appointment of at least two men who would have such knowledge, and its adoption would possibly prevent the waste of a great deal of money which the Government were devoting to the purpose of relieving the congestion. He hoped, therefore, that the Rower of nominating two members would be given to the County Councils. The proposal of the Amendment, it should be noted, was limited by the condition that the appointments of the County Councils were to be made subject to regulations drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland.

reminded the Committee that a large portion of the sum to be administered by the new Board was to be withdrawn from the administration of the County Councils. A portion of this £20,000 a year was made up of savings on the Estimates, and those savings were to a large extent spent by the County Councils. Seeing that the Government were proposing to withdraw from the County Councils the whole of the money which they used to administer under the Highlands and Islands Works Act, the least that could be granted them in return was some representation on the new Board. No part of the money which Parliament had intrusted to the Highland County Councils had been misspent. Those County Councils had, in fact, shown a great amount of energy and wisdom in the expenditure of Parliamentary money, and their example might well be followed in other parts of the country. The new Board, as the Government proposed to constitute it, would be the mere creature of the Secretary for Scotland, who would command four votes as against three. That would be to give an unnecessarily large amount of power to one individual, and he held that the constitution of the Board would be considerably improved if the Amendment were accepted. Then he wished to know whether the new members of the Board were to be remunerated or not. It would be impossible to secure the services of men of ability who possessed local knowledge unless provision was made for their remuneration. The only persons who could be expected to serve on a Board of this kind without remuneration were permanent officials or parties who were interested in the administration of the Act in a particular way, and the only persons so interested would be the landlords and factors, and their presence on the Board would not meet with the approval of the Highland people.

said that the Government must adhere to the constitution of the Commission as provided in the Bill. The proposal was to appoint two Members who would be practically popularly elected. The scheme of the Commission, rightly or wrongly, was that it should be practically under Government and Parliamentary control. That was the reason why the Secretary for Scotland was included in the body. The great advantage of Parliamentary control meant, not the power to disallow a vote but to enable the proceedings of the Commission, if need he, to he defended. In the opinion of the Government, therefore, it was better to have a Coin mission of this official character, looking to the novel experiment that was being made, than to have anything in the nature of a popularly elected element upon it.

pointed out that the members were to be elected by the different county councils in the congested districts. He thought that this was a very reasonable protection as to the men to he appointed. In dealing with the elective element the Government should not forget that on the Fishery Board in Scotland there was now an elective element. Thus the principle had been recognised that the parties principally interested should be represented in order that their wants should be made known. All that the Scottish Members asked for therefore was that two men should be appointed who were directly in touch with the wants of the people of the district, and who should be enabled to snake the case of the people known. The position of the Government afforded an illustration of the inconvenience arising from having the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Lords.

urged that their wish was to have practical men on the Commission. Those who had been appointed were busy men, and it was utterly impossible for them to spend eight or ten days in travelling to and from Edinburgh to visit the congested districts of the Highlands.

asked whether the gentlemen to be nominated possessing local or special knowledge were to be paid?

said that according to the design of the Bill they were not to be paid. In the Irish case the added members were not paid; and if it was possible to get unpaid services in Ireland, he hoped that it would not be more difficult to get similar service rendered in Scotland.

said if the members of the Irish Board were not paid, that was no reason why the y should not be paid. Hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench were paid for their services, and as a matter of common sense those gentlemen who were to give their services on the Scotch Board, if their services were worth having, should have some remuneration; and payment would give control. The First Lord drew his salary, and why should not these gentlemen—why should not everybody get their wages all round? [Ministerial laughter and cheers.]

thought they would find on inquiry that in the case of the Congested District Board for Ireland, if there was no actual remuneration there was a very liberal allowance. The only desire he had in pressing the point—he did not expect they were going to deal with it to-night—was to impress very strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of making some provision other than was made in the Bill as it stood. It was not fair to expect that men with special local knowledge—those were the right hon. Gentleman's words— should place their services at the disposal of the public without any provision whatever; and from past experience, he should say that unless they took means to have it put into the Bill, or there was a perfectly clear understanding on the matter, in all probability no provision would be made.

There is a provision for expenses in the subsection.

said he should not have interfered in the debate were it not that the Lord Advocate, in referring to the analogy of Ireland, did so in a manner which he could not regard as altogether complimentary, because there was a sort of covert insinuation—[Cries of "Oh!"] —that there were no Irishmen with sufficient public spirit to act gratuitously. [Cries of "Oh!"]

Precisely the opposite. I paid Irishmen the compliment of saying that we get very good service from them, and I expressed the pious hope that we should get the same in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"]

You added that you hoped the Scotchmen would work without remuneration. However, that is a matter of very little importance. ["Hear, hear!"] The attention of Members, he thought, ought to be called to the composition of the Irish Board before they voted. It consisted of the Chief Secretary, a member of the Land Corporation, whom the Lord Lieutenant might nominate to especially represent agriculture and fishery, certain ex-officio members, and five other members. There were thus five non-official members of the Irish Board, and they were all men above suspicion of partiality or want of judicial fairness. One was an ornament to this House, another was a Roman Catholic Bishop, and they were all men in whom the public had confidence. The Irish Board thus had five members representing the public, and all that his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark asked was that in the case of the Scotch Board there should be two representative members in addition to the two nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. He would not have interposed at all only he thought—as Ireland had been referred to, it might be as well that the House should know what they were doing—that they should have their eyes open, and not blindly follow the First Lord of the Treasury into the Lobby without exactly knowing what was being done under the Irish Act.

said it followed from what the hon. Member who had just spoken had said that there was a real injustice towards Scotland. No doubt certain of the Scotch Members were desirous of the Bill passing, but if it passed in a crude and undigested form he believed it would do more harm than good. It was because he felt that the Lord Advocate had ill-advisedly mentioned the word Ireland—[laughter]— that he had thought it his duty to take part in the Debate. The Lord Advocate might be acquainted with Ireland, but he was evidently not acquainted with the constitution of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, and it was for that reason that he had ventured for the second time in the course of eleven years to put in a word on a Scotch Bill.

proposed to leave out the word "two," and to insert the word "four." The Board would have to deal with an area three times as large as that of the Congested Districts Board in Ireland, yet that Board had nine members, while the Scotch Board would only have seven. He did nut believe in large Boards. But the two members nominated by the Secretary for Scotland would not be sufficient to overtake the work, hence his Amendment for four. The only practical man on the Board would be the chairman of the Crofters Commission. He himself knew the difficulties of getting about in the Highlands. Lewis was the most congested part. It took eight or ten days to go from Edinburgh and back to remote parts of the island of Lewis. In that case the two would not be sufficient. The Secretary and Under Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of the various Boards were busy men who could not leave London or Edinburgh. Would the Secretary for Scotland be likely to visit remote parts of Lewis? Travelling was difficult mid tedious in those parts, where there were no roads and not even footpaths over the wild no connecting the congested townships.

said that after the declarations he had made, he must stand by the Commission as it was. But the hon. Member was scarcely accurate. He compared the district of the proposed Board with that of the Irish Congested Districts Board. But the district of the former would not cover the whole of the Crofter district, but only certain portions of it.

said that the Government had the appointment of five official members and the other four, so they had nothing to complain of.

said the Lord Advocate had given no reason against the increase of the figure from "two" to "four.'' It would always be within the power of the Secretary for Scotland to nominate one, two, three, or four persons, as he might think proper, and to confine the number to two did not seem to allow sufficient latitude. He could not see how any possible danger could arise from the in- crease. The cast-iron attitude the Lord Advocate seemed disposed to assume towards all Amendments did not commend itself to Scotch Members, and would not facilitate progress with the Bill.

hoped the Government would not take up an attitude of absolute resistance to all Amendments. There was a general desire that the Bill should pass in as perfect a shape as possible, and the Lord Advocate must recognise that his hon. Friends represented a large amount of public opinion in the Highlands, the overwhelming majority of the people in whose interest the Bill was brought forward. Circumstances might arise to render additional appointments necessary, and this Amendment did not even imply that the Commission would be increased by two extra members, it simply left the power with the Secretary for Scotland to make the appointments if, in his view, the circumstances required them. Every Member would be appointed officially and represent the view of the Government rather than of the people in whose interest the Board was constituted, and a special crofter or other question might arise in relation to which the appointment of another Commissioner as a trusted expert might give strength and popularity to the Board. Would the Lord Advocate agree to alter the word front "two" to "three" giving power to add three Commissioners?

said he was anxious to meet the views of hon. Members, and would agree to insert the word "three" instead of the word" two."