Commons Sitting of 8 July 1879

MINUTES.
—PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Third Reading—Liverpool Lighting٭ and passed.
PUBLIC BILLs—Resolution [July 7] reported—Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) [Salary and Pension]٭.
Ordered—First Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance٭ [239]; Commons Act (1876) Amendment (No. 2)٭ [240]; Saint Giles Cathedral (Edinburgh)٭ [l238]; Channel Islands (Applicability of Acts)٭ [237]; Occupation Roads ٭ [241]; Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards) ٭ [242].
First Reading—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers)٭ [235].
Committee—Army Discipline and Regulation [88]—R.P.
Committee —Report—Customs Buildings٭ [228]; Artizans' Dwellings Act (1868) Extension (re-comm.)٭ [216–236].
Considered as amended—Conveyancing and Land Transfer (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment٭ [198].
Third Reading — Public Loans Remission٭[218]; Highway Accounts (Returns)٭ [227]; Cork Borough Quarter Sessions ٭ [226], and passed.
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.
  CRIMINAL LAW — THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—THE CONVICT ORTON.

    QUESTION.
    DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would state to the House why he objects to see Captain Barry of New Zealand, who is a person of position there, having been three times Mayor, and who, having well known Arthur Orton and De Castro, is prepared to prove that they are two distinct individuals?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, be had only followed the usual course which was taken in all cases of this kind. The gentleman in question had made a statement in writing which had been forwarded to the Home Office. That statement was referred to the Solicitor to the Treasury and to the Law Officers of the Crown who had charge of the case.

    PUBLIC LOANS REMISSION BILL—IN—TEREST UNPAID.—QUESTION.
    MR. DODSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon
    1864
    the Table of the House a statement or computation of the amount of simple interest unpaid in respect of the several loans proposed to be remitted by the Public Loans Remission Bill, and of the total amount thereof?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he should be glad to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman. He might, however, state that every year the amount of the interest increased, and, according to a rough calculation, it was at the present time somewhat more than £250,000.

    ARMY DSICIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—FLOGGING—QUESTIONS.
    MR. MACDONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it be the intention of the Government to make the same modification of the law or practice as regards flogging in the Navy to that which was yesterday announced in respect to the Army; and, if not, what are the reasons for the continuation of such a punishment in the Navy?
    THE CHANCELLOR OFF THE EXCHEQUER:Sir, it is intended to put the law as regards the punishment of flogging in the Army and in the Navy on the same footing, and I believe a Bill for that purpose has already been drafted.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he had received a circular that morning announcing that there would be an anti-flogging meeting in Hyde Park on Sunday. In the postscript to the circular were the words—" I have a Government cat-o'-nine tails to exhibit on the occasion." As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was objectionable that the public should see the cat, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he proposed to prevent the exhibition on Sunday?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS:I have not had any intimation of the meeting in question.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON:Will the Home Secretary take any steps to stop the exhibition of the cat, if it be so objectionable?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS:I think the matter may be left in my hands.
    SIR HENRY JAMESasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay a Schedule upon the Table show-

    1865
    ing clearly what offences the punishment of flogging was to apply to; and, if not, will he lay upon the Table a Paper which would show at a glance what were the offences punishable by death? This would save all ambiguity, and Members would then be spared the necessity of searching through the Bill in order to obtain the facts.
    COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, whatever they did, he hoped there would be no doubt about the matter. He had hoped he made himself clear yesterday, and he pointed out that it would be difficult to move a new clause, because the words would come better on the Report on Clause 44, although the discussion might be taken upon the Schedule. In addition to the Schedule issued this morning, and in order to make the matter as clear as possible, it was his intention to prepare a separate Paper, showing all the offences for which the punishment of death could be inflicted, and he thought this would meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

    EXHIBITION OF ZULUS.

      QUESTIONS.
      MR. E. JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioner of Police had interfered to prevent an exhibition of six friendly Zulus at the Royal Aquarium? If so, under what circumstances, on what ground, and by what authority had such interference taken place? He also asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that they were now being exhibited in St. James's Hall, and why no interference had taken place in regard to that exhibition also?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS:Sir, I was informed, a few days ago, that an exhibition of friendly Zulus was contemplated at the Aquarium. I am bound to say that I thought that was an exhibition which, under the circumstances, would not meet either with the approval of the country or be consonant with the general feelings of the community. It is not necessary for me to state what powers I possess, or what powers I exercise. What I did was this. I sent for the directors of the Aquarium, who came to see me, and I received from them precisely that which I expected to receive. The moment it was pointed out to them that it
      1866
      might be looked upon as an improper proceeding, they immediately withdrew the exhibition, and there was not the slightest necessity for using coercion of any kind. With regard to the last part of the Question—namely, that these persons are being exhibited at St. James's Hall, I had information of that fact about five minutes before I came down to the House; and I shall certainly see the directors of St. James's Hall, and expect from them the same attention that I have received from the directors of the Aquarium.
      MR. CALLAN:Has the right hon. Gentleman received an invitation to a private interview with these Zulus, which, I believe, other Members of the House have received, in common with myself?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS:I have received none.
      MR. E. JENKINSasked, under what authority the Commissioner of Police interfered with the directors of the Aquarium?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS:The Commissioner simply made inquiries for me, and reported what had transpired.
      MR. E. JENKINSgave Notice that he would call attention to the matter at the Evening Sitting.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A)—TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) BILL—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

      CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL REPORT.
      LORD HENRY LENNOX:Sir, yesterday afternoon it was my duty, as Chairman of the Select Committee now sitting, and which has been sitting for the last five or six weeks, to inquire into the desirability of passing the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, to report to this House the result which had been arrived at by my Colleagues, unanimously with myself, as to what was our duty in this matter. This happened before we concluded the inquiry on which we were engaged, and when it only wanted about three or four hours to enable us to conclude it; and we thought it our duty to ourselves, and still more to the House of Commons, to report the circumstances which had been brought under our notice during the

      1867
      sitting of the Committee. Those facts I will now briefly state. Hon. Members will probably have already read them, because they form part of' the Votes that were distributed this morning; but, perhaps, it may be thought convenient for me to run over them very shortly. I only intend to make a very brief statement, because I do not mean—and, in fact, it would not be right either to myself or my Colleagues to make any comment on this statement. All I intend to do is merely to give the facts to the House, and then to place myself in the hands of the Douse of Commons. It seems that on Tuesday last Mr. Sandi-lands Ward, a solicitor, gave a letter of introduction to a client of his named Mr. Charles E. Grissell, in order that he might go and see the Messrs. Hooker, who are supposed to be the solicitors to the wharfingers, who are opposing the Bill before the Committee. Mr. Grissell went with the letter to Mr. Hooker, and he appears to have had some considerable doubt as to the authenticity of the document. He gave Mr. Grissell a further letter of introduction to Messrs. Cockell, an eminent firm of solicitors, having the conduct of the opposition to the Bill. In order to make my statement perfectly clear and intelligible to all the Members of this House, I ought to state that the Bridge to which the Bill before the Committee relates is one that it is proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry across the River Thames; and there are certain persons having property on the banks of the Thames, and who are wharfingers there, who consider that if the Bridge should be built at the height proposed by the plans, it will interfere with the traffic of the River by stopping the shipping from coming up, and will eventually have the effect of ruining their business. Messrs. Cockell and Cu. are the solicitors to a great majority of these persons who appear as petitioners against the Bill. Well, on Wednesday last, Mr. Grissell, with his letter of introduction from Mr. Hooker, called on Messrs. Cockell, of the firm of Arkcoll, Jones, and Cockell, and he told those gentlemen that he had most ample powers to treat with regard to the Bill; because, he said, he could control the decision of the Committee, and, in proof of this, he could arrange for questions to be put to the Committee which would
      1868
      lead to the destruction of the Bill. Mr. Cockell told Mr. Grissell that he was too late; that there were no more questions to be put, as the evidence was completed, and a decision was about to bed taken on the merits of the Bill. When pressed very hard as to how he could make such a bargain, Mr. Cockell said—
      " Well, all you have to do is this: promise me, before the very eminent counsel who is conducting the Bill for the promoters makes his summing up, that you will arrange with the Committee that they shall unanimously state that compensation must be given to the wharfingers, which would prove a death-blow to the Bill, as the Board of Works have declared that they will not proceed with the measure if compensation is to be given to the wharfingers and others, as it would thus be rendered too expensive to go on with."
      This promise was made by Mr. Grissell, and Mr. Grissell expressed his willingness to put the proposition in writing. Mr. Grissell came down to the Committee Room of the House of Commons next morning, and there had an interview with Mr. Cockell; on which occasion, as the Douse will see from this Report mainly, at the dictation of Mr. Cockell, ho wrote out a paper, in which he agreed to control the decision of the Committee in this sense for the sum of £2,000. Mr. Cockell accepted the document, and told Mr. Grissell that he would send an answer; and from what I have heard of the firm of which Mr. Cockell is a member, I should say that Mr. Cockell could only be looked upon as meaning that an answer would be sent back to Mr. Grissell, telling him that he never ought to have made such an offer. Now, Sir, what I have to ask the House to do is to consider the special Report which I promised to lay before it. We do not say one word as to the merits of the case, nor as to the conduct of any of the parties concerned in it. All we have to do is to be jealous of the honour of this Douse. Before I sit down, I wish to be allowed to say a few words, which I am sure will be endorsed by all the counsel and the numerous persons we have had before us during the last six weeks while we have been engaged on this inquiry, which has been one of the most protracted and laborious that has been brought before the House of Commons for many years —I desire to say, on behalf both of the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners

      1869
      against it, that they are most anxious to he allowed to have our decision on the merits of the question. The Bill is one the delay of which involves a large sum of money both to the petitioners and the promoters; and while I ask this House to lose no opportunity to sift to the very bottom every particular connected with this case, I also ask it to recollect the interests both of the promoters and the petitioners, whose money is being squandered in the most alarming manner, as long as the decision is postponed. I may add that our decision was within three or four hours of being pronounced when this interruption took place; and, therefore, while the House will be pleased to deal with the matter as may seem best, I do hope it will deal with it with as little loss of time as possible. With these few remarks, I now move that the House do take into consideration the Special Report of the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill Committee.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Special Report of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be now considered."—(Lord Henry Lennox. )
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:I think there can be but one feeling in the mind of the House, and that is that the Select Committee, of which my noble Friend (Lord Henry Lennox) is Chairman, have taken the right and proper course in making a special Report of the circumstances which are familiar to us from the Report that has been presented with the Papers this morning, and of which my noble Friend has just now given us a short summary. The question is one which evidently touches the honour of this House; and it is, therefore, important that we should satisfy ourselves with respect to it. But I gather from the statement we have had put before us in print, as well as from the statement of my noble Friend, that a Mr. Charles E. Grissell has in some way or other made a communication, or offered to make a communication, which was intended to persuade a certain body of persons who had private interests in passing a particular Bill that if they would give him a certain sum of money he could and would influence the decision of a Select Committee so as to
      1870
      terminate the matter in their favour. As far as Mr. Grissell's conduct in this matter is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is conduct of a kind which this Douse would be bound to take serious notice of. But, beyond this, it appears from the statement in the Report that various communications took place between Mr. Grissell and other persons, solicitors in the case; and, therefore, I think it would be more satisfactory to the Douse that we should have some fuller communication of the nature of these transactions. This is a matter which, I think, ought not to be left in any degree of doubt, and the course which I would venture to propose to the House would be thins. Instead of making any Order at the present moment for Mr. Grissell to appear before us and offer any explanations he may have to make in the matter, a small Committee should be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances attending these communications, and this special Report should be referred to them. I apprehend that the inquiry of such a Committee would not take very long; and what I propose to do now is to give Notice that to-morrow I will move for the appointment of a small Committee, for the purpose of making inquiry into the whole case. I think that probably a Committee consisting of five Members would be found sufficient; and I, therefore, propose to place upon the Notice Paper a Motion for the appoint. meat of such a Committee, and, tomorrow, I will mention the Gentlemen of whom I shall propose it shall consist. I think that this will probably be deemed the most convenient course for the House to take, especially as it is one that will enable us to ascertain what are the real facts of the case. With regard to the concluding words of my noble Friend, I understood him to mean that he hoped the Committee of which he is the Chairman would be allowed to proceed with its consideration of the Bill before it. He has told us that they had very nearly concluded their inquiry, but that they were interrupted by the necessity of presenting this special Report. He desires that they may be enabled as speedily as possible to bring to a termination an investigation which is highly costly to the parties concerned. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House to make any different Order upon this sub-

      1871
      ject; but it certainly appears to me that it would be a very proper thing to allow the inquiry of the Select Committee to be carried out to its legitimate termination.
      LORD HENRY LENNOX:Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him on one point? I had no idea whatever of suggesting that the Select Committee should be allowed to complete its inquiry before the matter now before the House is decided upon; all I did venture to suggest was, that the present inquiry should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
      MR. DODSON:I do not understand what objection there can be to the Select Committee proceeding with their inquiry into the merits of the Bill that they had before them. It does not appear to me that the inquiry into that measure can be at all affected by the inquiry it is now proposed to enter upon; therefore, I apprehend that, if necessary, an Order of the House should be made to enable the Committee to proceed. I think, however, that they have full power without any such Order, and I shall be somewhat astonished if I am mistaken. With regard to the suggestion that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the appointment of a small Committee to inquire into the subject, it appears to me that that would be a very convenient course.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE:I should have thought that the most convenient course for the Douse to take in this matter would be to follow the precedents of the House, and to have the person who is accused in the Report brought to the Bar of the House. With regard to the other point, the noble Lord has said that it would be inconvenient if the Select Committee were not allowed to continue their labours, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be of opinion that they ought to sit on; but it should be remembered that here we have a charge which affects the honour of the House, and I apprehend that it would be more convenient that that should be disposed of in the first instance. If Mr. Grissell were called to the Bar of the House, he would probably be able to make some absolute and complete explanation or apology, with which the House might be satisfied, and which might have the effect of stopping any further procedure. This,
      1872
      I think, would be the most convenient course to pursue.
      Sin WILLIAM FRASER:I should like to know what power the Committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have of summoning Mr. Grissell before it?
      MR. STEVENSON:I should like clearly to understand what course it is proposed to take to-morrow, in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring his Motion for a Committee before the Douse? The House is aware that the Bill which stands first on the Paper for consideration to-morrow is one of which I have the honour to have charge. It is a most important measure dealing with the question of the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and one in which many people are greatly interested. I am, therefore, very anxious to know whether the possibility of bringing on that Bill is likely to be interfered with?
      MR. CALLAN:I find here, at the end of the Report—
      "The authenticity of these Papers having been verified, the Committee feel bound to report the same to the judgment of the House, as a matter seriously affecting its Privileges; and they have adjourned the further inquiry on the Bill until they shall receive further instructions from the House."
      Therefore, there is no doubt that Mr. C. E. Grissell committed a gross breach of the Privileges of this House; and I apprehend, from precedents that I am aware of, that the usual course would bed to propose a Resolution that a gross breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed, and to order Mr. Grissell to appear at the Bar of the House to-morrow.
      MR. MOWBRAY:I think that the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be by far the most convenient for the Douse to adopt, and one that is likely to lead to a better issue than if Mr. Grissell is brought at once to the Bar of the House. If a Committee is appointed, it will be able at once to ascertain who are the various people from whom we can obtain information. The Committee will be able to call them before them in the course of a single day, and will be able to report to the House probably on Friday. I think that course would conduce more to the dignity of the House than the one suggested by the hon. Member for Dundalk.
      MR. DUNDAS:A question has been raised whether the Committee should proceed at once with their inquiry, or allow an interval to elapse until the matter about to be referred to a Committee is decided upon. It certainly was the intention of the Committee, when it made this Report, that they should not meet again without farther instructions from the House. But I understand, from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), that it is competent for the Committee to meet again without instructions from the House. I presume, under these circumstances, that it will be left entirely to the Committee to decide whether it is proper for them to continue the Bill or not. Am I right in presuming that it is entirely left to their discretion?
      MR,. DODSON:Yes.
      MR. SPEAKER:Did I understand that the hon. Member for Dundalk has moved an Amendment?
      MR. CALLAN:I did not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than thrown out a suggestion. I did not intend, therefore, to make my proposition as an Amendment. However, I beg to move the Motion which I have submitted as a substantive Resolution, and not as an Amendment.
      MR. SPEAKER:The Question before the House is that the special Report of the Committee upon the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be now considered. The hon. Member for Dundalk has interposed with a Motion that Mr. Grissell be summoned to attend at the Bar of the House to-morrow. That Motion he had a perfect right to submit. Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
      MR. PARNELL:In rising to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether we ought not, as a point of Order, to discuss the Motion that the Bill be now considered? If that Motion has been put, and if we are acting in pursuance of that Motion by considering the Report, I imagine that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk would then be a substantive Motion, and not an Amendment to the original Motion. Under the idea that it is a Motion, I beg to second it; and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exche-
      1874
      quer what he proposes to gain by appointing a Committee to consider the question? We have already before us the Report of the Committee, who have considered the question, and have reported to us upon it. They were just as able to inquire into the matter as the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to nominate; and I am unable to see what we shall gain by postponing the matter, except, perhaps, a little time—although, in reality, instead of gaining time, we should lose it; because, instead of being disposed of now, we shall have to devote another hour or so, and perhaps longer, to the consideration of it when it comes again before the House. I wish now to direct the attention of the House to this fact—that we have before us, in evidence sent to us by the Committee, a copy of the letter from C. E. Grissell, of 36, Curzon Street, Mayfair, written on the 2nd of July—
      "Asserting that I can control the decision of the Committee now sitting upon the Tower High Level Bridge Bill, I am willing to use that influence in favour of the opposing wharfingers upon certain terms; and I will undertake that the Bill shall be thrown out, or otherwise dealt with by the Committee in such a way as would make the Board of Works withdraw it, by reason of compensation or other clauses being required by the Committee, provided a sufficient guarantee is given to me for the payment of £2,000 immediately on such an event happening."
      Now, this Committee have inquired into the matter, having taken all the evidence it was possible for any Committee to take. They have decided that it is a matter that seriously affects the Privileges of the House, and have reported to that effect to the House. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the House would lightly regard a matter seriously affecting its Privileges, if it remitted the question back again to another Committee. No Committee could come to any other conclusion from the facts of the case than that which the Select Committee has already arrived at. If the facts are true, it is a matter affecting the Privileges of the House, and any other Committee would so report to the House. The only result would be that we should, after an interval of two or three days, have to do the same thing we ought to do now—namely, direct that the individual whose conduct is complained of should be brought to the

      1875
      Bar of the House, in order to offer such explanations as he may be able to offer in regard to the serious charges brought against him. In all probability he may be able to offer explanations that will be satisfactory to the Douse, and there may be no further occasion to proceed. De thought this certainly the proper course to take.
      MR. SPEAKER:On the considera1 ion of the special Report of the Select Committee, a Motion has been made and seconded—that Mr. Charles Bissell do attend the House to-morrow, at 12 o'clock. Before I put the Question, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word in reference to the competency of the Select Committee on the Bill to sit, notwithstanding the incident that has now taken place. I apprehend that that is a matter within the direction of the House itself, and upon which special direction may be given. If the Select Committee are of opinion that justice to the parties can be done, no doubt it will be open to them to proceed with their inquiry, notwithstanding the appointment of the Committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      MR. CALLAN:My Resolution is, that a gross breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed by Mr. C. E. Grissell, and that the said Charles E. Bissell be ordered to attend at the Bar of the Douse at 12 o'clock to-morrow. I believe it is not in our power to order anyone to attend at the Bar, except in consequence of a charge made against him.
      MR. SPEAKER:Will the hon. Member bring up the Resolution?
      MR. CALLANdid so.
      MR. SPEAKER:The hon. Member desires me to put the Motion from the Chair; and the Motion having been seconded, I am bound to put it. But I think it right to state to the House that it has generally been the practice of the House, before a person has been censured and condemned for breach of Privilege, to allow him to be heard at the Bar. This Motion certainly condemns Mr. Gissell.
      MR. CALLAN:With the permission of the House, I will amend the Motion by leaving out the first portion, and will merely move that Mr. Grissell be ordered to appear at the Bar of the House, at 12 o'clock to-morrow.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Charles Grissell do attend this House To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—(Mr. Callan. )
      MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENThe vindication of the Privileges of the Douse should always be short, sharp, and decisive. Any delay would be objectionable, and it would also be objectionable to take any other course than one which, if possible, commands the unanimous approval of the House. The only reason why I rise is to say that there was once a Committee, of which I was a Member, in which something of the same kind occurred. It was now a good many years ago, and the present Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) was the Chairman. Something appeared in a newspaper article reflecting upon the character of the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee considered the matter and reported it, and the House directed at once that the publisher of the newspaper in which the article appeared should be called to the Bar of the Douse. If I recollect rightly, the man was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and afterwards made a humble apology for what had happened. The case, after all, appeared to amount to nothing, and the matter was settled without any Committee being appointed or any necessity arising for any further proceeding on the part of the House. I mention the case because it might happen that if the gentleman were called to the Bar of the House that the same course would be followed. Mr. Grissell might make an explanation, and it would be for the Douse to judge whether the explanation was satisfactory. If so, the House might be disposed to take the course of discharging him. It is impossible to condemn Mr. Grissell for a breach of Privilege of the House without giving him an opportunity for explanation. But I think when such questions arise it is to the Leader of the House we should look for guidance; and it would be far better, even if it was against our own view, that, in a case involving the procedure of the House, we should follow, if we possibly can, the recognized Leader of the House. We are an Assembly which, after all, is guided very much by precedent, and whatever the precedent is in such cases as this it may be desirable to

      1877
      follow it, and not form another, which, on some other occasion, may prove inconvenient.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:Undoubtedly, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly correct in such cases as the one to which he has referred, in which there was only a single Member implicated. No doubt, in that case, the person who had written an offensive article was called to the Bar and gave his explanation of the proceeding. I do not know whether the right lion. Gentleman has read the special Report; but, in this case, there are several transactions which appear, on the face of them, to call for a little further explanation, because it is stated that there were other proceedings that took place one or two days before the memorandum was drawn up. It appears that on Tuesday some communication was made by Mr. Ward to Mr. Hooker as to this gentleman (Mr. Bissell) wishing to be placed in communication with the opposing wharfiugers on the ground that he could control the decision of the Committee, and was willing to dog so on terms. Then some further communications took place. Mr. Hooker referred him to other persons; and, on the following day, Mr. Grissell called upon Mr. Cockell at his invitation. There was a further discussion as to what was to be done, and questions were put to Mr. Grissell in order to draw out from him what he could do. Eventually, Mr. Grissehl wrote a paper to which reference has been made, and in a great measure it was written at Mr. Cockell's dictation. Mr. Grissell took it away with him, as he wished to see others upon it, and arranged to see Mr. Cockell in the corridor of the Douse later in the day. He did so about half-past 12, and then stated that all was satisfactory, and at Mr. Cockell's request signed the paper. Under all these circumstances, it seems to me that it might be for the convenience of the House that they should have more information with regard to these proceedings than simply calling upon Mr. Grissell to attend at the Bar, to say that he regretted having written the memorandum, and then dismissing the case. It is possible, when we know the whole circumstances of the case, that that will be the conclusion at which the House will arrive; but I think it
      1878
      will be hardly consistent with the dignity of the Douse that we should even appear to slur over a question of the kind, in which it undoubtedly does seem that Mr. Grissell has been led on by conversation with others to explain what the proposition was he wished to make. I cannot help thinking that we shall save time if a small Committee is appointed to inquire into the whole of them circumstances, to examine all persons who have had any share in the transaction, and then report to the Douse. I understand that there is a Motion before the House upon which an Amendment can be moved. Do I understand that?
      MR. SPEAKER:Yes.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:Then, as there is a substantive Motion before the Douse upon which an Amendment can be moved, I will move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word " that," for the purpose of adding these words—
      "That the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills in the case of the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be referred to a Select Committee."
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills be referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, )
      —instead thereof.
      MR. WADDY:I wish to point out that the Amendment is almost a necessity in the case, and for this reason. At present we do not know whether one person or two should come before the Bar of the House. There is a serious discrepancy between the statement made by the noble Lord and that contained in the Report. We do not know which is correct, and it is a much more serious matter as it appears in the Report than the noble Lord has said. According to his statement, what took place is this—that this gentleman, Mr. Grissell, obtained a letter of introduction merely from Mr. Ward to Mr. Cockell; but according to the Report Mr. Ward went in person, and being at the time a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Justice, made an arrangement with Mr. Grissell, and was made aware of the real nature of the transaction. In point of fact, he was a party to it. The Report says—

      1879
      "On Tuesday, Mr. J. Sandilands Ward, of 51, Lincolas' Inn Fields, solicitor (admitted 1870), called on Mr. Hooker (Wyatt, Hoskins and looker), and stated a client of his wished to be placed in communication with the opposing wharfingers as to the Tower Bridge Bill, as he could control the decision of the Committee, and was willing to do so on terms."
      It becomes, therefore, a very serious question indeed whether Mr. Grissell is the only person who will have to be brought before the Bar of the House. I think, therefore, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be adopted. The Committee will be able to investigate the matter, and to find out all that we want to know, and, at the same time, save us from the necessity of calling upon a person to appear at the Bar who ought not to be so called upon.
      MR. FREMANTLE:As a Member of the Committee, I concur very much in the remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I think my noble Friend fell into a mistake in saying that there was a letter of introduction. According to the evidence which was given before the Committee, Mr. Ward personally waited upon Mr. Hooker at the Committee Room, sending in his card, and stated to him that ho had a client who was able and desirous to control our decision upon terms. Of course, a Committee could consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not one person only, but two, who ought to be required to attend here to answer for a breach of Privilege.
      LORD HENRY LENNOX:Perhaps I may be able to say one word in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I used the words "letter of introduction," when I should have said
      "personal introduction," most innocently.
      MR. COURTNEY:I rise to offer one observation to the House. It appears to me that the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for referring this matter to a Committee are almost conclusive upon it. It is too complicated a matter for us to inquire into in the House. But if it is understood that it is to be referred to an ordinary Select Committee, instructions can be given to that Select Committee to take evidence on oath. There is also another point which I wish to suggest
      1880
      —namely, whether precautions ought not to be taken to secure the attendance of the two persons who are primâ facie implicated in the matter—namely, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Grissell, especially if evidence is to be taken on oath. I would suggest that you, Sir, should issue your Warrant to secure the attendance of both, otherwise it is obvious that they may disappear before the inquiry commences, and it would be very unsatisfactory if they were not found when they were wanted.
      MR. DODSON:I should like to say a word as to one point raised by the hon. Member. [Cries of " Spoke!"] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Since I spoke last a Motion has been submitted. The only point I wish to speak upon has reference to the ability of the Committee to examine witnesses on oath. By an Act passed, not very long ago, every Committee has that power.
      MR. CALLAN:When I came down to the House to-day I was wholly unprepared to enter into this discussion. If my memory serves me rightly, there is no precedent whatever on the Books of the House for the proposition which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With a great deal of diffidence I have ventured to suggest that the usual course should be followed. Since then an Amendment has been moved, and I have taken the trouble to look over a book which we all regard as an authority. I find, in page 96 of the last edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, that it is there stated—
      "That libels on Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of Privilege it must be a libel upon the character of a Member in that capacity."
      A Member of a Committee is acting in the capacity of a Member of Parliament. I find in this Report, that—
      "On Wednesday morning, Mr. Charles E. Grissell called on Mr. Cockell, and stated his ability to control the decision of the Committee either way on terms, and as a proof of his ability volunteered that in the course of examination of witnesses, he would arrange that such questions should be asked by the Committee in favour of the wharfingers' case as would indisputably prove his assertion. Mr. Cockell explained that the examination of witnesses had concluded and on being pressed to suggest some means whereby this proof could be afforded, explained to Mr. Grissell that the Board of Works had announced their determination of not proceeding with the measure if compensa-

      1881
      tion was granted to the wharfingers and others injuriously affected, and put it to Mr. Grissell whether he could induce the Committee, immediately prior to Mr. Pope's speech to announce that they were unanimously of decision that the fullest compensation should be paid, and that they would not report the Preamble proved, unless a clause to that effect were inserted in the Bill."
      It was then arranged that it should be reduced into writing, so that there could be no question as to the terms of the proposition, and the condition was a bribe—the corrupt and criminal taking of £2,000—a matter which affects seriously the character of Members of this House. Now, I find that in 1832—and it is the first ease quoted—in the case of " Gibson and Wright," they were admonished for writing a letter reflecting upon the character of a Committee, copies of which letter had been circulated in private handbills. In 1844, a Member having made charges at a public meeting against two Members of the House, was ordered to attend in his place, and, after he had been heard, it was decided by the House that the charges were of a calumnious and unfounded character, and reflected upon the character and honour of a Member of the House, Sir Erskine May states that in some cases the House has directed prosecutions against persons who have published libels against a Member, in the same way as if the publication had affected the character of the House collectively. On the 2nd of May, 1695—
      "The offering of any sum of money or advantage to any Member of Parliament for promoting any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is constituted a high crime and misdemeanour, tending to the destruction of the Constitution."
      In this view, the offer of a bribe is treated as a breach of Privilege, not only to the Member himself, but to the House. I find that the present practice, as laid down here, is that when a complaint is made, the person complained of is ordered to attend in the House, and, on his appearance at the Bar, he is examined, and dealt with according as the explanations of his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise, or according to the contrition he expresses for the offence he has committed. The invariable practice of the House is to order a person to attend at the Bar of the House. If Mr. Grissell attends to-morrow, and gives explana-
      1882
      tions that are deemed satisfactory, then there is an end of the whole affair; ii his explanations are not deemed satisfactory, then a Select Committee could be appointed. I am not aware that there are any questions affecting this particular case that should induce the House of Commons to overrule every precedent that has hitherto been adopted, and to create a new one. I consider that the creation of a new precedent in regard to any question of this character is a dangerous practice, which cannot be too strongly deprecated; and I, for one, with great respect to the Leader of the House, am convinced that the Resolution I have submitted is the proper one for the House to adopt.
      THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON:I presume, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as stated by the hon. Member for Dundalk, that the ordinary practice is to summon the person complained of at the Bar of the House; but I believe there is no exact precedent for this case. None have been mentioned to the House this morning as an exact precedent. I think that, under these circumstances, the House ought to consider, rather, what is the most convenient course, than to hold itself absolutely tied down by any precedent. From the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears to me that, although there is no doubt whatever about the facts that have been reported by the Committee as far as they go, there may be other facts which have not been reported, which may be essential for the House to know, before they arrive at a conclusion. If Mr. Grissell were to come to the Bat to-morrow, it is possible, as has been suggested, that he might make such a statement as would be deemed satisfactory, and the matter might end; but if, on the other hand, Mr. Grissell attempted to justify his conduct, or made any statement affecting the character of a Member of the Committee, or took any of a hundred courses which might suggest themselves, it would be necessary that he should be examined, either by a Committee or by the Whole House. I think, therefore, that, on the whole, the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the most convenient one; and as to the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), I presume it would be convenient when the Com-

      1883
      mittee is nominated, if it is nominated to-morrow, that such instructions should be given to it as will meet all the necessities of the case.
      MR. SHAW:It appears to me that precedent is entirely in favour of the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk; at the same time, I can understand why the course he suggests should not be adopted. If we were to summon Mr. Grissell to appear at the Bar, any explanation he could give would not stop the case, or clear away the imputations that have been made. Matters cannot stay where they are, and I cannot see any way to a satisfactory issue except the appointment of a Committee. I do not see why precedent should bind us, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw the Motion; and I think it would be somewhat novel, and exceedingly awkward, that the Select Committee should go on with the Business they have been inquiring into, seeing that imputations have been thrown out of such a nature that no decision they can arrive at would be satisfactory until those imputations are cleared up. I hope the Committee will not take a single step in regard to the Business of the Committee until the matter is fully cleared up.
      MR. PARNELL:There are just two precedents for referring a question of Privilege to a Committee, and only two precedents, as far as I can discover, and they are not precedents which govern the present case. On the 18th of February, 1575, a Committee was appointed to examine the matter touching the case of Hall's servant. That matter was treated as a question of Privilege. Also, on the 3rd of December, 1601, a complaint was made to the House of an information having been exhibited by the Earl of Huntingdon in the Star Chamber against Mr. Belgrave, a Member. The matter was referred to a Committee of Privileges, who reported upon the 17th of December. But we have no precedent at all for the Report of a Select Committee which complains to the House of a breach of Privilege against itself of a most offensive character—there is no precedent whatever for sending such a Report to a Select Committee. On the contrary, all the precedents go in the direction of showing that these matters have always been
      1884
      considered by the House at once, and decided upon as a matter of Privilege. There may be some advantages in the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I am afraid that it would be rather a more severe course to take against the person accused than that which the hon. Member for Dundalk wishes to take. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not come to the conclusion that the matter has already been fully discussed, and withdraw the Amendment which he has proposed.
      MR. CALLAN:In deference to the opinion expressed by the Leader I recognize in this House, and wishing to pay him that deference which becomes the followers of any Leader, I intend to take his advice, and I intend to withdraw the Motion. But, before doing so, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure the House that this Committee, which he proposes to nominate to-morrow, shall be nominated by the Douse, and shall not sit in camera.
      MR. SPEAKER:The Amendment must be withdrawn before the Motion can be withdrawn.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
      SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN:Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, whether the Committee is to sit in camera?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:I am unable to say whether the Committee ought to sit with closed doors or not. I should propose, of course, that the Committee be nominated by the Douse. I would propose that it should be a small Committee. I think the most convenient course would be to allow the Amendment to be put as an Amendment to the Motion. I should then place names upon the Paper to-morrow. But it would be indifferent to me whether the names are taken to-morrow, or whether I give Notice for the appointment of the Committee to-morrow with the names. If the Amendment is accepted, I will tomorrow give the names.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRY:There is one course which I might suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important in this matter that we should

      1885
      not actually, but that we should appear to be, guided by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has given Notice that he will, to-morrow, take the very convenient course of referring this matter to a Committee, and that he will then nominate the Members of the Committee. There has been a Motion made since and an Amend-merit; but it is hardly right that the Leader of the House should carry his Amendment against a Motion which my hon. Friend has declared his readiness to withdraw.
      MR.SPEAKER:Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:No. I think my Amendment had better be put.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
      Words added.
      MR. CALLAN:Before you put the Question, Sir, I must express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed himself to impart a little feeling into this discussion. [Cries of " No !"] Yes, Sir, he did; and he declined to accept the general feeling of the House to allow me to withdraw the Motion. He persisted in that course, and he declined, further, to answer the question put to him both by myself, and by my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). I will not, however, put the House to the trouble of a Division, though I feel very strongly the course I proposed was the right one; and unless the right hon. Gentleman places on the Committee a Member of the Party to which I belong, as a safeguard for the honour and Privileges of the House in the question upon which we are deeply interested— [Laughter]—the House may laugh, but this is a very serious case—and, further, unless there is a distinct undertaking given that this Committee shall not sit and inquire into a matter so deeply affecting the honour of the House in camera, I shall give his proposal a direct negative.
      SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN:I think I was entitled, at least, to the courtesy of an answer. There may be reasons,
      1886
      no doubt, why this case is of such a nature that a different course should be pursued with regard to it from that which is generally taken. But, except the case be an extremely special one, and outside the ordinary Rules of the House, I think that for the sake of the public, and for the sake of the proper administration of Business, in which all classes of the public are interested, I was entitled to an answer whether this is to be a public Committee, or whether the inquiry is to be held in camera. Nothing can be further from my mind than to say that whether the Committee be a public or a private one its decisions would not be right, honourable, and just. I am perfectly certain that it would be so, and I should be the last person here to insinuate anything else. But we are to regard not only the Members of the House, but the general public outside, whose interests, pecuniary or otherwise, are committed to Members upstairs. And we ought to consider the large amount of public opinion that exists out-of-doors; and, in the interest of the public conduct of the Business of the House, we should see that this very serious matter should be not only fully, but publicly inquired into. When I read the letter which appears in the Votes this morning, I must confess that the first thing that occurred to me was that the person accused was labouring under some mental derangement; and I trust that, for the honour of the country, although it may be unpleasant to the individual himself, that that may be the correct view. But, whether that is so or not, I think that as regards the Public Business of the House, we are entitled to demand that the inquiry should be public; and I venture, a humble Member as I am, to state that if, before the appointment of the Committee, some statement of that kind is not made by those who, in a great measure, are authorized to arrange the Business of the House, I shall myself propose a Motion to the House that this inquiry should be held in public, and not in camera.
      Main Question, as amended, put.
      Ordered, That the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills be referred to a Select Committee.

    ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]
    (Mr. Secretary Stanley, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. William Henry Smith, The Judge Advocate General. )
    ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL— [BILL 88.]

      COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th July.]
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)

      COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th July.]

        Clause 147 (Apprehension of deserters or absentees without leave).
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that the last time the Committee met they were discussing a question involved in the Amendment; he would not discuss it now at any length; but he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether he would not agree to put words in the clause to the effect that no officer or soldier could apprehend a suspected deserter unless he could identify such person as a deserter? He quite recognized the force of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said yesterday, that an officer or soldier ought to be empowered to arrest a deserter if he met him in the street. But the clause in question seemed to him to give a great deal more power to the officer, or soldier, or other person, to arrest on mere suspicion than ought to be given. He trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would see his way to meet the objection to the clause. He begged to move, in page 79, line 22, after the word "person," to insert "provided he can identify such person as a deserter."
        COLONEL STANLEYhad no objection to the principle of the Amendment; but he could not accept the words proposed, for it appeared to him that it would lead to great inconvenience to prevent an arrest by any person except he could actually identify a deserter. Anyone who arrested a deserter, and took him before a Court, was, of course, subject to the consequences if ho had not acted upon good grounds. If the alleged deserter were detained, he had an action against the person detaining him. He had no objection to insert any words which would prevent improper arrests; but he could not agree to the insertion of the words proposed.
        MR. HERSCHELLthought that the difficulty might be met by inserting words to this effect—" provided that he is personally known to him."
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that if a constable suspected a man to be a deserter, then he was entitled to apprehend him and take him to prison. He might recognize the soldier he apprehended by the description, but could not positively identify him from personal knowledge.
        MR. O'SULLIVANthought that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was mistaken in his Amendment. It might cause very great annoyance, if a man were brought before a magistrate without any evidence offered against him. It would be too much power to leave in the hands of a private soldier if the Amendment were adopted. He thought it better to leave the clause as it stood.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that they could not adopt the suggestion of the bon. Member for County Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), because the Committee had already divided on the question. Ho was willing to agree to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), to withdraw his Amendment, in order to enable his to be proposed.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        HERSCHELLmoved the insertion of the words, "provided lie is personally known to him as a deserter."
        COLONEL STANLEYdid not think that the Amendment should be adopted. A man might not be personally known, but might he known by being marked in a particular way. The real point was as to the identification, and if hon. Gentlemen would allow hint, he would consider the matter in conjunction with those who advised him. De could not agree to the insertion of this Amendment; he did not see how the process of identification of the deserter could be completed before he was brought into court.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. PARNELLmoved, in line 33, page 80, to leave out from the word and," to the end of the clause. This sub-section provided as follows:—
        "A Secretary of State shall direct payment of the said fee, and may also cause to be paid to the person by or through whose means it appears to his satisfaction that any such deserter or absentee without leave was apprehended a sum not exceeding forty shillings."

        1889
        There was a great deal of objection to the system of these rewards; he was afraid that, in many cases, there was a great deal of fraud connected with the matter. The effect of the system of rewards was shown by the great increase in the amount paid in respect of them.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.
        COLONEL ALEXANDERinquired if the reward to the constable was included in the Proviso which had been struck out?
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that it was not.
        An hon. MEMBERthought the constable should be included, for he ought not to be paid extra for doing his duty.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it would not be necessary to pay the constable for making arrests.
        MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from what Statute he had taken the words? He was not sure whether, in order to abolish the power, they would not have to move a Proviso at the end of the clause.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had taken the words from the Mutiny Act.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, it would not then be necessary to move a Proviso.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 148 (Penalty on trafficking in commissions).
        MR. E. JENKINSmoved, in page 81, line 8, after the word "shall," to insert " if an officer, shall on conviction by court martial, be dismissed the service." The effect of the Amendment was to make officers committing the offences liable to be dismissed the Service, as well as pay a fine of £100, on conviction or indictment on information.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, this clause was rather hard upon officers. If they took the case of a medical man, it seemed to him rather hard to punish him by this line for receiving or passing anything in respect of an exchange or promotion or retirement. But a medical man was to be dismissed the Service in such a case. There was another difficulty by providing such heavy punishments. In the old state of the law, officers were allowed to pay money for exchanges. About 1870, they were ordered to pay no money for exchange except the cost of passage;
        1890
        and in 1875 the Government brought in a Bill allowing officers to pay money for exchanges. He thought that if this Amendment were adopted, the word "knowingly" ought to be put in. If an officer knowingly offended against the law, then nothing could be said for him. De thought, also, that the word "shall," in the latter part of the clause, should be struck out, and " may" substituted, in order that it might not be imperative that an officer should be dismissed the Service for this offence. The punishment provided was very heavy, and the matter ought to be surrounded with some safeguards.
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member could not move to insert the word " may," instead of " shall," unless the Amendment before the Committee was withdrawn.
        COLONEL STANLEYdid not know whether his hon. and gallant Friend would think it necessary to insert this Amendment. De would observe that this punishment only followed conviction by a court martial; and he might be sure that unless the offence had been fraudulently and knowingly committed no court martial would convict.
        MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANwould like to know how far this clause was in accordance with the existing law? He was under the impression that under the Brokerage Act of 1809 anyone not an officer who committed these offences was guilty of a misdemeanour, and this would involve a much heavier punishment than was now provided. The offender was now made liable to be fined, whereas, formerly, he could have been imprisoned. If they were to keep in cheek the transactions which they did not desire to encourage, they should not let off the persons who ought to be punished with a mere fine of £100—a mere nothing for men who set up a regular machinery for carrying on practices which were against the law. He was certainly under the impression that under the Brokerage Act of 1809 the penalty for this offence was imprisonment.
        COLONEL ARBUTHNOTwished to point out that the word " liable" in the clause gave a discretionary power, and there was no necessity to change the word "shall" to "may."
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that it would be found that in the previous Acts

        1891
        the persons negotiating these transactions had been made to forfeit £100. He had no objection to make the penalty more severe if the Committee thought it right.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, that the words of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) made it imperative that an officer should be dismissed for these transactions. He thought there might be a fair way out of the difficulty. Three different offences were defined in this clause. The first and second of these related to the purchase and sale of commissions, and the giving or receiving of valuable consideration in respect of promotion or retirement. They were very serious offences; but the 3rd sub-section related to exchanges which at the present moment took place in numerous ways, and people might very easily, unknowingly, transgress the law. He thought that if the 3rd sub-section of the clause were left out, then it might be left as it stood. It was right that for the first two offences a very much heavier punishment should be provided; but in respect of exchanges, he did not think so severe a penalty should be given.
        MR. E. JENKINSthought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might accept the offer of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for. Galway (Major Nolan), which, in fact, was only a recognition of what was done at the present moment. Of course, it might be done by saying, with regard to the two first offences of the Schedule, if an officer, he should be liable, on conviction by court martial, to be cashiered, and then a sentence should be inserted providing whatever penalty they might hereafter decide upon for the person negotiating. The clause might then be amended by inserting words carrying out the views of his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the third offence, and relating to exchanges. If that Amendment were accepted by his right hon. and gallant Friend, he thought it would be well.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconsidered that it would be undesirable to do anything in the Bill which might tend to encourage these offences. He understood that officers were compelled to sign a declaration upon their honour not to commit these offences, and it would be a serious thing if this declara
        1892
        tion were false. On the other hand, if they did not make an officer liable to be dismissed the Service for committing the offence, why was the offence inserted at all in a penal clause? He thought that they would be stultifying themselves by adopting the Amendment proposed.
        MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that the Amendment ran—" Shall be liable, if an officer, on conviction to be dismissed the service; " and after that it was provided that he should be liable on conviction, or indictment, or information, to a fine of £100. That was a very heavy punishment in addition to the dismissal from the Service.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the clause was based upon the assumption that those who acted contrary to its provisions did so with a fraudulent intent, and the best course to pursue was to leave it as it stood for the present. He would then see whether some words could not be introduced on the Report which would make it more acceptable to the Committee.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was a very difficult matter to decide off-band as to whether there was a fraudulent intention or not. In one case there might be fraud, while in another it might be entirely absent; but he, at the same time, had no objection that an offender under the clause should be made liable on conviction to a severe penalty. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was, he might add, in his opinion, preferable to that of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). It was desirable, he thought, that too heavy a penalty should not be inflicted, because that would have the effect of defeating the object for which it was proposed that a penalty should be imposed. There were, he believed, some cases, such as those with which the clause dealt, in the Duke of York's time; but, if he was not mistaken, there had been no case of the kind for the last 50 years.
        MR. MUNTZsaid, he quite concurred with the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down in the opinion that the imposition of too severe a penalty would operate to defeat the object of the clause. The Act of 1809 imposed a penalty of £500 on any person who aided and abetted another in disposing of his commission beyond regulation price. It appeared, however, according

        1893
        to the Report of the Royal Commission, that not a single person had been convicted under it of the offence; and, therefore, it was not, he thought, expedient that too severe a punishment should be inflicted.
        MR. HOPWOODsaid, there could be no doubt that the old law on the subject was still in force. There was first the Act of Edward V., and the Act of 1809, which made the former Statute applicable to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and which provided that any person who was convicted of the offence to which it applied should be liable to be judged guilty of a misdemeanour. The present clause, however, imposed a penalty of £100, which should be recoverable on summary conviction. It had been said that no case of the kind had occurred; but he recollected 'a case which occurred a few years ago, in which a tailor engaged to procure a young man in the North of England a commission for a sum of £400. An inquiry was instituted into the matter, which lasted some time, and there was a considerable amount of scandal about it; but it did not, he thought, proceed finally to trial. But the parties were brought before a magistrate, and, if he was not mistaken, charged with a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour. That being so, it might be well to leave the old law unrepealed, and make the offender under the clause liable to the alternative punishment of having a smaller fine than that named imposed upon him on summary conviction before a magistrate.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)thought it would be better to have a moderate provision, such as that contained in the clause, than that the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood) should be adopted.
        MR. E. JENKINSwould repeat that the object of the Amendment which he had moved was that an officer who was found guilty under the clause should, on conviction by a court martial, be liable to be dismissed from the Service.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobjected to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins); because, in his opinion, the punishment of dismissal from the Service would be a comparatively trifling one to inflict for the very serious offence provided against by the 2nd sub-section — namely, the
        1894
        giving or receiving of any valuable consideration in respect of any promotion in, or retirement from, the Army. A commission, as the Committee was aware, was a very valuable thing; and it might sometimes be worth the while of a rich man to give a considerable sum of money in order to induce an officer to retire from the Service. A very rich man, for instance, who happened to be second in command in a crack Cavalry regiment, might say to the commanding officer that if he chose to retire from it he would give him £4,000 or £5,000. Now, there ought, in his opinion, to be a real penalty imposed in such cases, and the Amendment which he proposed would provide such a penalty.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLDER)said, that, as he understood the matter, it was now proposed that an officer should be made liable, under the operation of the clause, to be dismissed the Service, in addition to having to pay a fine of £100. The contention of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) was that a fine of £100 was not a sufficient penalty; but there would be no objection, he believed, on the part of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War to increase the amount of the fine, if that course should seem to the Committee to be desirable. Speaking for himself, he thought the penalty proposed in the clause was quite high enough, and much more likely to effect the object which the Committee had in view than if a heavier punishment were imposed.
        COLONEL BARNEsuggested that the clause should be so worded as to provide that a person convicted on indictment, or information under it, should be made liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000. If it were framed in that way, the fine might be made large or small, as the Court might think fit, and justice would be done in accordance with the circumstances of each case as it arose.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he entirely concurred in the opinion which had been expressed by more than one hon. Member, that if too heavy a penalty was imposed, it would be likely to defeat the object of the clause: The lighter the penalty the more likely would an offender be to be convicted.
        MR. BIGGARthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was a very reasonable one. The Court, in his

        1895
        opinion, should have the power to sentence a man to imprisonment for such offences as those against which the clause was directed, amounting, as they did, to a fraud on the public. He saw no good reason, indeed, why imprisonment should not be inflicted in such cases, in addition to a fine of £100.
        MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he should not, in deference to what appeared to be the feeling of the Committee, press his Amendment, on the understanding that some such words as he had proposed should be afterwards inserted at the commencement of the clause.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he would consider the matter before the Report.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLmoved, in page 81, line 9, after the word "pounds," to insert—
        "Or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding six months, and if an officer, on conviction by court martial, to be dismissed the service."
        Great scandals, he said, had in former days existed in connection with the sale and purchase of commissions, and it was not at all unlikely that underhand dealings might continue to go on—such as that of a rich man's son in the Army inducing his senior officer to retire, in order that he might obtain promotion. There were also, it should be borne in mind, other considerations and inducements which entered into the question besides money. An influential man in the commercial world might say to another that if he could get his son promoted he would make him a director of a railway company, or put him in the way of this or that good thing, or say" I will buy your house or your horse; name your own price." His experience in India told him that things of that kind did occur. The penalty for such offences ought, in his opinion, to be a real one, and not simply one which, he believed, many hon. Members regarded as a perfect farce. He was quite sure that, in the case of a rich man, the sacrifice would in no way operate as a deterrent against the violation of the provisions of the clause.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he had no objection to accept the Amendment.
        COLONEL BARNEwished to know whether he would he in Order in moving
        1896
        the insertion of words in the clause, in lieu of the words " one hundred pounds," providing that the fine should not exceed a certain sum, say, £1,000?
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and gallant Member would not be in Order in then moving such an Amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 149 (Penalty on purchasing from soldiers regimental necessaries, equipments, stores, &c.).
        MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 81, to omit all the words from "unless," in line 24, down to the word immediately following the word " ignorance," in line 25, with the view of substituting for them the words, " if it be proved either that he acted with a knowledge." The words which he proposed to leave out, he said, proceeded on the principle of reversing the ordinary prescription of law, in accordance with which a man was deemed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty. As the clause stood, a person buying, exchanging, selling, or pawning regimental property, or any blankets, bedding, or other articles, in regimental charge, had the onus thrown upon him of proving that he was innocent of the offence. Now, he could not see that that was at all necessary; and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would assent to the Amendment, and not alter in the present instance that which was, as he had said, the ordinary presumption of law.
        MAJOR NOLANhoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. The present law was very rarely put in force; but there was no doubt that soldiers found the opportunity very frequently presented to them of making away, if they felt so inclined, with a number of articles, which the person who bought them pretty well knew were not his property. In such cases, it was extremely hard to obtain a conviction, and those against whom such charges were brought were generally unworthy of sympathy. There might, of course, be instances in which the clause would operate harshly upon a shopkeeper or a pawnbroker who was ignorant that he was doing anything wrong in purchasing or receiving property from a soldier; but it was necessary to guard against the old

        1897
        hands in the garrison towns, who made a practice of dealing in that way, and it would be, in his opinion, inexpedient in any way to weaken the law as against them. The penalty was only £20, and he knew no case in which the law as it stood had been abused. The hands of the authorities, he thought, should be strengthened in seeking to put down those offences, which, so far as the soldier was concerned, were committed for the purpose of procuring drink.
        MR. HOPWOODsaid, that if the law was only rarely put in force, as his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) stated, that was a very good reason why the Committee should not be asked to make, in the present instance, an exception to a general rule. The point the Committee had to consider was whether the law was open to objection or not, and they must not trust to its being seldom put in force in dealing with that point. His hon. and gallant Friend also stated that the penalty was only £20; but he found that in case of a second offence a person might be imprisoned with or without hard labour, and he, for one, could not see the justice of calling on a prisoner, under such circumstances, to prove his innocence. Indeed, it was almost impossible in the majority of cases that he could do so. And he would point out when the Merchant Shipping Act was passed through the House there had been very animated discussions on the question whether the captain of a ship should or should not be called upon to prove his own innocence. He, for one, objected to such a course of legislation as that proposed by the clause; and he should suggest the substitution of some such words as " unless it appears he acted in ignorance," for the words "unless he proves he acted in ignorance." If that were done, the presumption that a man acted in ignorance, and was, therefore, innocent of the offence with which he was charged, would not be made the subject of positive proof, which, as he said, it was almost impossible for him to furnish in the majority of cases. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would assent to some such modification of the clause.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)did not think there would be any use in adopting the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hopwood). To do so would only be to ren-
        1898
        der the clause more vague and indefinite. The objection, as he understood it, urged by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) against the clause in its present form was that it would throw the burden of proof on the accused person, thus reversing the ordinary presumption of law. It was natural that such an objection should be taken; but it happened in certain cases that it was almost necessary that the burden of proof should be shifted. The existence of certain facts raised a strong presumption of guilt, and in such cases the onus of proving his innocence was, he thought, not unfairly thrown upon the person to whom those facts pointed as having committed the offence. If, for instance, certain property was stolen, and it was immediately after found in possession of someone, there would be a strong presumption that that person was in some way implicated in the theft, and he might very properly be called upon to account for the way in which it had come into his possession. It was most desirable, he might add, to prevent such offences as the pawning of equipments, regimental decorations, and other things enumerated in the clause; and if it were necessary to prove in every instance that the person in whose possession they happened to be found had obtained them by fraudulent means, it would be extremely difficult to procure a conviction. A man who was accused of a theft must know better than anybody else how he came by the stolen property, and would, of course, give the necessary information about the matter. In a great many cases it would be utterly impossible to bring forward proof of fraudulence; and it was, therefore, in his opinion, not at all unreasonable that the man found in possession of stolen property should be called upon to account for its possession. It was, however, worthy of consideration whether words should not be introduced into the clause enabling the accused person to give evidence in his own behalf. If he were innocent, it would, of course, be a great advantage to him to be afforded the opportunity of doing so, and would, in all human probability, be the means of securing his discharge. If, on the other hand, he were guilty, such a provision as he (the Attorney General) suggested would almost certainly lead to his conviction; because, if his story were not true, the evidence which he would give would

        1899
        be very likely to establish his guilt. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would not press his Amendment, on the understanding that a provision should be inserted in the Bill providing that a person accused under the operation of the clause should be enabled to give evidence on his own behalf.
        COLONEL COLTHURSTbore testimony to the magnitude of the evil against which the clause was intended to provide. In North America, for instance, desertion would be simply impossible but for the existence of a class of persons who bought, generally for a very trifling sum, the accoutrements of the soldiers. He should like, therefore, to see the clause left as it stood, so that the law might effectually reach those offenders.
        MR. HERSCHELLthought that the Amendment which had been suggested by the Attorney General would carry out the object which the hon. Member for Meath had in view.
        MR. BIGGARwas of opinion that the proposal of the Attorney General would not meet the difficulties of the case. He preferred the words which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). To treat a person as guilty until he was able to prove a negative was, he thought, a great injustice, and there would be no advantage in allowing an accused person to give evidence, because the court would not in all probability believe him.
        MR. E. JENKINSthought the suggestion of the Attorney General might very well be accepted by the Committee, or the word " knowingly " might be inserted in the 10th line, and then the clause would read—" every person who knowingly " committed any of the offences to which it related.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, it would be extremely difficult to give proof that a man who was found in possession of stolen property came by it knowing it to have been stolen; and the object of the clause would, therefore, be in a great measure defeated if the word " knowingly" were inserted. As to the argument of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that if an accused person were allowed to give evidence in his own behalf the magistrates would not believe him, he could only say that if he were a
        1900
        man who ought not to be believed it was not desirable that he should be. The provision he had suggested would, he thought, meet all the difficulties of the case.
        COLONEL BARNEasked whether the clause would apply to the Colonies?
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, it appeared to him that it would.
        MAJOR O'BEIRNEcould not see what objection there could be to framing the clause in accordance with the words of the old Mutiny Act.
        MAJOR NOLANagreed with the Attorney General in thinking that if the word "knowingly" were inserted in the clause it would be very hard to procure a conviction under it. In fact, there were always some scoundrels outside barracks who were constantly encouraging the soldier to plunder; and he, in a moment of weakness, yielded chiefly for the purpose of being able to get drink. Those persons ought, he thought, to be severely punished.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that before referring to the proposition which had been made by the Attorney General he wished to state that he did not like the clause at all. It was, in his opinion, a very unsatisfactory clause, and ought to be withdrawn, with the view of its being remodelled on the lines of the old Mutiny Act. No case, he contended, had been made out by the Government for the extension of the powers which they possessed under Clause 85 of that Act; and it was an extension of those powers to provide that a person accused of any of the offences enumerated in the clause should be called upon to prove his innocence. If any such alteration had been really required, the precedent set in the Act applying to the Navy would, he could not help thinking, have been followed long ago, and some such provision as the present would have been made in one of the annual Mutiny Acts. However, he would not press his Amendment on that occasion, and would accept the suggestion which had been made by the Attorney General.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he would introduce words on the Report enabling an accused person to give evidence on his own behalf.
        MR. PARNELLthought it would be better that the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be embodied in a new clause, so that the Committee might have an opportunity of discussing and considering what the effect of the words which he suggested would be. They could not be conveniently discussed on the Report.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he would consider the matter.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, the next Amendment which he had to move was merely a verbal one; but it was necessary in order to prevent ambiguity. The clause provided that every person who committed any of the offences to which it related should be liable to fine and imprisonment, unless, among other things, he was able to prove that the property found in his possession was sold "by order of a Secretary of State, or some competent military authority." Now, he thought the authorities ought to be called upon to prove that themselves; and he should, therefore, move the insertion, after the word "or" in line 26, of the words "if it be proved." It was obvious that the military authorities would always be in a position to prove that certain articles had not been sold by their authority.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that although it might not be difficult for the military authorities to show that some goods belonging to them had been sold, it might not be easy for them to prove that the very goods in question had been sold. De did not think, therefore, it would be reasonable to throw upon them the burden of proof in the matter.
        MR. HOPWOODsaid, there would, in his opinion, be no injustice in presuming that goods which were found in a man's possession, and which were marked, for example, with the Royal Arms or the Broad Arrow, had not been sold by order of a Secretary of State, or some competent military authority.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 81, line 35, to leave out the words "and in addition," and insert "or." This was a
        1902
        question of punishment, and the point was whether it was fair to give, in addition to the fine, punishment in the form of imprisonment? It was not usual to do this in summary jurisdiction courts; in fact, he was not sure that it was legal. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
        COLONEL STANLEYthought that the reason that the pecuniary penalty was accompanied by one of imprisonment was that a fine alone was found not to be sufficient as a deterrent. It was found that many of these people made a regular trade in this business, and the profits were so large that a fine did not meet the case. The consequence was the imprisonment was also awarded in certain cases.
        MR. HOPWOODwas at a loss to know why, if the profits from this business, as it was called, were so large, the Government should not multiply the fine, say, three times. He should have thought that that would have been sufficient to keep down the offence. It seemed to him that it was clear that the punishment awarded in addition to the fine was excessive, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
        COLONEL MUREsaid, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not give way in this matter, which referred to one of the greatest difficulties they had to deal with in connection with this branch of the Army question. If he had his way, he should be more inclined to increase the penalty than to reduce it in connection with the offence of soldiers selling their kits. Those who bought them, as a rule, knew very well the offence they were committing; and they did their best, in fact, to induce soldiers to commit petty thefts of this nature. He sincerely trusted that in no way would the attempt made to diminish the punishment he successful.
        COLONEL ARBUTHNOTsaid, that he hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would on this occasion show some deference to the views of those who had experience in these cases, and withdraw his Amendment.
        MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the objection to the clause was that it imposed a double penalty—imprisonment as well as fine. That seemed to be a very surprising proposal to make to the House,

        1903
        and he thought the best course the Government could adopt would be to accede to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He thought the suggestions which had been thrown out, if adopted, would be found much more successful in promoting a diminution of this class of crime than the system which had been unsuccessfully pursued hitherto. Besides, he wished to point out to the Committee that if they were to surround thefts from Government Departments with all these pains and penalties, they would tend to produce an impression in the minds of the officials that it was not necessary for them to exercise ordinary precaution and care in guarding the public property committed to their charge. He thought this would have a most pernicious effect, and it was entirely opposed to the notion of the Secretary of State fir War, which would tend, in his opinion, to laxity in Government Departments. He did not see why Government officials should be tempted to take things easily by having greater safeguards provided for the property under their care than was the case with regard to private property. He was entirely opposed to exceptional legislation of this sort, which very often defeated its purpose. That was one portion of his objection. Then, as to the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), the excessive character of the punishment was noticeable; and he would point out to the Committee that excessive punishment always tended to produce a re-action in favour of the person liable to the excess of the punishment. If the penalty imposed was of a reasonable character, such as was imposed on receivers of other kinds of property, no sympathy was created; but when they found men punished in an excessive degree for this particular kind of offence, then there was likely to be produced a corresponding amount of sympathy in relation to the accused parties. There was always a tendency to create sympathy in proportion to the excessive character of the sentence. It was much better to inflict moderate penalties than to fling out sentences which inevitably led to a re-action in the public mind in favour of the class to whom the accused parties belonged.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, what he objected to was not so much an increase of
        1904
        punishment as having this accumulative punishment. They had not accumulative punishment in civil matters, and. he was entirely at a loss to know why they should have it in military cases. No necessity whatever had been shown for the increased punishment awarded in these peculiar cases; but if the Government wished, let them give a magistrate the option of inflicting either a fine or a term of imprisonment, as was done sometimes in civil cases. Do not let them say that the Judge, whoever he was, in this case must inflict both penalties. That was contrary to the spirit of our law; but that did not excuse it. If they found it necessary to give a man 12 months with hard labour, let them give it to him; but do not let them in addition to that inflict a pecuniary penalty. Let them have one or another; do not let them have both.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, having been appealed to by his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley), he was obliged to say that cumulative penalties had not been imposed by the Act of 1869.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, lie must apologize for having misled the Committee with regard to the law having been altered once or twice. Therefore, he proposed to follow the Act referred to, and not make the punishments accumulative.
        COLONEL MUREasked whether it would not be advisable to give punishments for a longer term under these circumstances? [Mr. PARNELL: No.] He (Colonel Mure) thought the proposal as to treble the value of the article was absurd; but should like to know what was the treble value of an old coat? He said the value ought not only to be trebled, but ought to be increased by 10 times. [" No, no! "] Don. Members shouted "No, no!" but they had no knowledge whatever of how rife these offences were. Offences were constantly being committed, and though they were small they were very annoying; and he had not a shadow of a doubt in his own mind that the facilities given for these thefts by the receivers were, to a great extent, responsible for the increase of desertion throughout the Army. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not diminish the penalty, but rather increase it.
        MR. HOPWOODsaid, it seemed to him that the matter as it now stood had been placed in its right position by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War.
        MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was very much surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should depart from what he had already placed in this Bill. It certainly seemed to him, after carefully looking into the matter, that the clause, as originally framed, was not open to the objection that it imposed cumulative penalties. A simple fine might be a sufficient punishment for a first offence, and it would not be unreasonable to make a subsequent offence punishable with fine and imprisonment. The offences dealt with by the clause were numerous, though not of a serious nature, and a gradation of punishment should be adopted to meet the varying circumstances.
        Amendment (Mr. Parnell) negatived.
        Amendment (Colonel Stanley) agreed to.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not intend to propose his next three Amendments, as they were governed by an agreement made with regard to another clause; but in page 82, line 5, he proposed to leave out from " and " to end of sub-section, inclusive. He thought that the provision as it stood was an exceedingly objectionable one, because it cast upon persons charged with the offence the necessity of disproving it—an exceedingly difficult thing, when he knew that obliterations of marks were made by persons who had an object, of course, in making those obliterations, and once they were made the place of those obliterations might very easily escape the notice of the person into whose possession the property came.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he thought the words objected to by the hon. Member might reasonably be left out.
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not intend to move his next Amendment, because it was governed by an arrangement previously made; but in page 82, line 15, he would move to leave out from "and " to end of sub-section, in-
        1906
        clusive. It appeared to him that the sub-section gave a very objectionable power—it gave to the man power to act as a constable. He thought that care should be taken to obtain the intervention of a constable. It seemed to him to be an un-English proceeding to collar a man and take him off to gaol at once, without calling in the recognized agent of the law. This was not allowed in ordinary life, and he did not see why it should be introduced into military.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL(Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, he did not quite see why there should be so much sympathy with these people. The offences they committed were serious, and if a man committed an offence of this kind, surely there was no injustice in allowing him to be apprehended. Though it might not be by a policeman, it seemed to him that the person to whom the goods were offered should have the power to take a man into custody. It might be more regular to hand the man over to a constable at once; and, no doubt, in every case where that could be done it would be done. There were analogous cases, and it was not at all uncommon, in cases of stolen property, to detain the party charged until a constable arrived. In this case, where there was ground for reasonable suspicion, power was given to detain and bring before the Justice of the Peace the party offering the articles. De did not know that there was anything wrong about that.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, it might be undesirable to disturb the Act to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and, therefore, he should not press his Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, he begged now to move, in page 83, line 2, to leave out from " on " to " otherwise," in line 3, inclusive. He did not see why an exception should be made in the case of the Legislature of a Colony, whereby the Legislature of a Colony would be prevented from reducing a fine, unless the Government of the Colony recommended it. He thought they might fairly leave such a power to the Legislature of the Colony.
        MR. E. JENKINShoped that the hon. Member would withdraw the proposal.
        MR. O'DONNELLhoped that his hon. Friend would do nothing of the kind. Suppose, in the case of an important Colony, that the Legislature should take it into their heads to pass an Act reducing that fine, then, unless we were to embark in a contest, in which we might be quite sure we should get the worst of it, we should have to give way on this point. There was no use passing an Imperial Act, which would have the tendency to run counter to Colonial views.
        MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was not likely to take the side of giving excessive power to an Imperial Government at the expense of the Colonies; but if there was one Imperial Prerogative more than another recognized in the Colonies as a matter not to be interfered with by the Colonial Legislature, it was that which related to the discipline of the Army. No interference with this Act should take place without the previous assent of the Imperial Government through the Governor.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.

        Jurisdiction.
        Clause 150 (Person not to be tried twice).
        MAJOR O'BEIRNEmoved, in page 83, line 10, after "offence," to insert—
        "Or if a purchase officer to be deprived, unless by sentence of court martial, of any portion of any sum of money he may be entitled to receive from the Army Purchase Commissioners."
        THE CHAIRMANruled that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member would be the subject of a separate clause; and, therefore, it could not be discussed on this Amendment.
        MR. BIGGARsuggested to his hon. and gallant Friend that he might move to add this Amendment to the end of the clause.
        MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, ho would postpone his Amendment.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 151 (Liability to military law in respect of status).
        MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 83, line 20, to leave out from "except" to "enlistment," in line 21.
        COLONEL STANLEYpointed out that the clause, as it stood, met the abuse; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 152 (Liability to military law in respect of place of commission of offence).
        MAJOR NOLANmoved to add to the clause—
        "Provided That the rules of military and martial law in the place where the crime is committed be the same as those prevailing in the place where the court martial has been commenced and sits."
        He referred to the case of the trial of Gordon, in Jamaica, and said that his object was, in moving the Amendment, to prevent such a similar case occurring again. In that case, as the Committee were well aware, Gordon was removed from a district where martial law did not prevail to a district in which it did operate, and there he was tried and sentenced. Now, this Amendment would make such a proceeding as this quite impossible, and it was of the utmost importance that this provision should be inserted. They had had the views of two eminent Judges on the case of Governor Eyre—Lord Chief Justice Cock-burn and Justice Blackburn. The Lord Chief Justice condemned the proceeding, and Justice Blackburn took an opposite view. But he did not think there could be any question whatever as to the impropriety and illegality of removing a man from a district in which he resided in order to bring him under laws of a different nature in another district. He did not think that such a case as Gordon's should ever arise again. The Government would fly in the face of a mutiny, and take a prisoner from one part of the district to another. In his Amendment, after the word "same," he wished to insert "with regard to that crime." If this proposal of his had been in operation at the time Gordon was removed from Kingston, he could not have been tried or executed, and the case would never have arisen. He had no preference for the words in his Amendment; if the principle of it were adopted, he should have no objection to withdraw the Amendment, and give place to one framed in a different way.

        1909
        But the case was one of such enormous importance that now they were re-considering the whole of the Military Law it was essential that something should be done to put martial law in order. People were in doubt as to the difference between military law and martial law. The object of martial law was to make civilians liable to military law; and if they declared that a certain thing could not be done under military law all parties would be protected.
        SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he really did not understand the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—he meant he did not quite appreciate it. If he did, he should be happy to support him in carrying it out. Was the meaning this—that where a person was found in a certain place they might try him; but they must not move him back to a place where the offence was not committed? They ought not certainly to remove a man from where martial law did not exist to a place where martial law was in operation, and there try him.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, that had been done.
        SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, if so, it was an illegal act, and if the hon. and gallant Member would look at the law he would find that it was so. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was in these terms—
        "Provided, That the rules for military and martial law in the place where the crime is committed be the same as those prevailing in the place where the court martial has been commenced and sits."
        Well, the rules of military and martial law were the same everywhere. And the Amendment as framed would not prevent an illegal removal from a district where martial law did not exist to a district where it did.
        MAJOR NOLANcould only refer the lion. and learned Gentleman to the case of Gordon. Governor Eyre took Gordon out of the district where ordinary law was in force to a district where lie could be brought under the operation of martial law. He had already mentioned that there was serious difference between the Judges on these points; but he hoped and trusted that all doubt would be removed. His object was to remove all doubt, and the law as it stood was, he maintained, extremely doubtful. The Chief Justice charged against it, and Justice Blackburn went the other way.
        1910
        This was a most fitting time to make some declaration in the Bill to prevent a similar grave injustice, and the only way to make sure was to have the words clear and distinct in the Act. He was not particular as to the words, so long as it was made clear that a man should not be removed from a civil law district to a martial law district; and he believed it was the duty of the Committee to take steps, whether in the form he proposed, or in another form, to prevent a repetition of the Gordon ease.
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he quite shared in the feeling as to the importance of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; and he granted that if the matter were not perfectly clear it would be necessary or advisable to entertain such a proposal as he had submitted to the Committee. But he would not like to admit by implication that military law and martial law were synonymous. He wanted to point out what they would do if they adopted this Amendment. They would be making the most important change in a manner which he thought was open to considerable objection. He thought this was a subject which ought to be dealt with in some other manner; and he would propose that the object aimed at by the hon. and gallant Member would best be achieved by the bringing up of a new clause. As far as military law was concerned, this Amendment did not seem necessary; and with regard to martial law, he confessed he humbly agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that there ought to be no doubt whatever about the law on this subject.
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, he hoped the Committee would keep the two questions of martial law and military law separate and distinct. They had nothing whatever to do with each other. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway was, he thought, mistaken in supposing that martial law was in any way derived from the Mutiny Act. The Mutiny Act gave no power to have martial law, and he thought it would be a most fatal mistake to put words into the Bill renouncing martial law. He had himself proposed to ask for an inquiry into this subject; but he had decided not to go on with it, because the Business of the House was so great. De only rose now to express a hope that

        1911
        the Secretary of State for War would not accept the Amendment.
        SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that he understood the view of the hon. and gallant Member to be this—that where a person committed an offence against military law, he should not be conveyed from that district into a district where martial law existed, and there tried. He thought everyone would agree that these two things were quite distinct. That might be what was done in Governor Eyre's case in relation to Gordon; but he did not rely on that. He did not think it was possible that such a thing could be done again. De would submit to the hon. and gallant Member the following words:—[The hon. and learned Member then read, in a tone which did not reach the Gallery, the words of the Amendment.]
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was willing to accept this proposal.
        MAJOR NOLANasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreminded the Committee that this was the first time the expression, martial law, had been recognized, and he did think it was a dangerous thing to sanction the expression of martial law in the Mutiny Act. It was the first time that martial law was recognized as part of the law of the land.
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the Committee that it was questionable whether this Amendment fell within the clause. The Amendment had reference to martial law, and appeared to him to be outside the subject then before the Committee.
        MAJOR NOLANsaid, that after that statement he did not think he could withdraw. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) said that this was the first time they were recognizing martial law; but he referred the hon. and gallant Member to Simmonds on Courts Martial. Their Imperial law was frequently referred to; and it was quite clear that, in passing the Mutiny Act, they might modify martial law. If they were to pass this clause as it stood, they would be laying the foundation for proceedings similar to those which had happened in Jamaica; and he felt that it was necessary to put in this Bill a specific declaration, pointing out that it did not extend to martial law. He
        1912
        considered that the Amendment had been greatly improved by the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and he could not see what there was out of Order in proposing it.
        MR. MUNTZsaid, he thought the Committee was very deeply indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) for bringing forward this important subject. They had not had the question of martial law decided. They had the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice and of Justice Blackburn—one opposing the other. Now, martial law was well understood when it was proclaimed in foreign countries. It dealt with all offences which took place after the proclamation. But in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway—the case of Gordon—he was tried for an offence committed 12 months before martial law was proclaimed. Such a thing as that would not be possible in Russia or Austria. If it was felt that this was not an opportune place to make the Amendment desired, by all means let the proper one be pointed out, and availed of. It was important that care should be taken to prevent the recurrence of the lamentable execution in Jamaica.
        SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he expected the ruling of the Chair, and, in fact, his own view was that this Amendment was hardly necessary. But he was anxious to bring the discussion to a close. Martial law was no law at all. It was a subject that was not, and could not be, dealt with by this Bill. This was a Bill to regulate military law, to which, and not to martial law, soldiers must be subjected. He agreed that they were treading on dangerous ground. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would be satisfied now that the attention of the Committee had been drawn to the subject, and that he would withdraw the Amendment.
        MR. PARNELL,although it might appear to be taking a great deal upon himself, could not altogether agree with the view of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James). It appeared to him that the Legislature had been guilty of a grave omission in not codifying military as well as martial law; because it so happened that whenever martial law was proclaimed in a country, it was practically a suspension

        1913
        of all law. Therefore, he thought that if power was to be left to the Commander-in-Chief to proclaim martial law in any country the power should be limited and the law codified, and that it should not be permissible to administer any law which was not subject to some careful scrutiny. He did not think this could be done in a clause added to the Bill, unless it was decided that all the provisions of military law were necessary where martial law was proclaimed. For instance, martial law was proclaimed at that moment in South Africa; but it would be obviously unnecessary to have all the provisions in this Act proclaimed there. But a certain number of clauses might be picked out from this Bill which could be made to govern the actions of Commanders-in-Chief, and by-that means the abominable abuses which always had and always would exist wherever martial law was proclaimed would be avoided, and the law would be redeemed from the horrible atrocities and unjust treatment of the inhabitants for which it was now answerable. Martial law should be strictly limited and governed by law, instead of being beyond all law.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 153 (Liability to military law in respect of time for trial of offences).
        MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 84, line 5, to leave out "three years," and insert " one year."
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the clause, as it stood, was practically a great relaxation of the existing law, and had been very carefully considered. If, however, the Committee were so minded, he had no objection to substituting " two years," instead of the three years mentioned in the clause.
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, Clause 97 of the existing Act required that the term should be limited to three years; there was, therefore, no relaxation in the present case. He hoped that the words of the clause would be retained.
        MR. PARNELLthought it unfair that hon. Members on his side of the House should prevent the Secretary of State for War mitigating the terms of the clause, seeing that he had expressed his readiness to do so.
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONrose to Order. Was it competent to an hon. Member to say that another hon. Member was unfair in expressing his opinion upon a question before the Committee?
        THE CHAIRMANcould not say that the expression used by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was out of Order.
        SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, he had understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be anxious to get the opinion of the Committee upon this point. There was at Common Law no Statute of Limitations which would prevent the trial of persons after any particular time; therefore, there was no injustice in saying that a person should not be tried for any offence committed three years before the date of trial. De could see no advantage to the public in this Amendment.
        Amendment negatived.
        MR. PARNELLproposed to leave out the words from the word "but," in line 14, page 84, to the end of the clause. The matter referred to, he considered, should be left to the discretion of courts martial. These peremptory provisions in an Act of Parliament were very objectionable, especially in the case of fraudulent enlistment.
        Amendment negatived.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 154 (Adjustment of military and civil law) agreed to.

        Evidence.
        Clause 155 (Regulations as to evidence).
        MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of the words "purporting to be," in page 85, line 17. The question of proving the signatures of soldiers to their attestation papers had been frequently raised during the passage through Committee of the Mutiny Acts. He objected to the reception of these papers as evidence, without proof of handwriting.
        MAJOR NOLANpointed out that there would be great difficulty in verifying the handwriting by comparing the attestation papers with the known writing of the soldier. The writing of a man was very frequently changed by the instruction he received in the schools.
        MR. HOPWOODthought the hon. Member for Meath would see that the legal meaning of the words was that, primâ facie, the attestation paper produced by the proper person should be proof that it was signed by the man on his trial. But he apprehended that, according to every idea of fairness, if a man protested that the paper was not signed by him, the authorities would look for confirmatory evidence.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 156 (Evidence of civil conviction or acquittal) agreed to.
        Clause 157 (Evidence of conviction by court martial) agreed to.

        Summary and other legal Proceedings.
        Clause 158 (Prosecution of offences, and recovery and application of fines).
        MR. PARNELLmoved to leave out the word "may," in page 88, line 2, in order to insert the word "shall." The clause would then run—
        "Any proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction in pursuance of this Act shall be taken in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, so far as applicable."
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. PARNELLobjected to the payment to informers of any portion of the fines incurred by persons against whom they informed; and, therefore, begged to move the omission of all the words from the word " applicable," in page 88, line 6, down to the end of the clause.
        Amendment proposed, in page 88, line 3, to leave out from the word " applicable," to the word " informer," in line 6, inclusive.— (Mr. Parnell.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
        SIR HENRY JAMESsupported the Amendment, and said the informer was hardly ever a deserving person, and he had never known any good come from the practice of allowing him to receive part of the fine.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)entirely agreed that the informer was not always a worthy
        1916
        person; but it was part of our policy to make use of the information derived from such persons for the purpose of enforcing the law. It was not desirable, but necessary to do so.
        MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Committee were asked to give a reward for evidence which every Judge would describe to the jury as tainted.
        MR. E. JENKINSpointed out that Members of Parliament and publishers of pirated works of authors were liable to be informed against; it would, therefore, be going a long way to relieve soldiers from a liability to which all other classes were exposed.
        MR. HOPWOODsupported the Amendment. The clause dealt with soldiers, and with a class of men who might by the promptings of an informer be led to commit an offence. It encouraged a class of men whose business it was to bring about the commission of offences against the law, in order that they might derive some benefit there-from.
        MR. BIGGAR,thought that he remembered some hon. and gallant Gentlemen to have argued on former occasions that a system of giving a share of the fines to soldiers was very objectionable, on the ground that it led to cases of collusion. He might remind the Secretary of State for War of this circumstance, as an additional reason for his accepting the proposed Amendment.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the reply of the Solicitor General was irrelevant. It was no argument to say that the use of the informer was part of our system, if it could not be shown that the informer had done any good.
        THE SOLICITOR, GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, he had known the law to be enforced by this means in a great many cases where otherwise it would not have been enforced.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 184 Noes 97: Majority 87. — (Div. List, No. 153.)
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 159 (Summary proceedings in Scotland) agreed to.
        Clause 160 (Summary proceedings in Isle of Man, Channel Islands, India, and the Colonies) agreed to.
        Clause 161 (Protection of persons acting under Act).
        MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that if the nature of the acts likely to be charged against persons under the Act were considered, it would hardly be thought unreasonable that the time mentioned in the clause within which redress might be sought should be extended to 12 months. He, therefore, moved, in page 89, line 27, to leave out the word " six, ' in order to insert the word " twelve."
        MR. PARNELLsupported the Amendment. De did not see how the six months mentioned in the clause would render its working more simple, or involve any advantage to the Public Service.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, he could not advise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to agree to the proposed alteration. The period of six months was one which ran through our criminal jurisprudence.
        SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the offence might be committed in India, and that the necessary communications with legal advisers in England would occupy much time. There was a marked difference between the time necessary to get evidence in England and that required for the same purpose in India. He thought the Amendment should be agreed to.
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped the Secretary of State for War would see no objection to extending the time to 12 months. From his personal acquaintance with cases which had occurred, he was sure that six months was not a sufficiently long period to allow to persons in India and China for bringing their action. More than six months might elapse before persons so situated could come home and take action.
        MR. E. JENKINSsaid, it had been stated by an hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench that this Act empowered officials to do exceptional things; and he, therefore, thought, in view of that fact, an exception might be made from the general rule of our jurisprudence, and longer time given for obtaining redress. They were placing tremendous powers in the hands of officers, and if a wrong should be done by them, that wrong would be intensi-
        1918
        fied by unduly restricting the time for obtaining redress.
        MR. HOPWOODthought the policy of the clause was very doubtful. There was every reason why disabling clauses of this kind should be watched very narrowly, and that care should be taken that they were not made to affect the right of a person to come to a court to demand justice. There were many impediments to a man's ascertaining his right to justice, and everyone could understand how persons distributed upon the face of the globe should not be able to get justice on the spot. It might be an exceeding important thing for a person to have a longer time than six months within which to bring his action. The period of 12 months appeared to him a reasonable one; and he trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would see his way to accepting the proposed Amendment.
        MR. STAVELEY HILLconsidered that it would be much better to extend the period named in the clause to 12 months, and hoped the Secretary of State for War would give way upon this point.
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. E. JENKINSmoved, in page 89, line 29, to leave out the word "six," and insert " twelve."
        Amendment agreed to.
        MR. HOPWOODpointed out that the provisions of the second paragraph of the clause with regard to the tender of amends and the recovery of costs were already the law of the land. Their introduction into the clause was, in his opinion, a doubtful policy; and he, therefore, moved to omit the whole paragraph from line 30 to line 39, inclusive.
        MR. HERSCHELLwas quite of opinion that the portion of the clause referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was unnecessary, so far as it applied to the United Kingdom. He was not aware, however, whether it was equally unnecessary as applied to India.
        THE SOLICITOR GENERAL(Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)thought that the clause should remain without alteration.
        Amendment negatived.
        MR. PARNELLmoved the insertion after the word "India," in page 90, line 5, of the words—
        " Or in any colonial court of superior jurisdiction provided that the matter complained of occurred within the jurisdiction of such court."
        Amendment agreed to.
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.

        Miscellaneous.
        Clause 162 (Exercise of power vested in holder of military office).
        SIR ALEXANDER GORDONinquired the reason for the insertion of this clause?
        COLONEL STANLEYsaid, the reason for the insertion of the clause was to prevent any legal difficulty arising with regard to the custom of the Service.
        Clause agreed to.
        Clause 163 (Provisions as to warrants and orders of military authorities) agreed to.
        Clause 164 (Furlough in case of sickness) agreed to.
        Clause 165 (Licences of canteens) agreed to.
        House resumed.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
        The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
        The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

    MOTIONS.

      MINISTER OF COMMERCE AND AGRICULTURE.—RESOLUTION.
      MR. SAMPSON LLOYD, in rising to move—
      "That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Commerce and Agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet,"
      said, it was a matter of surprise that in this, the greatest, or nearly the greatest commercial country in the world, there existed no Department specially charged with watching over and, where neces-
      1920
      sary, protecting the manifold interests of Commerce and Agriculture. Hence, under the present state of things, taxes had been imposed, modified, or removed, the monetary system changed, Acts of Colonial Legislatures hostile to the commerce of this country sanctioned, laws affecting the vital interest of trade had been passed, and Treaties concluded without passing under the review of any Minister or Department specially charged with the general interests of Commerce. He might say something similar with regard to Agriculture; but if, on the present occasion, he did not speak of that great and important branch of the subject, it was not because he did not feel as deep an interest in that industry, or as keen a sympathy with it in its present depression, as any hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency, but simply because it would be dealt with by his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. M'Lagan). The question he wished to submit was this—was it desirable that such consideration as he had suggested should be devoted to commerce and agriculture, and from time to time such inquiries instituted and measures initiated as might appear calculated to promote them, by some competent Department of the Government, under the presidency of a capable Minister? He was one of those who thought that it was desirable—first, having regard to the great magnitude of the interests involved; second, the successful example of other nations who had tried it; and, third, the widely-spread belief among the commercial classes that the existing machinery of the Executive Government was not very well adapted for the accomplishment of these objects. This belief was supported by valid reasons. These two great interests—commerce and agriculture—constituted the basis of the power on which the State rested. As to the magnitude of their interests, they had a full discussion last Friday as to agriculture; but there was surely no man in or out of the Douse who doubted the enormous importance of those interests. The import and export trade of this country annually exceeded £600,000,000; whilst as to the amount embarked in agriculture, he could hardly venture to say what it amounted to, but it was some hundreds of millions sterling. In foreign countries —in France, Germany, Austria-Hun-

      1921
      gary, and Italy, and nearly every important civilized State, the interests of agriculture and commerce were watched over by persons whose position was equivalent to that of a Member of the Cabinet; and in the United States there was a separate Department charged with the supervision of agriculture. What was now asked for England was nothing new. It was but the re-establishment, to meet modern wants, of what was as old as the time of Cromwell, who saw the necessity for a Minister of Commerce, and established a great Council, which watched over all the interests of trade and commerce, and it was continued during the reign of Charles II.; but in 1783, in the reign of George III., a less satisfactory Board of Trade was organized for the consideration of all matters relating to trade. He had no doubt that the expression of a desire by an influential part of the agricultural population in this country for the appointment of a Minister would produce good results, especially if that desire was considered in connection with the expression of views which had come to this country from the United States of America. No one who considered the constitution of the present Board of Trade could doubt the necessity of a more complete supervision of the existing arrangements, instead of the isolated and anomalous supervision which already obtained; and this could only be properly achieved by the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture and Commerce, instead of attempting to patch up the system which had been considered sufficient in the days of our forefathers. It might be said by some that the trade and commerce of the country had prospered under the existing system, and that it was better to leave well alone; but no one who looked dispassionately at the present condition of the trade of the country could say that it was doing well. Statistics had shown that British and Irish products had very greatly declined of late years; that the number of insolvencies had increased from 11,000 in 1877 to 18,000 in 1878, with an estimated loss to creditors of £29,000,000 in one year. Many of their mills and factories were silent, many of their ships were laid up; and it was clear that, far from doing well, they were in urgent need of every possible help and facility and the removal of every impedi-
      1922
      ment before they could hope to hold their own with the other nations of Europe. There were many grounds on which could be based the statement that the present system was a failure. Would a Minister of Commerce, he asked, ever have allowed Indian cotton duties to be imposed, and then, after the creation of extensive interests, to be repealed? If we had a Minister of Commerce, should we pass Session after Session without being able to concentrate attention upon such important subjects relating to commerce as the reform of our Patent Laws and the Law of Partnership? He had sat in the House for six Sessions, and yet he had never heard the question of bankruptcy reform discussed—a question of no mean interest, as it involved the economical administration of enormous sums each year. Had we had an able Minister of Commerce to consult with a Minister of Justice, the Bankruptcy Laws would have been altered long ago. Again, with a Minister of Commerce, we might have secured a Treaty on fair terms with Brazil at the time when we thought right to reduce the duties on coffee, and to abolish those upon sugar. He thought that we should not now be witnessing a movement for an increase in the hours of factory labour, had we possessed at the time when the Factory Laws were under consideration a thoroughly good Minister of Commerce, who could have been consulted as to the legislation required. The class of objectors to his views said that the commercial and agricultural classes were the best judges of their own interests, and that they should accordingly be left alone. Well, if the acme of wisdom was to leave things alone, why should the Government ever interfere with any state of things? The interests of commerce and agriculture were too great to be left alone. Properly to arrange their affairs the classes to which he alluded required the careful and vigilant exercise of Government influence to secure them the information which it was imperatively necessary they should be in possession of, and which could only be obtained and rendered clearly and promptly valuable by means of a well-organized staff, under a responsible head. There was yet another reason why commerce and agriculture could not be left to themselves. Those who were engaged in them were too busy to give the attention

      1923
      which the importance of the subjects demanded to changes in our own laws and the action of foreign Powers. Parliament never dealt with any of the great questions affecting commerce and agriculture in any but a spasmodic matter. Now and then the cries of some distressed or aggrieved interest were loud enough to demand attention, and a Select Committee was appointed. The Committee incubated and published a Report, which was thrown into the waste paper basket as soon as read, and no one was very much the better for the publication except, perhaps, the student of political and social knowledge. They had such a Committee this Session—the Sugar Industries Committee—of which he had the honour to be a Member. That was nothing but a post-mortem investigation into the causes of the death of a once flourishing industry. What, he asked, would become of the Army and Navy, and the Law, if their interests were not harmoniously combined under one well-organized staff and responsible Chief? He respectfully claimed for the earning interests of the State that they should also receive the benefits accruing from being under an organized Department. It was said to those who shared his opinions—" Settle your policy first; we will then talk to you about the rest." To that he replied, that there could never he a distinct and definite commercial policy in England until they had a Minister of Commerce to give them one. It was also objected that there were Ministers enough already. But, surely, if the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster required the care of a Cabinet Minister, and if room could he found in the Cabinet for the Keeper of the Privy Seal, he did not think there should he any insuperable difficulty about finding room among Her Majesty's Ministers for a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. The question which he was bringing to the notice of the House was in no sense a Party question. He hoped that hon. Members who were willing to devote so much of their time to the interests of foreign nations—the woes of the Bulgarians, for instance, and the interests of the Greeks—would not grudge a little attention to the demands of the agricultural and commercial classes. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
      MR. M'LAGAN,in seconding the Resolution, said, he wished to address the House especially in the interests of agriculture, and as to the necessity of having a Minister who should exercise a general superintendence over all the branches of the subject. To show the anomalies of the present state of things, he might observe that if any hon. Member should wish to elicit any information about drainage he would have, perhaps to his surprise, to resort to the right hon. Gentleman to whom was intrusted the management of crime and the police. If information was required about cattle disease, information had to be sought from the Minister who watched over the interests of education. If an hon. Member should want certain agricultural statistics, he would find himself referred to a Department which was mainly connected with ships and railways. If he wished to put a question about roads, bridges, and highways, he would, perhaps, be surprised to hear that the President of the Local Government Board, to whose care was committed the interests of paupers, was the proper person to inquire of about roads. It would be in the recollection of the House that about three years ago, when a very important measure relating to the interests of agriculturists—namely, the Agricultural Holdings Act—was discussed, it was carried through the House under the charge of the First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, they had probably all heard of " horse marines " in connection with that Department; but he imagined that very few of them had ever heard of an experimental farm being carried on on the deck of a man-of-war. At present, the affairs of agriculture were distributed over so many Governmental Departments, that it was impossible to get the information they wanted without a great deal of inconvenience and the waste of a great deal of time. Now, he and others who supported this Motion were anxious to have all these matters concentrated in one Department, so that as little time might be lost as possible in dealing with them. It had often been maintained, as a reason for upholding the existence of the Privy Seal Office, that if any Department of the State was overburdened with business, a part of it could be undertaken by the Lord Privy Seal, who was to be a kind of Betsy Baker, or maid-of-all-work. So was it

      1925
      with agriculture. Agriculture seemed to be the business of every Member of the Government, and, as was always the case when a thing was everybody's business, it too frequently proved to be nobody's business. The work was very badly done at present, and they always found that anything connected with agriculture was invariably left lagging be- hind. They had still further objections to that distribution of business. The Home Secretary, the Vice President of the Privy Council, the President of the Board of Trade, and the President of the Local Government Board, had all of them sufficient work, and, in fact, more than sufficient work to do in their own Departments; and yet those were the gentlemen who were intrusted with the supervision of the interests of agriculture in all its different departments. They treated them as matters merely of extraneous growth upon their own Departments, and it was natural, under these circumstances, that mishaps should occur sometimes. He remembered a very absurd mistake occurring when the cattle plague first broke out in this country. The Orders from the Privy Council Office were showered all over the country. Every clerk of the peace got parcels of these Orders, with instructions to post them up at every police office in their district. Well, he knew a clerk of the peace in Scotland who received one of these parcels, and who found in it not the Orders of the Privy Council, but a great many copies of a form of thanksgiving by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be used in all the churches on account of the grand harvest that had just been gathered in. That was quite a natural mistake to make, because the business of religion and the arrangements with regard to the cattle plague were carried on in the same Office. He was certain nobody could contradict what he had said as to the awkwardness and inconvenience of having these agricultural matters distributed over so many Departments; but he might be asked what he wanted to be done? Well, he wanted them all to be grouped into one Department and placed under one head. They might call that head the Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, or anything they pleased; but there should be one recognized authority who should have the responsibility of answering in that House Ques-
      1926
      tions connected with agriculture and commerce. He did not ask for such paternal government as they had in France, and he did not wish the new Minister to do all that the Minister of Agriculture did in that country; because he (Mr. M'Lagan) was inclined to leave a great deal to individual and local action. He would rather like him to follow the example, to a great extent, of the gentleman who was called the Commissioner of Agriculture in the United States—namely, that he should, from time to time, issue Reports on the agriculture of foreign countries; that he should call the attention of landholders. to new schemes, new manures, new practices, and new kinds of machinery. The function of a Minister for Agriculture should be not to be led by the public, but to lead the public, and not to lag behind the farmers. He should also be called upon to collect that valuable information which was at present stored up in Blue Books, and which was compiled from Consular Reports, and Reports from Ambassadors in foreign countries. It might be said that that could be done well enough by the present machinery. Well, if it could be done well enough by the present machinery, why did not the gentlemen in charge of that machinery do it? He maintained that it could not be done, and for the simple reason that the heads of other Departments had not the time to devote to agricultural concerns. They might ask, again, what did he propose? He would reply that he was not going to propose any new, great, or extensive changes. De wished to read what was stated to the House some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), when that right hon. Gentleman was President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in 1869, that there were six Departments in the Board of Trade, and that the heads of these Departments numbered no fewer than 57. The Commercial Department was under 11 heads, the Railway Department under seven, the Harbour Department under seven, the Marine Department under 21, the Financial Department under 10, and the Statistics Department under one. All the officials in that Office were of opinion that some Departments might be taken from the Board of Trade to the Home

      1927
      Office, and from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham; and all that he (Mr. M'Lagan) wanted, was that there should be an organization of the Departments. It was evident that, at that time, the Home Secretary of the day and the President of the Board of Trade had found out that so absurdly incongruous were the duties they had to perform that it was necessary to make some change or other; and they, therefore, proposed these changes from one Department to the other. Well, 10 years had passed since then, and he was not aware that any change had taken place. But, surely, if it was necessary then, it was still more necessary now. There ought to be something done. He proposed that something should be taken from the Board of Trade; that something should be taken from the Privy Council; that something should be taken from the Local Government Board; and that something should be taken from the Woods and Forests —the latter was a most important Department connected with agriculture—and that all these should be incorporated with the Inclosure Commissioners. Let the latter be the nucleus around which these other things should be placed, and then appoint a Cabinet Minister to preside over the whole. He was satisfied that agricultural affairs would be more easily and satisfactorily managed if collected into one group like that, than if scattered, as they were now, over the different Departments. That need not be an expensive operation, and need not cost more than at the present time. Those Departments to which he had referred cost about £58,000 at the present time, and it need cost nothing more under the arrangement he had suggested, because the same permanent officers would be kept on. In conclusion, he would only say how advantageous it would he at the present time if they had had a Minister of Agriculture, seeing that they were about to appoint an Inquiry of the greatest importance to agriculture, where that Minister could have been of so much use to the Commissioners in collecting and forwarding evidence, and also in giving his own valuable opinion. He begged to second the Resolution of his hon. Friend, which he hoped would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Commerce and Agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department, under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet."—(Mr. Sampson Lloyd. )
      Mr. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the state of the House at that moment was in itself an emphatic commentary upon the question raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd). No one could say that at present, or from the commencement of the debate, the House was not unbecomingly thin. He was not much surprised at its thinness, for hon. Members were exhausted by struggling with the disgraceful trivialities, by the mischievously exaggerated attention to the mere detail of measures, by which their time had been occupied. While hearing the able statement of his hon. Friend, he asked himself, whence was all this confusion of Departments in relation to agricultural and commercial affairs? The reason seemed to be, that the Departments had lost what was once at their head. Ten or 15 years ago the House would not have entertained such a proposal as that which was now before it. The House would have considered, and considered rightly, that the proposal involved an invasion of its functions. When he first entered Parliament, and for years afterwards, the real head of the Public Departments was the House of Commons itself. Within the House there were two great and efficiently organized Parties. There was also a large number of thoroughly efficient independent Members. The House did not spend hour after hour, day after day, week after week, and month after month in the consideration and re-consideration of the details of every measure that came before it; but devoted itself mainly to the consideration of great questions, such as that which his hon. Friend now proposed should be devolved upon the Departments. The present state of things had suggested to him grave reflections. He did not say that his hon. Friend had not a case. The fact was, that he had only too good a case; and the few hon. Members who recollected, as he (Mr. Newdegate) did, the efficiency of the unreformed Parliaments, in which they had sat, would feel

      1929
      with him that it was the confusion, which had overtaken the House itself, that constituted the strength of the case which his hon. Friend had presented. He had heard proposals of this sort made before, and they had been indignantly rejected by the Douse. Why? Because the House of Commons then utilized the Departments as subordinate to itself; and he feared that the inference to be drawn from the proposal of his hon. Friend was, that the House might hereafter find itself, instead of controlling them, dependent upon those Departments. As an old Member of the House, then, he ventured to warn hon. Members that they must be prepared to consider a change in the character and position of the House—if it could not control its own conduct and action—to limit the subjects to which it would confine its exertions, and avoid neglecting the great interests of this country, which ought to be considered as paramount to the mass of detail which he was sorry to see from day to day occupying the attention of the House. He spoke plainly upon this subject; but, far from deprecating the Motion of his hon. Friend, he most sincerely believed that, if the Douse wished to do its duty to the country, it must institute some organization in the Departments; but this could be safely done only on the supposition that this House would organize itself. These were matters for grave consideration. He (Mr. Newdegate) was quite certain that no commercial man would read the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth to-morrow without feeling that, having been from the first a promoter of Chambers of Commerce in this country, and having year after year presided over those bodies, the hon. Member had manifested a knowledge of his subject in its relation to commerce, an ability and a power of organization, which entitled what he said to a weight and an influence that could scarcely attach to any other unofficial Member of the House. He (Mr. Newdegate) was himself inclined, however, to differ from his hon. Friend on one point. He did not think it would be advantageous to combine in one Department the supervision of the interests of agriculture and commerce too closely. This would render the task so onerous as to produce confusion. He believed there was room, and ample room, for two heads of Departments, who should take charge of
      1930
      the interests of agriculture and commerce respectively. They would be associated with the Administration of the day; their action would be thus combined. Their duties might be carried on side by side; but he was of opinion that the interests of agriculture were extensive and important enough to require the appointment of some official to represent them. Nothing better could be hoped than that some official might be appointed, as able as was the late Mr. Arthur Young, who in his time rendered such eminent and lasting services to the agriculture of this country. He (Mr. Newdegate) was reading only the other day the evidence and the information which Mr. Arthur Young produced in 1814 before the Select Committee on the Corn Trade, and, in doing so, he could not help feeling that his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth had one branch of his case proved some 60 years ago. In fact, he had never yet been able to understand why the Department over which Mr. Arthur Young so ably presided had been abolished; he thought that it ought to be renewed. But if the supervision of agriculture which existed in Mr. Arthur Young's days was sufficient to occupy him, his presumption was that it would be better to have distinct Departments, though without absolute separation, for agriculture and commerce. With respect to the interests of commerce, this Motion was in itself a proof that the doctrine of what had been termed that of " laissez faire" —the doctrine which prevailed in the year 1846, and for some years afterwards until the year 1861, when the French Treaty was concluded— had completely passed away. He thought, then, that his hon. Friend had done eminent service—a service which his antecedents had admirably qualified him to perform —by bringing this subject before the House. He hoped that hon. Members would forgive him (Mr. Newdegate) for having pointed out that the House had lapsed from the functions which it had formerly discharged. His hope was that the history of the present Parliament would induce the next House of Commons to practise more self-control, insist upon more organization, and insist that the spirit of the Rules and Orders by which its authority was maintained should be respected.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the bon. Member for North Warwickshire

      1931
      (Mr. Newdegate) had addressed them on a subject which was being brought under their notice day by day—namely, the manner in which that House could best conduct its Business. He did not say that the remarks of the lion. Member were not deserving of consideration; but they did not concern the question under discussion, which was not how the House should conduct its Business, but how the Executive should conduct its Business. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that the question had been brought before the Douse with great ability by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd), who spoke with the confidence which his position of President of the Association of Chambers of Commerce in the United Kingdom entitled him to assume. Having been President of these Chambers for many years, he must be taken to represent their views on this subject. The hon. Member who had followed him had also addressed the House in a speech of great ability and weight. Those hon. Members had based their proposal upon two grounds—the one theoretical, and the other practical. As far as the theoretical ground was concerned, he did not think that anyone called upon to re-constitute the Government would retain the present system, which was, undoubtedly, a clumsy one. When he was Vice President of the Council he found that, in addition to education, he had to concern himself with cattle disease, though he himself could trace no connection between the two branches of Government; but then he received some compensation in finding that certain matters relating to education fell within the limits of another Department. The pauper schools were intrusted to the Poor Law Board, and the reformatory schools to the Home Office. There was, in fact, a very curious arrangement. But we had anomalies all through our system, and it was one of our great causes of pride that we managed to have good government in spite of them. But there were practical evils arising from this arrangement. On this ground he had become, though rather slowly, a convert to the proposals of his hon. Friend. Some years ago he had served as Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider the relations between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office with regard to Commercial Treaties. That Committee reported to
      1932
      the effect that it was not desirable to have two Offices attending to this matter, but that it would be better to establish a Commercial Department in the Foreign Office. This was subsequently done; but he was obliged to acknowledge that he did not think the system had been successful, though a great deal was to be said for it in theory. The general political business of the Foreign Office was necessarily so absorbing that the Commercial Department almost of necessity fell into disregard. As far as commercial interests were concerned, it would be better if they possessed some champion in the Cabinet. But these remarks did not apply to the Foreign Office alone. Many important questions affecting our commerce arose, for instance, in our relations to the Colonies. The question of the Canadian Treaty was a recent instance. It would be advantageous if the commercial interests of the country felt that they had a Member of the Cabinet to whom they could go, and whose business it was to attend to their representations. Again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged, in raising the Revenue, to consider the indirect effect of the taxes upon our commercial interests. That was another case in which great benefit might arise from having those interests represented in the Cabinet. Exactly the same kind of argument applied to India. Looking at the matter from another point of view, he thought it would lie an immense convenience to the Government itself to have a fresh arrangement of the duties assigned to the different Departments. There was plenty of direct work which could be given to a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. The Home Department at present was tremendously overworked, and a good deal of its work might very properly be given to the new Minister. The patent laws were at present in the hands of the Attorney General; but it would be better if patent law reform were brought forward by a Minister of Commerce. The same remark applied to the question of bankruptcy, with reference to which an important measure was at present before Parliament. He was aware that it was much easier to talk about such a fresh arrangement than to carry it into effect; but he put it to the Government to consider whether it would not be advantageous. There were two other arguments which deserved attention. The

      1933
      first was furnished by the very strong feeling which existed among the commercial classes throughout the country that they ought to be represented; and the second was the advantage he felt sure would arise from having commerce and agriculture connected. What he meant was that there should be one Minister at the head of the two Departments, and a Minister of high position. The appointment of such a Minister would be advantageous both to commerce and to agriculture. That was the conclusion to which he had come, believing that both the commercial and agricultural interests ought to be represented in the Executive Government.
      MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he did not rise to detain the House for any length of time; he merely wished to mention a few points which he thought would tell strongly in favour of the appointment of a Minister who should have the care of commerce and agriculture as his special business. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), in the course of his observations, expressed his regret at the present depressed state of agriculture throughout the country, and he was glad to see that there was now a larger attendance in the Douse than there was some short time since, although he was sorry hon. Members were not present in large numbers to hear the very able and valuable remarks of the Mover of the Resolution. The hon. Member laid the question before the House in various aspects, and treated it with the utmost impartiality, both with reference to commerce and agriculture. With reference to the suggestion that the Minister could attend to both subjects there could be no doubt; and to the agriculturists the result of this rearrangement would be, that they would be placed in possession of more reliable information and more reliable statistics. They had at the present time statistics furnished to the House; but they were of the most imperfect character, and little reliance could be placed in them. In fact, a great many farmers almost ignored the papers that were sent them; but if they felt that the information they received was accurate, they would be prepared themselves to give better information. Then there was the point, that if a Minister was appointed these returns would not only be more reliable, but they would be tabulated so as to
      1934
      make them readable and intelligible to the public generally. No doubt in these records very valuable information was given; but owing to the number of Blue Books in which it was contained, and the short time people had for reading them, the information was lost, and people were left in ignorance of the real facts. Take, for instance, a year like the present. He believed a Minister would be able to tell them what they could best do with their produce. He could tell them what was likely to be the yield of corn, with some degree of accuracy, in America, in Egypt, on the Continent of Europe, and in India, and that would enable the farmer to do better than he could now with his land. Then, again, there was the production of cheese; and if they knew what was likely to come from abroad he was sure, speaking as one who lived in a country where that was a particular product, very much better results would be achieved. Considering that so many were interested in this industry, he could not conceive anything more valuable to it than a Department of Agriculture from which the best information could be obtained as to the probable yield from other countries. Again, they wanted to know how so much wool was leaving this country for Germany, instead of being manufactured here. They also wanted to know something more about the probable importation of cattle from America, which, they understood, had almost an inexhaustible supply; and unless they had a Department specially charged with these matters, it was impossible to obtain accurate information on behalf of a class who were interested to the extent of hundreds of millions in the soil of the country.
      MR. MUNDELLAthought a change of system was necessitated by the vast and rapid growth of the commerce of the country. Our exports and imports amounted, in the aggregate, to about £600,000,000 a-year, and the value of our agricultural produce was about £300,000,000 a-year; and interests to the extent of £900,000,000 a-year were surely of sufficient importance to command the best abilities of the finest statesman who could be brought to take charge of them. As matters at present stood, we knew little or nothing about the resources of other countries, or of the changes which were effected in America with regard to pasturage and the trans-

      1935
      port of thousands of acres of grain. From his own experience, he was astonished at the amount of information on agriculture which was available, but which never came under the notice of the agricultural classes at all. The reason of this was that there was no one to procure the facts; for, although commercial reports were sent home by our Consuls, it was like picking a grain of wheat out of a bushel of chaff to get from them the information which was required, not because of any want of zeal or intelligence on the part of the authors, but because they did not receive the necessary instructions as to what it was desirable they should furnish. Too often legislation was opposed to the development of manufactures and commerce. There was the patent law, which might be described as a law for the discouragement of inventions, and yet it remained unaltered because there was no one in the Cabinet to press the matter forward, and there were no means of bringing the question, from a commercial point of view, under the consideration of the Government. The same remark applied to the amendment of the bankruptcy laws. The Americans knew what they wanted, and what they were at; but we seemed to be entirely ignorant. If we only had concentrated responsibility in the hands of one Minister, we could obtain all we wanted. Believing that if effect were given to such a proposal as that before the Douse it would result in great benefit to the country, he should give it his cordial support.
      SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought it was a very curious fact that there should be a Minister of Commerce in every country in Europe except England, which was the most commercial of all. We were dependent on the prosperity of commerce and manufactures. He entirely concurred with his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in the opinion that it was a mistake to suppose that agriculture and commerce were antagonistic. The fact was, the two were correlative. Ministers had to attend to that House and to their correspondence. He believed it was utterly impossible for them to discharge the duties which were allotted to them, and that was an additional reason for creating a separate Department for commerce and agriculture. In fact, he thought the time was not far distant
      1936
      when a second Colonial. Minister would have to be nominated.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERassured his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) that he, in common with the rest of the House, had listened with great pleasure to his statement. Nothing could be clearer or more business-like. And he must frankly own that many of the arguments which his hon. Friend adduced appeared to be well worthy of careful consideration. At the same time, he must also say that the difficulties which had in former days suggested themselves to him when he had considered this matter had by no means been removed by the discussion which had been held. While he sympathized with the main object, at alt events, which his hon. Friend and others had in view, he was by no means sure that his hon. Friend had suggested the right remedy for the difficulties in which we found ourselves. De admitted it might appear strange that in most European Governments they found there was a Minister bearing the title of Minister of Commerce; while in this, the greatest commercial country in the world, they did not find a Minister with a similar designation. He thought there was some reason for supposing that the commercial greatness of this country was owing not a little to its being without too much State protection; and that private enter-prize, which had been developed under our system, had had a great deal to do with the greatness which we had confessedly attained. He did not say that it was not right that the Government should provide those facilities which commerce required, or that Government had no duties to discharge towards the great commercial and agricultural interests of this country. He hoped, in whatever they might do, they might not be led into the grave error of substituting Government management and protection fir those great institutions by which the trading interests of the country managed to carry on their own business. He thought it was the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) who spoke on the Board of Agriculture in the days of Arthur Young. The hon. Member said that if it was desirable to have a Board in those days fully engaged in attending to the concerns of agriculture, how much more was a Board wanted in the present time, when agri-

      1937
      culture had taken so large a development? He must remind the hon. Member that in the days of Arthur Young there were no such societies as existed now. Similarly, with regard to commerce. The great development of such bodies as the Association which his hon. Friend Mr. Sampson Lloyd) represented, and the great services they had rendered, had done a great deal to develop commerce and give it the great extension which it had. It was said that there ought to be assistance given by the State to commerce and agriculture. With that he entirely agreed. There were, no doubt, many functions which the State ought to exercise, and did now exercise, with regard to commerce and agriculture; and he was far from saying that those functions were exercised in the best possible manner, or that no improvement could be effected in their administration. But the particular proposal of his hon. Friend was that they should be collected together and administered by a distinct Department under a Secretary of State, who should be a Member of the Cabinet. What were the duties to be put together under this new Department? There was the administration of roads, questions of agricultural holdings, factory labour, foreign tariffs and Treaties, duties to be imposed in India and the Colonies, cattle diseases, new inventions, statistics—whether general, or confined to commerce and agriculture had not been specified—banking, patents, enclosures, and he presumed it was intended to retain the functions which belonged to the present Board of Trade, and that the new department would look after railways, weights and measures, and copyright. To these things from foreign countries were added technical education, museums, and other subjects of that kind. He ventured to say, if they were to constitute a Department to deal with all these questions they would soon find it overburdened, and that they would not get out of their difficulty without getting into others quite as great. The whole question of the re-organization of the Civil Service was raised by this Motion. As to the question of statistics, it was very desirable that whoever was connected with that Department should be well acquainted with the principles of statistical science. Such a Minister would have to be responsible for all statistics respecting education, crime,
      1938
      population, and many other questions, which would involve great difficulty whenever any scheme of re-organization was considered. He quite agreed that they ought, as much as possible, to endeavour so to adjust their business as to make the Department as nearly as possible symmetrical, and to bring the cognate subjects together. The matter, however, was something like re-arranging a library; they might adopt any system of classification, and still find that they had some incongruities—such as the Education Department and the control of the regulations of cattle diseases under one Minister. In reference to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) on this subject, he would point out that it was only by an accident that these two functions happened to be under the control of one Office. The right hon. Gentleman was not the Education Minister, but the Vice President of the Privy Council, and the Privy Council was a body which had charge of many different kinds of work. In that Department the real business was done by several permanent officials, who had practical knowledge, and were in charge of the different branches of the business which came under the general head of the affairs attached to the Privy Council Office. The President of the Council was responsible for the general conduct of the business of his Department; but the business in the various branches was entirely independent the one from the other. He thought there was much to be said in favour of reforming the present system, especially as far as communications in relation to commercial matters with foreign countries were concerned; but, at the same time, it must not be forgotten that communications of the kind lost much of their weight unless they were made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At the same time, he thought there were strong grounds in favour of making the Board of Trade the vehicle of communication between the Foreign Office and foreign countries on matters of this kind, leaving the Foreign Office responsible for whatever might be done. The Motion of his hon. Friend referred only to agriculture and commerce; but he presumed there would be an equally strong reason for dealing with other great interests, and to cover the whole ground would necessitate the construc-

      1939
      tion of a very extensive Department, which would absorb a great deal of the internal business of the country, and would, he feared, find itself overloaded with work. It was, no doubt, a great temptation to Ministers to throw some of their work on some other Department; but if this new Office were set up, all the other administrative Offices would be thrown out of gear. The Government, at present, did everything in its power to facilitate all the great industrial interests of the country. He was sorry to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend, because he admitted that the present arrangements fell short of what they might be ' expected to do. His hon. Friend's proposal could not be expected to remain where he left it. The Department would not only have to take charge of commerce and agriculture, but it would have to assume control over mines, manufactures, railways, and shipping, and, he must say, he was not prepared to enter upon so large an undertaking. Communications were now going on between himself and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and he hoped they would result in arrangements which would facilitate agricultural and commercial operations. He should be glad to take advantage of the discussion that had occurred; and hoped the Government, in their consideration of the arrangements that might be made for improving the Departments in question, would not be hampered by a vote of the Douse binding them to a particular course. De could not himself be a party to such a vote; and trusted that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to place such a vote upon the Records of Parliament. If the lion. Member would be content with the assurance that he had given him—namely, that the Government were alive to the importance of the subject, and prepared to consider any practical measures for the better development of this part of the Business of the Government—he could again promise him that the question should receive every consideration. If, however, the Motion should be pressed to a vote, it would not be in the power of the Government to accept it.
      MR. W. HOLMSsaid, it was most desirable, in connection with the making of Commercial Treaties, that there should be a Minister of Commerce. In 1846, when England inaugurated a Free Trade policy, we were in the hope that other
      1940
      countries would follow our example. France did so in 1860. He, however, regretted to say that since that time there had been no advance—in fact, we were retrograding. We had to fight with hostile tariffs, not only of other countries, but of our own Colonies; and, therefore, it was most desirable that, in negotiating Commercial Treaties, we should have a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. Last year, for instance, in negotiating a Treaty with France, we sent a Commission to Paris. There were selected a Member of the Foreign Office, a Member of the Indian Office, and an hon. Member of this House; but after these Representatives had met the French Commission and talked the matter over —but without succeeding in their mission—their duties came to an end, and, so far as he knew, we had no one to look after our interests in connection with the proposed French Treaty. In 1851, England, undoubtedly, occupied the first place as a manufacturing nation; but since then other countries had made rapid progress. We bad not stood still, we had progressed; but, relatively, our position was not now so much in advance of other countries as it was in 1851. Of late years our exports of worsted goods had been steadily declining; but our imports had been increasing to a very large extent. Of the wool received from Australia and elsewhere, a larger proportion year after year was being sent to the Continent, and a smaller proportion was being worked up in this country. It was extremely desirable that we should have a Minister of Commerce to look into these matters and inquire into the cause of the changes which had taken place in some of our leading industries. Other countries were paying great attention to technical education; and the schools in which this kind of education was imparted were, as a rule, under the control, and aided by, the respective Governments of the countries in which they were situated. If there were a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture in England, he would, no doubt, turn his attention to this particular branch of education. Little or no information was given with regard to textile manufactures; such Returns as we possessed were given at the instance of private Members of this House; and, consequently, they were collected at irregular periods, and were not made out in a

      1941
      regular or systematic manner. There were Returns in 1850, moved for by Mr. Pilkington; another Return in 1859, moved for by Mr. Baines; and another in 1862; but not two of these Returns were alike. One man took up a particular idea as to the information to be given; the succeeding Return was probably on a different basis; and the consequence was that, for purposes of comparison, these Returns were almost useless. Now, if we had a Minister of Commerce, he ventured to say he would have tabulated, year after year, a mass of valuable information with regard to our own country; and not only so, but we should have definite information with regard to the progress of other countries. At the present moment it appeared to him that every Department of the Executive was overwrought; and he thought it most desirable that those Departments should have their labours lightened by having a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, to whom should be referred questions peculiar to his Office. He did not think there would he any great difficulty in defining what the duties of the Office should be. De did not see the difficulties that presented themselves to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; because he did not think it necessary that they should deal with questions outside of those connected with commerce and agriculture.
      MR. GILES,in supporting the Motion, remarked, that the very important subject to which it related well deserved the attention of the House and the Government. He saw considerable difficulty in the working out of the arrangement, and that difficulty would be somewhat increased by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the difficulty being in the appointment of only one Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, not because their interests were antagonistic, but because there would be work enough for two Ministers. They had been called a nation of shopkeepers, and they felt they had nobody to mind the shop. They asked the Government, in the face of lessening returns, and profits " small by degrees and beautifully less," to give them a Minister whose special province it should be to preside over the interests of commerce and agriculture, represented by an annual turnover of something like £1,000,000,000.
      MR. JAMES STEWARTsaid, the hon. Member who had brought this
      1942
      question forward deserved the thanks of the House. The difficulties had been pointed out which would accrue in regard to the organization of the Department; but he thought the present way in which the commercial affairs of the nation were looked after was not one to give us the advantages which we might properly derive from information on the statistics and operations in trade of other countries. The Foreign Office was the medium by which all commercial transactions between this country and other countries were carried on; and we had only to look at the state of things during last year, when the Eastern Question was so much under the consideration of the Foreign Office, to see that it was impossible, if a matter of commercial importance came before the Office, to expect that it would receive the attention to which it was entitled. He ventured to say that the question with regard to the bounties on sugar was at that moment in a critical position; and that the possibility of an arrangement satisfactory to the interests of the country was within, he might say, the reach of the Government. To nothing but the superior excitement which Eastern questions and Berlin Treaties produced could he attribute the fact that that question was allowed to get into the condition in which it now stood. De did not wish to impute any blame to the noble Marquess at the head of the Foreign Office; but he did think it was only human nature to expect that, in the midst of the excitements of Berlin Treaties and matters of that kind, the prosaic and dull interests of questions such as the bounties on sugar were likely to be overlooked. Now, he thought, and it was unquestionable, that any Minister of Commerce appointed would require to work in conjunction with the Foreign Office; and he should like to point out an instance in which he thought it was perfectly clear that the interests of this country would not have been so advantageously promoted had the negotiations been left entirely to the Foreign Office—namely, when the Commercial Treaty with France was negotiated. At the time, Lord Cowley was Ambassador at Paris; and if he had not been a man of more than ordinary common sense he would have been jealous of the interference of that distinguished man who went to negotiate the Treaty with France, Mr. Cobden. If he had attempted to carry out that negotiation

      1943
      single-handed, he would have failed—at least, comparatively failed—and the negotiation could not have been carried out in the short time in which it was done by Mr. Cobden. There was only one other matter, and that was that with a Minister of Commerce his voice would he heard loudly in the interests of peace in the Cabinet—those interests which tended, most of all, to the advantage of this country. There was another thing that might be gained by the organization of such a Department. Strikes and lock-outs, which we so often suffered from in this country, might be dealt with at their commencement if there was a Minister of Commerce. He did think that it very often happened that those deplorable events were brought about because there was no medium by which employers and employed who were in strife could be brought together to arrange their differences, and that might be provided for in the Office of a Minister of Commerce.
      MR. PELLsaid, he did not think he could vote for the establishment of a new Department to which all the functions of the Executive Government especially relating to commerce and agriculture should be committed. Ho did not see that any distinct advantage was likely to be secured to agriculture, at all events, by such an important change. But if the hon. Member for Plymouth meant that those functions of the Executive Government which especially related to commerce and agriculture should be administered by a special Department, not necessarily being a new one, and that it should not deal only with those functions which technically related to agriculture and commerce, he should be inclined to support that view. The Prime Minister some years ago said that the subject of a re-distribution of official duties in the Public Departments, in order to obtain greater efficiency, was one which must always engage the attention of the Government. A subject, however, which was always engaging such general attention was not very likely to receive the particular attention at a specific time which was necessary to attain a good result. No doubt other questions of very great importance had been occupying the time of the country, and that might be a sufficient excuse for this matter not having been dealt with as it deserved to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in his opening remarks, admitted a
      1944
      great part of the case when he spoke of the difficulty in which they had found themselves, and told them it was an accident only which brought the questions relating to cattle and to education into the same Department. Now, the accident which had brought them there still kept them there. He thought that a re-arrangement might be made. The Government had already given to the House some assurance that they might expect the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the prospects of agriculture; and perhaps it would be well for his hon. Friend to wait until some evidence was taken by the Commission upon this point. He hoped his hon. Friend would not deem it to be his duty to divide the House to-night. If, however, the Resolution were pressed he should vote in favour of it; in order that it might go forth to the country that, in the opinion of the House, the Government ought to take up the question, and to give effect to some, if not most, of the ideas expressed by those hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Resolution.
      MR. J. G. HUBBARDpointed out that as far as the debate had gone it had been nearly, if not absolutely, one-sided. This being the case, he asked whether any mischief could result from the House voting in favour of the Resolution? In his opinion, no possible harm could result from the Douse accepting the Resolution which had been submitted to its consideration.
      SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that when he was first returned to Parliament he, with the little experience which he possessed, brought forward a Motion on part of the subject; and upon that occasion his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), after telling a story about a lady who felt so very well that she expected something was about to happen, advised the agriculturists that, as they were doing so well, they had better leave well alone, and not ask the Government to do anything for them. He could not expect that there was very much to be gained from the Government in the way of assistance to agriculture. We should see what came from the Royal Commission, which, if its inquiries were searching, would be satisfactory, if it only tended to make those interested in agriculture understand where their true interest lay. What

      1945
      was really wanted was that the local institutions of the country should be strengthened. All those connected with land in this country suffered, because the Minister who had charge of the municipal institutions of the country was not in a position to secure sufficient attention to their interests. While he believed there were many subjects connected with the occupation of those who cultivated the soil which certainly required the attention of Parliament, he could not, however, see the necessity of making an entirely new Department to fish, as it were, for occupation. He thought that some hon. Members, in speaking of the Privy Council, had forgotten that it was that body which was called upon to take up new questions and bring them gradually into shape, until they became ready to be handed over to some distinct Department. It might be that it was time that all questions connected with the importation and health of animals should be handed over to some other Department than the Privy Council; but he wished to remind hon. Members that the late Government had, to a very great extent, carried out that organization, which took from the Home Office many subjects which were now much more properly placed in the hands of Local Government Boards; and that appeared to him to be the true direction in which Government action could be beneficially employed in agriculture. He hoped the hon. Member for Plymouth would take the advice given to him from several quarters, to leave the matter in the hands of the Government.
      MR. SAMPSON LLOYDpointed out, in reply to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Thomas Acland), that the Resolution contained nothing about a new Department. It simply said that it was desirable that the functions of the Executive Government which related to commerce and agriculture should be conducted by one distinct Department—not necessarily a new one. All he was asking for was that those Departments which were anomalous and unsystematic should be properly, vigorously, and systematically administered. The Resolution did not pledge the Government to make the change within any specified time, nor did it pledge them to any details as to the manner in which such change should be effected. He felt it his duty to go to a division.
      VISCOUNT SANDONthought the House would feel much indebted to the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) for the explanation which he had just given. The Douse were now in full possession of the views of his hon. Friend, who, if he understood him rightly, did not attach the extreme importance which it had been supposed ho did attach to the creation of a principal Secretary of State. The question of the creation of a principal Secretary of State would, of course, be a very difficult one, and could not be decided off-hand. It was certainly not a question to be decided in a thin and slack Douse; and he, therefore, welcomed the statement of his hon. Friend, that he did not attach much importance to that part of his Resolution. De ventured to say that the whole position of the question would alter in consequence of that statement. On behalf of the Government, he wished to express their warm and deep sympathy with any exertions to alleviate the feelings which naturally existed, in these bad times, with regard to trade and agriculture. It was most natural that hon. Members should look about for remedies for the state of things which existed; and he hoped that if the Government did not at once agree to the remedies proposed, it would not be attributed to any want of feeling on their part. But they did not always feel that they ought to jump at every proposed remedy. He thought, however, it was not impossible that the proposal which he was about to make would meet the general feeling of the House; but, before making his suggestion, he wished to point out that the House was bound to consider that the Government were pledged to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the agricultural interest: and that, of course, one question which would be brought before that Commission would be as to the importance of concentrating certain different functions connected with agriculture in the hands of a Department of Agriculture. It was important, therefore, that they should not encroach upon the functions of the Commission. What he would venture to suggest was, that the Government would be prepared to accept a declaration—
      "That it is desirable that the functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Commerce and agriculture should, as far as

      1947
      possible, be administered by a distinct Department."
      He had put in "as far as possible" advisedly; because it would be impossible to take away from the Foreign Office the duties which it now discharged in connection with commerce, which would suffer very grievously from too hasty an interference with the action of the Foreign Office. The Government, in introducing these words, only wished to get a categorical statement on the part of the House that it was desirable that the functions in question should, as far as possible, be administered by one Department. The attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already been called to the subject; and he need hardly say that he (Viscount Sandon) was aware of its importance. De thought hon. Members would see that it was practically impossible for him, unless from sheer necessity, to avoid speaking of matters which somewhat affected his position as President of the Board of Trade. By the adoption of his suggestion, he thought they would avoid committing themselves in a very serious way; while they would gain the object in view, of securing that the two great interests of the country—commerce and agriculture—should be properly and seriously considered, and more systematically dealt with in future than they had been formerly. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Motion, and accept that which he had suggested in its stead.
      MR. SAMPSON LLOYDregretted that he must abide by his original Motion. The proposal of his noble Friend did not convey that the Minister should be a Cabinet Minister.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not help thinking it would create a wrong impression if the Douse divided upon this question. The Douse seemed to be of opinion that commerce and trade should, as far as possible, be attended to by one Minister responsible to Parliament. The hon. Member for Plymouth had said that the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend did not convey that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture should be presided over by a Minister. But it was perfectly well known that no other person than a responsible Minister of the Crown could possibly have qualifications for dealing with these interests. It was, as had
      1948
      been pointed out by his noble Friend, absolutely impossible that in a small and slack House like the present a Resolution should be passed to add to the Government a new Secretary of State. The Office was one of the most important that could be held, and such a matter had never been so lightly entertained. He ventured to say that, in no period of history, had it ever been proposed on a Motion of this kind that the House should come to the conclusion that a new Secretary of State should he appointed. That the Minister should be a responsible Minister, and, perhaps, a Member of the Cabinet, he did not for a moment deny; but that was very different from the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Plymouth. He could not help feeling that a great number of hon. Gentlemen would be placed in an awkward position if the hon. Member chose to divide, in order to show that there might be some difference of opinion when, practically, there was none. They were agreed that there should be some responsible Minister charged with the duties relating to commerce and agriculture. He could not imagine that his hon. Friend would put his own Friends or hon. Members opposite in the false position which they would occupy if they were supposed to vote against that which all desired—namely, that there should be some person charged with looking after the interests of commerce and agriculture.
      MR. NORWOODsaid, the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had carefully abstained from endorsing the view that the proposed Minister should be a Member of the Cabinet. This subject was one in which the manufacturing and commercial interests were very deeply concerned. He ventured to say, on behalf of the hon. Member for Plymouth, that when he spoke of a Secretary of State he was not absolutely insisting upon having an officer bearing that title to preside over the Department of Commerce and Agriculture; but that what he insisted on, and what many hon. Members were aiming at, was that some pledge should be given by Government that the Minister who was to have charge of this Department should be a member of the Cabinet. The Postmaster General was a member of the Cabinet; and surely the interests of trade and agriculture were as important as

      1949
      the administration of the Post Office. He had no desire to embarrass the Government but unless they gave an assurance that they were willing to carry out the spirit of the Resolution in this respect, he thought the House ought to go to a division.
      MR. W. H. SMITHurged that it would be very inexpedient for the House to pledge future Governments that the interests of trade and agriculture should be represented in the Cabinet. Whether the Minister in charge of them should be in the Cabinet or not must depend upon the circumstances of the day. The Government were perfectly prepared to admit that those functions of the Executive Government which especially related to commerce and agriculture should be administered by a special Department. But was it desirable that the House should affirm that there should be an additional Secretary of State, and that the functions now discharged by a Department of the Government should be assigned to him? The Government were moat desirous of recognizing the true interests of trade and agriculture; but it was not a sound position to assume that they required the assistance of a Secretary of State, and that they suffered severely because the President of the Board of Trade was not called a Secretary of State. With the view of testing the question, he begged to move the omission from the Resolution of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) of the words, " under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet."
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out the words "under the direction Of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet."— (Mr. William Henry Smith. )
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      LORD ELCHOwas entirely in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman by whom the Motion had been brought forward; but did not think it necessary, for the purpose which he had in view, to advocate that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture should be under the direction of a Secretary of State. He understood that the Government agreed that it was desirable that those mat-
      1950
      ters relating to commerce and agriculture should be collected and put under the administration of a Minister of a Department of the State; but that they did not think it desirable that for that purpose a special Secretary of State should he appointed and a special Department created. He had seen a Secretary of State created for the War Department; but many people were of opinion that the Army was much better administered before than after the creation of that Minister. He thought it would be sufficient if the Government gave a distinct assurance that they were prepared to subject to one Minister all matters connected with commerce and agriculture; and, therefore, if the Douse went to a division, he should vote for the Government proposal.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not imagine that his hon. Friend cared about the particular name of the Minister. The President of the Board of Trade might have his duties so far enlarged as to occupy this position; and, although there was not much in a word, it would be, on the whole, desirable that the name "President of the Board of Trade" should be changed into some other. But he thought it of importance that the House should give its opinion that this Minister should be a Member of the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought this would pledge all future Parliaments with regard to this matter; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not understand that would in any way be the case. It would merely be an expression of opinion on the part of this Parliament, at a particular Sitting, that it was considered advisable that this Minister should be a member of the Cabinet. He could not see that any evil could result from such a Resolution being recorded on the Minutes of the House; and, therefore, if the hon. Member for Plymouth went to a division, he should vote for the Resolution. But he wished to be understood to vote that commerce and agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department, and that it should be under a Minister who should be a Member of the Cabinet. If the Government would assent to that, he strongly advised his hon. Friend to allow the words "principal Secretary of State " to be omitted; but he could not advise him to omit the words "Member of the Cabinet."
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSwould like to know the number of times this question was before the House when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Office, and how often he had impressed upon the House that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture should be presided over by a Member of the Cabinet? During that long period, he had never heard the right lion. Gentleman suggest for a moment that the Minister should be a Secretary of State, or that there should be one person who should perform both the functions in question. He was, therefore, a little surprised to find such new-born zeal on the part of the right hon. Gentleman as he had just displayed for the creation of a new Member of the Cabinet. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. Had there ever, to his knowledge, been brought forward, and carried by the House, a Motion affirming that it should be dictated to any future Prime Minister who should be a Member of his Cabinet? He did not believe that any such precedent could be produced.
      MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not consider there was any dictation in the Motion; and with regard to the surprise felt by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, surely he was not in a position different from that of other Members of the House whose experience induced them to change their opinion.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that he was quite certain his lion. Friend the Member for Plymouth would never think that the House ought to dictate ho w many Secretaries of State there should be. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was one of those who wished that, as far as possible, all that related to commerce and agriculture should be collected in one Office. But that was what the Government had promised; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend would do well to accept that offer. If lie accepted it, he would have a pledge from the Government; but if, on the other hand, he went to a division, it might be that lie would get nothing whatever.
      MR.MONKhoped the hon. Member for Plymouth would not withdraw the words "under the direction of a principal Secretary of State." De agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in saying that the
      1952
      House ought not to dictate to the Prime Minister who should be in his Cabinet. But it rested with the Prime Minister under the Crown to decide whom he should appoint to the office of principal Secretary of State. It was desirable that agriculture and commerce should be under the direction of a principal Secretary of State, and it rested with the Prime Minister to say whom he would appoint. He hoped that the sense of the Douse, which had been clearly expressed, that the Minister should, at all events, be a Member of the Cabinet, would be taken by a division.
      MR. CHAPLINunderstood the Government to agree that it was desirable that the functions of the Government, especially relating to commerce and agriculture, should be administered in a distinct Department, but that they declined to agree that the Department should be under a Secretary of State. The Departments of Finance and of the Army, the Navy, and the Colonies, were all under Secretaries of State. If, therefore, the Government proposal were accepted, it would be as much as to say that the interests of commerce and agriculture were inferior to the interests of the other Departments which he had named. He did not think that was a proper position for those interests to occupy. It was quite true that it rested entirely with the Prime Minister to appoint the Members of his Cabinet, and no one would for a moment wish to interfere with his freedom in this respect; but it was perfectly competent to the House of Commons to express an opinion that the industries of commerce and agriculture were of such importance that they ought to be administered by a separate Department, under the control of a principal Secretary of State, and it was desirable that it should do so, because the House knew perfectly well that Departments so administered had much greater recognition by the Government than those which were nit under such control. All that the House of Commons would express, by voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd), would be that it considered the interests of commerce and agriculture were of such importance that they ought to be administered by a Department in no respect inferior to the other Departments of the State.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down says that the insertion of these words—
      "Under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall be a Member of the Cabinet,"
      would not be taken as any dictation to the Minister of the day, but as an expression of opinion on the part of the House that it was desirable that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture should be in no respect inferior to the other Departments of the State, and that is the view he takes of the whole Resolution. According to that construction, the whole Resolution amounts to nothing more than a vague expression of opinion. Now, I believe, in consenting to accept the first lines of the Resolution, we did so with the view of endeavouring to give it effect. But I must again point out to the House that the re-arrangement of the functions of Government is not to be done in a hurry, but with considerable care, and at the cost of considerable re-organization of Departments. Still, I admit the change is desirable, and ought to be made. But if we are called upon to say this is to be done in a particular manner, under the direction of a principal Secretary of State, and that he should be a Member of the Cabinet, the matter would be considerably complicated. The hon. Member for Mid - Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) suggested just now that all the Members of the Cabinet are Secretaries of State. But it has to be remembered that, at different periods, there are reasons why sometimes the Representative of one Department should be taken into the Cabinet and sometimes another, as in the case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or of the President of the Local Government Board. There ought not to be any such rule laid down as would hamper the Minister of the day in framing his Cabinet. It is, no doubt, convenient that the functions of agriculture and commerce should be, as far as possible, brought together; but to accept these lines at the end of the Resolution of the hon. Member, which would either be meaningless, or dictative to the Minister as to how he should form his Cabinet, is what ought not, in my opinion, to be asked of the Government. I shall, therefore, feel it
      1954
      my duty to vote against the insertion of these words.
      MR. DILLWYNsaid, it appeared to him that the carrying out of the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) would be attended, in any case, with considerable difficulty to the Government; and, therefore, he proposed to leave the matter in their hands. He should support the course suggested by the Government, with the sincere desire of giving effect to the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
      MR. BENNETT-STANFORDsaid, by dividing the House the hon. Member for Plymouth would place a great many hon. Members below the Gangway on his side of the House in an awkward predicament. Ho felt obliged to support the Government.
      MR. NEWDEGATEsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth, for this reason. The Colonies were represented by a Member for the Cabinet, and, under existing circumstances, he thought it was quite time to affirm that the great productive interests of this country should be equally represented. The affirmation of that principle would, he believed, have a very wholesome effect upon the Colonies; and it was, in his opinion, nothing more than the great interests of agriculture and commerce had a right to demand.
      MR. STORERhoped, after the substantial assurance given by the Government, the hon. Member for Plymouth would withdraw his Motion in favour of the Government proposal.
      MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, the essence of his Resolution was that the Minister in charge of the Department should be one of those persons whom the Prime Minister selected to be a Member of the Cabinet. He could not give up this point.
      MR. PELLsaid, the Government had gone quite as far as he desired to see them go in the direction indicated by the Motion of the hon. Member for Plymouth. He should support the Amendment of the Government.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 65: Majority 6.—(Div. List, No. 154.)
      MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he would now move an Amendment of which he had given Notice.
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member was precluded by the Rules of the House from moving this Amendment.
      Main Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 56: Majority 20.—(Div. List. No. 155.)
      Resolved, That it is desirable that those functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Commerce and Agriculture should be administered by a distinct Department, under the direction of a Principal Secretary of State, who shall he a Member of the Cabinet."

    TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to continue certain Turnpike Acts, and to repeal certain other Turnpike Acts; and for other purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 239.]

    COMMONS ACT (1876) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill to amend " The Commons Act, 1876," ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. WALPOLE, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, and Sir HENRY PEER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 240.]

    SAINT GILES CATHEDRAL (EDINBURGH) BILL.
    On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to make provision in regard to the restoration of the Cathedral Church of Saint Giles in the city of Edinburgh, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 238.]

    CHANNEL ISLANDS (APPLICABILITY OF ACTS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to remove doubts as to the applicability of certain Acts of Parliament to the Channel Islands, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. Secretary CROSS, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 237.]

    OCCUPATION ROADS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. PELL, Bill to enable persons interested therein to co-operate for the making, improving, and maintaining of Occupation Roads and Ways in England, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PELL, Sir THOMAS ACLAND, and Mr. RODWELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 241.]

    INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (POWERS OF SCHOOL BOARDS) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to amend the Law respecting the powers of School Boards in relation to Industrial Schools, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 242.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.