PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS. (Hansard, 13 July 1897)

§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
moved to leave out the words "Commissioners of Customs," and to insert the words "a Police Magistrate." He wished to provide that the character of the goods must be proved before a Police Magistrate. The Commissioners of Customs, he argued, might not be qualified to sift evidence and to decide as to the relative value of conflicting testimony. Difficult cases would probably arise, and with these a Police Magistrate with his legal training would be more competent to deal than the Commissioners. He thought, therefore, that it would he expedient to transfer to Police Magistrates the duties which the Bill as drawn would impose upon the Commissioners.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) Croydon
said that it would be most unsatisfactory to delay decisions under the Bill until a Police Magistrate could be consulted. If every case was to be argued before a Magistrate the Bill would be of little use. He thought the Commissioners who were accustomed to weigh evidence might be trusted to discharge fairly the duties imposed upon them by the Measure.

§ MR. ROBINSON SOUTTAR (Dumfriesshire)
observed that the Measure might lead to at great deal of legal trouble, and that the proceedings taken under it would, sometimes be of an important character. In his opinion, the Commissioners of Customs were not qualified to decide the cases of difficulty that would arise. The supporters of the Amendment wished to improve the Bill. 42 Question put, "That the words 'Commissioners of Customs' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 290.)

§ *MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)
moved to omit the words "by evidence tendered to them." There should be some definition of the evidence required. The Merchandise Marks Committee were strongly opposed to unnecessary interference with importations, and it was absolutely impossible to prevent the importation of these goods unless there was interference with the import trade of the country. The Committee should understand what the value of the evidence was to be upon which the Commissioners of Customs should take action. In his evidence before the Merchandise Marks Committee the Chairman of Customs staed that undue interference was very much affecting the shipping trade or the country. Naturally the prompt dispatch of goods to the importers was of the utmost importance to trade, and if goods were liable to be stopped at the port of landing on the information, true or false, of somebody who suspected the prison origin it would be a very serious matter indeed. The President of the Board of Trade objected to the last Amendment on the ground that inquiry by a Magistrate would greatly delay the dispatch of goods, but the laxity of this clause might lead to detention of goods without any just cause. There had been no explanation as to what was the contemplated operation of this clause. A strong reason for moving, the omission of these words was that they might obtain some definite statement from the Government as to what evidence they proposed to act upon with a view to bringing this Bill into operation.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, in his last observation, that it was the Government that had got to be satisfied.

§ MR. SAMUEL
explained that he meant the Commissioners of Customs.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said that, as the Commissioners of Customs were, by the Act, compelled to be satisfied with regard to the question before the detention took place, it must be for them to express their opinion upon the evidence which was 43 tendered to them as to whether it was sufficient to justify them in detaining the goods, and not for the Government. The Government must object to the omission of these words.

§ MR. W. S. ROBSON (South Shields)
thought a still more important question than the nature of the evidence which was to be taken as sufficient to satisfy the Commissioners, was whether the evidence was to be on oath, or was it to be mere hearsay evidence which might be supplied by any discharged servant or malicious trade rival? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought this was a matter on which they ought to have a definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. It ought not to be left to the Commissioners to say for themselves whether they would act merely on information or whether they would require evidence such as was considered sufficient and necessary in ordinary judicial proceedings.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
said he did not know whether it was worth while to make a serious attempt to amend this Bill. On the Second Reading he ventured to suggest that these words limited the power of the Commissioners, took away from them the initiative and prevented them from taking steps of their own to set the Act in operation. That was a limitation of the Act which he for one thought they should do away with. The hon. and gallant Member who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman, and who was supposed to be the begetter of this Bill put down this Amendment himself. He did not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman had withdrawn it, but he took it that he was in favour of the Amendment, because so far as it would affect the Bill at all it would go to strengthen the Bill. During the Second Reading Debate he asked the right hon. Gentleman across the Table who was to tender this evidence, and his reply was, "The people who have got the evidence." He ventured to say that the people who had got the evidence would in 99 cases out of 100 be the last to tender it, because their knowledge would probably be a guilty knowledge. The Bill was hardly worth the attention of the House. He should support the Amendment.

§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said that if the Act 44 were properly carried out it might do good. But it might be carried out mischievously by the Custom House officials, and the trade of the country considerably interfered with. He was not in favour of taking out these words because he thought they were very useful in limiting the scope of the operations of those who would be likely to interfere with the trade of the country. At the same time he thought they ought to have some guarantee that the evidence was reasonable evidence. He thought the insertion of the word "sworn" before "evidence" or of the words "on oath" after "tendered" would provide such a guarantee.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
could not regard this as a trivial Measure for two reasons. In the first place they must remember that the Customs House officers, in order to ascertain when prison-made goods came into the country must examine all goods. If the Measure was to be carried out properly it would affect the whole Custom House operations, and they would have greatly to increase the staff. That was the experience in America. They had an Act of this sort there, and they found it absolutely impossible to carry it out. The second reason was that he thought the Committee which inquired into the matter omitted one important class of goods. He thought the words "on oath" would be quite acceptable and would put things right. The absolutely absurd nature of the evidence which might be tendered in connection with this matter was disclosed in the Blue-book embodying the Report of the Committee. More absurd statements sifted by the Committee it would be impossible to conceive. Ono witness declared that 2,000 men had been thrown out of employment in the Brush trade by the goods which were received from Europe, but it was proved without a perhaps or peradventure, that the number of operatives in that trade had increased 45 per cent. within 10 years, and were never more prosperous than at that moment.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is rather treating the matter from a Second Reading point of view. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading has been accepted by the House.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
thought it was exceedingly important that the character of the evidence should be clearly stated.

*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)
said he understood the Amendment was proposed with a view to strengthening the Bill. He did not want to strengthen it, because he regarded it as a very foolish and insincere Measure. He strongly deprecated any revival of a system of Custom House oaths.

§ MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)
confessed Hint his own feeling with regard to this Bill was that it was purely mischievous. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman opposite would think twice before he pressed his Amendment to a division, because, in leaving out these words, they would simply give the Commissioners of Customs unrestrained discretion as to the operation of the Bill if it became an Act, and would remove the check that the Bill proposed—that there must be some evidence tendered before they could take action. One hon. Member suggested the addition of the word "sworn," but he would remind him that the Commissioners of Customs had no power to administer oaths or to cross-examine. They had better oppose the Bill in a manner more or less rational instead of doing what they could to make it more offensive and more likely to interfere with free trade than it was as proposed by the Government. He must demur to the position taken up by his right hon. Friend that this Bill would not be administered by the Government. The Commissioners of Customs were a department of the Executive Government—["hear, hear!"]—and they did all their work under the direction and control of the Treasury. If any fault were found with, the administration of this Bill on the part of the Commissioners of Customs and that fault found expression in that House, the form of expression would be by a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Treasury would have to review the action of the Commissioners. He urged the hon. Member not to press the matter to a division. If he did he should unfortunately find himself unable to support him.

§ MR. LOUGH
thought they had some cause to complain of the only answer given by the Government up to the present, and he agreed with all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. He believed the object of his hon. Friend who moved the 46 Amendment was to obtain some expression of opinion from the Government as to what they meant by these important words. They had not received that expression of opinion yet. If anyone had risen from the Government Bench in response to the appeals just made it would not have been necessary for him to have troubled the Committee. The traders of the country and the Commissioners of Customs had dealings with one another every day and it was of the greatest importance that the relations between the two should be pleasant. His hon. Friend was entitled to a better answer than the very brief reply he had received from the President of the Board of Trade. The Members on the Opposition Benches regarded the Bill as one of great importance, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be too cursory towards their efforts to make the Measure a little less bad than it was.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said he had not the slightest doubt his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was correct in his definition of the relations between the, Government, the Commissioners of Customs, but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to observe that what he said was that it was for the Commissioners of Customs and not the Government to be satisfied.

§ MR. COURTNEY
The aggrieved person can always appeal to the Treasury.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said that that might, be the case; but clearly the question was in what way the Commissioners, were to be satisfied. He had no particular fancy for the words in question, but they were inserted to satisfy the Commissioners. of Customs—["hear, hear!"]—and he certainly would not be a party to their omission without consulting the Commissioners. It was impossible for him to say what evidence the Commissioners would be satisfied with; they must judge for themselves what would satisfy them. Neither could he accept the words "on oath," as the Commissioners had no power to administer oaths in such cases.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said it was the fact that the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue were bound by every order and every direction of the Treasury, and in the last resort in this matter it would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who would have to decide whether a 47 brush was made in a prison or not. It would be most inadvisable that this Amendment should be pressed. An enormous new duty was about to be cast on the Commissioners of Customs—namely, that of ascertaining the origin of goods. In this case the duty was much snore difficult than that which was cast upon the Prize Courts, for the Commissioners of Customs had not only to ascertain in what country goods originated but in what budding. ["Hear, hear!"] The late Lord Stowell, the President of the Prize Court, would have been appalled if he had had such a duty cast upon him. If the Commissioners were to have this duty cast upon then the more conditions that were imposed to regulate the exercise of the duty the better. As to the general question, were the House aware of the ready and easy going manner in which Commissioners were satisfied? Anything would satisfy a Commissioner if he wanted to be satisfied, and nothing would satisfy him if he did not want to be satisfied. That was the nature of a Commissioner, whether of Inland Revenue or Customs, and there had been far too many things left by statute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of Commissioners already. The Committee ought certainly not to add to them.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said it was obvious that the Committee went discussing this Bill under most disadvantageous circumstances, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had said the Measure was one for the administration of which he would not Ito responsible. The only Member of the Government who could tell theta what they wanted to know was not present. What they wished to ascertain was on what principle and in what way the Bill would be administered. To such information they were fairly entitled in view of the fact that the Bill would certainly interfere with the present system of freedom. of trade. As regarded the Amendment now before the Committee he joined in the appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw it. Without the words proposed to be omitted they might have all sorts of inquisitorial investigations into all goods simply on the chance of their being prison made.

§ MR. EDWARD MORTON (Devonport)
said it seemed to him that the proper 48 answer to the question why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present was that the right hon. Gentleman had too much sense to be here. [Laughter.] All the discussion upon this Amendment had proved to him, beyond the power of contest, what probably every Member of the Government knew perfectly well—namely, that the Bill could not be carried out in practice, and what was more, that it was not intended to be carried out. It was part of the whole tactical policy of the present Government.

*THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman is now making a Second Reading speech. [Laughter.]

§ MR. MORTON
said that as it seemed to him the only sort of speech worth making at all was a Second Reading speech he would resume his seat. [Laughter.]

§ *MR. J. SAMUEL
said he bad no intention of pressing the Amendment. He simply moved it for the purpose of eliciting information, and now he begged leave to withdraw it.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. LOUGH
moved to leave out the words "or in part," so that the Bill should read "produced wholly in any foreign prison." Not only was this a bad Bill, it was the worst Bill that could possibly be produced. Under the Bill a whole consignment would be implicated by one prison-made brush. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yarns might be made in a prison—[laughter]—but if these were mixed with other yarns—[laughter]—the whole would have to be excluded. He was willing to omit "wholly" as well as "or in part."

§ MR. RITCHIE
believed that it would be inexpedient to accept the Amendment. Whether it be good or bad, the principle of the Bill was to prevent the importation of prison-made goods to compete with the free labour of this country. [Cheers.] According to his information, to accept this Amendment would be to lead to a larger importation of goods made in foreign prisons. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
desired to put a case. In Argentina bags were made in prisons. Having received a good deal of wheat from Argentina, he asked whether, under this Bill, 49 the wheat in those bags would not have to be kept out?

§ MR. RITCHIE
Certainly not.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said this showed the singular position they were in. If the prison-made goods were allowed in one case, why not in all? If they kept out the brushes, why admit the bags?

§ MR. SOUTTAR
said he came from a part of Scotland where they received many boats from Norway and Sweden, the boats being caulked with prison-made oakum. Would they have to reject the boats? They went to Scandinavia for these boats because there was so much timber there, and it would be a very serious thing for the fishing industry if the boats could not come in because they were caulked as he described. The Bill was full of defects. ["Hear, hear!]

§ MR. RITCHIE
said hon. Members might wish to defeat the Bill, but he rusted they would not proceed with these trivial Amendments such as they had just heard. The hon. Member must know that although the caulking was made in the prison, the boats were not, and they would come in as before.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said that under the Customs Consolidation Act the bags could be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. They would not destroy them, they would "otherwise dispose" them, and every one of those bags would be an acquisition to the Revenue of the United Kingdom. [Laughter.]

§ MR. MORTON
said if the bags were stopped and the grain put into other bags that would enormously increase the cost of delivery of the wheat.

§ MR. T. R. LEUTY (Leeds, E.)
did not believe that this Bill would in the least defend their industries. There was a great pretence, but it was not genuine. They all knew something of the competition English trades had to undergo from German schools, from industries abroad and American inventions, and, for anything he knew, all other great industries might depend for their very lives in the future on the protection afforded them by this Bill. He was very grateful to the Government that they were going to do the heroic in sins matter. But, while he congratulated the Government, he felt free to vote for an Amendment limiting the Bill to importations wholly made in foreign prisons; and he did so on this ground—that he did not think it 50 made a straw of difference to the trade of the country whether this Bill passed or not. [Laughter.]
Question put, "That the words or in part ' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 109. (Division List, No. 291.)

§ MR. LOUGH
in whose name the next Amendment stood on the Paper—namely, to leave out the word "foreign"—said that that word being retained in the title of the Bill, he presumed he would not be in order in moving the Amendment. He proposed, therefore, to move to insert the words "and colonial" after "foreign." He did not think that we ought to impose on friendly nations rides and regulations which were not enforced in regard to the Colonies. He contended that they ought to exclude prison-made goods altogether, and that there was no reason why they should admit goods that were made in prison in India, Burma, or any of the colonies. He had asked for a return of prison-made goods brought from India and sold in our own or other countries, and it appeared from that return that from every part of India there was a trade of more or less importance done in prison-made goods. He begged to move his Amendment.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said he was for once in agreement in principle with the hon. Gentleman. If they were to exclude prison-made goods coming from foreign countries he did not see why they should admit them from our colonies. But the word "foreign" in this Act, as. in the original Act, included "colonial."

§ MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
asked what was the section in the original Act?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs
said it was the 42nd Section. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at that section he would see that the word "foreign" was obviously used as denoting anything outside the United Kingdom, and the Customs had invariably acted on that view.

§ MR. WARNER
moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, that the words "and Indian" should be added, so that the words in the clause might be "foreign or colonial and Indian."

§ MR. SOUTTAR
said he was strongly opposed to the addition of these words.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said he doubted very much whether the original Amendment was in order after the explanation which had been given.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
pointed out that there was an immense amount of work done in the prisons of India and of the native States, including the making of superb carpets. If the right hon. Gentleman included India he would do India a very great injustice.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said that, in addition to the advice of the Solicitor General, he had had the advice of the solicitors to the Customs with regard to this matter, and he had been informed that the words in the Bill would include any part outside the United Kingdom. They had had a correspondence with the Indian Government on the subject, and the Indian Government stated that they had made inquiries of all the local Governments and Administrations, and that from the information at present before them they saw no ground for objecting to legislation against the importation of prison-made goods if Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable, and they added that they presumed that such a prohibition would not apply to goods not intended for sale.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
said the Bill included all goods, whether for sale or riot. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. DALZIEL
said it was evident from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that there was some doubt as to the interpretation of the word "foreign." He did not understand that the Amendment had been ruled to be out of order. The great difficulty which the Committee was under in dealing with this Bill was the way in which it was made to hang upon an existing Act. He could not understand why the Government should not accept the Amendment unless their object was to get the Bill through without a single Amendment.

MR. PARKER SMITH· (Lanark, Partick)
confessed it was a new light to him that "foreign" should include "colonial," because primâ facie that would not be the case. [" Hear, hear !"] The position of Indian prison-made goods was absolutely different to that of any other 52 prison-made goods which they were considering. The goods made in the prisons of India were not of low-class workmanship, but, on the contrary, of the very highest class. Some of the finest Burmese carving was executed in the gaol of Benares, some of the finest Indian carpets were made in the gaols of Lahore and Benares, some of the finest furniture was made in the gaol of Agra, some of the best work in copper and brass in the gaols of Rangoon and Mandalay. The Government of India assumed that the Bill only applied to goods that were sent to this country for sale, but he did not think the Bill did anything of the kind. [" Hear, hear !"] The actual things that were sent from the gaols to be sold in England were very few, but almost every travelier in India bought some of these prison products and brought them home with him. What the Bill was intended to do was surely to prevent articles being introduced into this country which would compete with the struggling industries of this country. [" Hear, hear "] He hoped that, whatever might be the opinion of the Government in regard to European prison-made goods, they would at least exclude Indian goods of that character from the purview of the Bill.

§ MR. COURTENAX WARNER
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the Government should have obtained from some one connected with the Customs some information as to how the Bill was going to be enforced in the case of prison-made goods from India.

§ MR. LOUGH
said the President of the Board of Trade had raised a new and a large point. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government of India had no objection to the Bill, provided there was no prohibition of the importation of prison-made goods that were not for sale. He believed that was an entirely new interpretation of the Customs Act. Under that Act there was nothing about selling. It instructed the Customs authorities to seize and destroy certain goods; and the object of the Bill was that there should be added to the table of restriction the goods described in the Bill. Prison-made goods from India would, therefore, be stopped, even though they were not intended for sale.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said it was perfectly true that the 46th Section of the Customs Act would apply to those 53 goods, but at the same time it was the mischief of the importation of prison-made goods for sale against which the Bill was levelled.

§ MR. LOUGH
thought the Committee were placed in a rather worse position by that explanation than they were before. They were now told that if this Bill were passed, the goods, even though not for sale, would not be allowed to come in This showed the difficulty of dealing with a subject which had been placed hurriedly before them.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not see how that point can be raised by the Amendment before the Committee. It will require a separate Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment withdrawn.

§ MR. LOUGH
asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ SIR. HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)
objected.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
, speaking on the Amendment, said the Indian Government were under the impression that their goods would not be prohibited if they were not for sale; but it was not clear whether that would be so or not.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAS AND MEANS
I have just pointed out that that question really does not arise on this Amendment. It will require a separate Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
then asked whether the Government had made any inquiries as to the views of the Colonies in regard to the Bill; and whether they had got a similar answer to that from India, that if the Bill did not apply to prison-made goods which were not for sale the Colonial Governments would not object.

§ MR. LEONARD COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)
said the Committee were in a rather bewildering position; and as they had got a declaration from the Government that the word "foreign" applied to all goods made outside the Kingdom, he thought the hon. Member for West Islington should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
, in order to make it clear that the Bill was not intended to prohibit the importation of prison-made goods not for sale, moved to insert after "goods" the words, "intended for sale which are."

*THE CHAT RMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
We have passed three lines beyond that point. [Laughter.]

§ MR. LOUGH
moved after "prohibiting," to add— provided that this prohibition shall not extend to any ropes, mats, cases, or other packages used in the conveyance of goods.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said the words were absolutely unnecessary. Ropes, mats, cases, or other packages could not be considered as anything but the accessories of the goods imported, and would not be affected by the Act.

§ MR. LEUTY
proposed to move to add to the Amendment the words, "nor to any goods not intended for sale."

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
That would be a very inconvenient form in which to raise the question in dispute.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)
moved to add after "penitentiary" the words, "and to have been sold there from at less than the current market price." Those interested in prison reforms had during the last few years come to be more unanimous, perhaps, on this than on any other point, that if any real change was to be made in our prisons there must be some amelioration of the conditions under which the training of prisoners took place. At present prisoners were confined to work which had no interest for them, and which trained neither mind nor body. It would be a great advantage if they could be taught some productive trade.

§ *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston)
I rise to order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the mode of administering prisons in England?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I cannot say that the hon. and learned Member is out of order. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. HALDANE
I am sorry I have not been able to get an idea into the head of the hon. Member. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw!"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said that that remark was not in order.

§ MR. HALDANE
apologised for what he had said in the heat of the moment. The evidence before the Prisons Commission showed that the trade unions did not object to prison-made goods, if they were not sold under the market price. If the Bill passed in its present form it, would deal a heavy blow at the useful employment of prison labour.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said that there was not the least objection to foreign countries employing prisoners in labour which would not degrade them. All the Government sought to prevent wits foreign prison-made goods being sent to this country. Let foreign Governments sell those goods in their own countries. [Cheers.] English prison-made goods could hardly be said to exist in the markets. They had of late been very greatly reduced, in view of the evil which was properly complained of.

§ MR. HALDANE
said that there was a large and increasing sale of these to the Government Departments. It was a recommendation of the Prisons Commission that the production should be stimulated provided that the goods were nut put on the market at less than the market value.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said that there would, no doubt, be difficulties in the administration of this Bill; but what possibility was there of carrying out the provisions of the Amendment? How could the Customs find out whether the exporter of prison-made goods had paid the market value for them?

§ MR. J. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said that, as he understood, this was a small Bill for the protection of English manufacturers. The arguments in its favour amounted to this, that the present competition was unfair. Why was it considered to be unfair? Because owing to the position of the workers in prisons they were able to undersell the goods made by the working classes. It was in fact the competition of subsidised labour. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Bill were a workable Bill he had every sympathy with its objects; but if the Committee rejected this Amendment and insisted upon protecting workers in certain small and limited trades, he should ask why did the House leave the Irish butter 56 manufacturers unprotected against the competition of bounty fed butter from abroad? ["Hear, hear!"] If the House passed this Bill they would be met with the demand which on no logical ground could they resist, that they should extend to the agricultural producers of Ireland the same justice and protection as this Bill was intended to accord to some English industries. ["Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. SOUTTAR
said that he could not support this Amendment as there wits an economic heresy at the bottom of it; and it was a great pity that the party to which he belonged had not sufficiently denounced that heresy in earlier days. The heresy was that this country could possibly be injured by receiving things from abroad at a cheap rate. The fact was that goods were paid for by goods, and the cheaper foreign goods were, the more had to be given to us in exchange. If we allowed our own prison-made goods to come into competition in the market, then an injury might be clone; but if a foreign Government were foolish enough to give us cheap goods by means of prison labour or a bounty, why should we refuse the gifts that the gods sent?

§ MR. DALZIEL
said that the hon. Member's speech was really in favour of the Amendment. If the President of the Board of Trade adhered to what he said on the introduction of the Bill—that this Bill was introduced in the interest of the working classes—he would accept the Amendment. The Amendment simply proposed that the Bill should only affect goods sold under the market price. The Bill afforded no protection for British labour where the price was less than the current market price.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 166.—(Division List, No. 292.)

MR. PARKER SMITH
moved an Amendment providing that the prohibition referred to should "not extend to any goods not intended for sale." He remarked that this was the understanding on which the Indian Government approved of the scheme, and it seemed 57 to him to be a very necessary and reasonable Condition in regard to the working of the Bill. It was one thing to import in a wholesale manner goods intended for sale in this country, but an entirely different thing for tourists or persons travelling about the world to have in their box of curios a few articles which had been made in gaols. When once a thing had been bought for private use and had become the property of an individual the mischief aimed at by the Bill ceased, but the mischiefs of undue inquisitiveness and interference with personal freedom might come in.

§ MR. RITCHIE
expressed his sympathy with the object of the Amendment. It was not intended that the Bill should interfere with the private collector, and if it did words should be inserted to prevent it. But he could not at a moment's notice accept the words of the Amendment. He would have to consider them to see that they only did what was desired and no more. Between now and the future stage of the Bill he would carefully consider what words could be inserted which would best carry out the object of the Amendment.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS
Will there be another stage of the Bill?

§ MR. RITCHIE
Certainly.

§ MR. LOUGH
said that the President of the Board of Trade had made an important admission of the standpoint from which he had been acting all through. He had promised to accept an Amendment which would deal a subtle blow at British trade. Any dealer would only have to go across the Channel and erect, an emporium for foreign prison-made goods and send them to pare lasers in England, and the Customs could not interfere with them at all. What difference could it make to the British working man if the goods came into this country although they were wit sold by British tradesmen? Why should the right hon. Gentleman have a feeling against British tradesmen in favour of foreign tradesmen? He had admitted that if one went to Belgium and bought anything made in prison for his, own use the Custom House officers would let them in.

§ MR RITCHIE
said he had admitted nothing of the kind, and that was the reason why he had refused to accept the words of the Amendment. All he had sail was that if people coming from. 58 abroad brought home a piece of old carpet, its importation in those circumstances ought not to be prohibited.

§ MR. LOUGH
, continuing, said the right hon. Gentleman could not know anything about the carpets to which he was alluding, otherwise he would not describe them as old carpets. How could an old carpet he made in a, prison to-day? [Laughter.] The Amendment had been accepted in principle, and that would enable those goods to be brought into every household in England so long as they were not bought from British tradesmen. And once those goods were in, how were they to prevent their being dealt in?

MR. PARKER SMITH
asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
protested against this way of carrying. on legislation. Committee was the proper stage for consideration, of such points as those raised by the hon. Member, and to adjourn the entire consideration of the matter on the promise that it would be brought up on Report was au improper method of conducting business in this House.

§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS
could not see how the Custom House officers were to know When they were to enforce the prohibition and when not. The question was surrounded with difficulty, and he should like to hear that the House would have an opportunity of dealing with it on the Report stage.

§ MR. REGINALD McKENNA (Monmouthshire, N.)
commended to the right hon. Gentleman the precedent adopted by the Colonial Secretary, and that was to accept an Amendment reserving the right to take it out on the Report stage.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
advised the right hon. Gentleman, before he made up his mind as to the precise words to be introduced, to have an interview with one of the Liverpool Custom House officers, when he would find there would be great difficulty in administering the Act. There was a time when America used to put on a tariff of from 20 to 40 per cent. against English boots and clothing. This, instead of stopping the injury to the New York tailoring trade, only brought into existence a class of agents who travelled regularly from Liverpool to America bringing over 50 pairs of trousers, 50 dress coats, no end 59 of waistcoats, and pot hats galore, and protested to the Custom House at New York that they were for their personal use. Thus the law was evaded and a systematic traffic set up. So it would happen under the proviso in question.

§ MR. J. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)
scouted the prospect pictured by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Bill was intended to stop the importation of prison-made mats and brushes. Was it suggested that people would go about with mats round their persons or brushes in their pockets. [Laughter.] This was an honest attempt to deal with a crying evil. It was a most important matter that a stop should be put to unfair competition of labour that was not merely underpaid but that was not paid for at all, and which defeated the honest labour of British artisans whose difficulty was to make a living at all.

§ MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)
observed that the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade on this Amendment was that he would allow cheap prison-made goods to be brought into this country,— provided you take a holiday romp to Belgium, Calais, or some other place, buy the goods, and declare that they are for your own use. How was the right hon. Gentleman going to decide the amount of cheap goods this particular British excursionist was going to use? He might have a large number of relatives and buy sufficient goods to distribute among all his married relations, furnish the houses of those likely to be married, and by that means he could introduce ship loads of goods to distribute among neighbours and friends, provided he declared that they were to be used in that way without going through a middleman, retailer, or shopkeeper. A more absurd position to get a Bill into one could not imagine. The President of the Board of Trade said he was going to take the counsel of his legal advisers. But what legal advisers could get the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty he had got himself into in regard to this matter? He defied the most ingenious and resourceful Member of the Opposition to put a Bill into such a positon of ridicule as the President of the Board of Trade had put the present Bill by promising to consider 60 favourably this extraordinary Amendment. The Bill would be impossible to administer even without this Amend-merit, but with it it would be still more so.

§ MR. LOUGH
considered that the Committee ought to hear something more as to what were the intentions of the Government, and if there was no other way of enabling them to express this opinion upon it he moved to report progress.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
considered that to put such a Motion would be an abuse of the Rules of the House. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had asked leave to withdraw it; the hon. Member for Islington was opposed to the Amendment; and, therefore, in face of the fact that its Mover was prepared to withdraw the Amendment, he thought it would be an abuse to allow a Motion to report progress to be made.

§ MR. SOUTTAR
was interested in this question so far as it affected India, and desired to have an assurance that there would be some opportunity of bringing forward the case of India if the words which the President of the Board of Trade might see fit to introduce should not be quite satisfactory to hon. Members. Would there be a report stage, because if there would be then all his doubts in the matter would be set at rest?

§ MR. LOUGH
, by way of explanation, would like to say he thought the Chairman had dealt rather hardly with him. The hon. Gentleman had said he was opposed to the Amendment. That was not the case. He was in favour of the Amendment which proposed to let in goods made in foreign prisons, because he thought the whole attempt to keep out any goods was a ridiculous effort.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
was sorry if he misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's first speech, the impression it conveyed to his mind being that the hon. Member was strongly opposed to the Amendment.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS
was also strongly in favour of the Amendment, and asked for an assurance that there would be a report stage of the Bill.

§ MR. RITCHIE
could not give any such assurance as that there would be a report stage. That meant to say, the Government must be prepared to accept some 61 Amendment which would necessitate a report stage. But they were at the end of the Bill and he had not been able to accept any Amendment. When the new clauses came on it would be for the House itself to decide whether any should be accepted and not for him. If there should be no report stage and an Amendment of this character were accepted in the other House, the hon. Member knew perfectly well that this House would have an opportunity of considering and dealing with such Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. W. S. ROBSON (South Shields)
moved the following new clause:—