FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.

HC Deb 13 May 1897 vol 49 cc395-448

Order for Second Reading read.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,, Croydon)

moved: "That the Bill be now Read a Second time." He said the subject was not by any means a new one to the House. In 1895 the matter formed the subject of Debate on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sheffield, "That it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of the industrial classes of the United Kingdom, at once to take steps to restrict the importation of goods made in foreign prisons by the enforced labour of convicts and felons." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, who was then President of the Board of Trade, opposed the course proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend, and suggested, as an alternative to the Motion, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole matter. The Debate showed very clearly that the House was not at all disposed to accept this alternative, and, in the result, the Motion was carried without a division. Thus the House of Commons, distinctly and without reserve, committed itself to the opinion that the Government should at once take steps to prevent the importation of these goods. The then Government, although they allowed the Motion to pass without a division, did not act either in the spirit or the letter of its terms. They did, in fact, the very thing which had been rejected by the House of Commons. They appointed a Committee, not, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Aberdeen, of the House of Commons, but a Departmental Committee "to inquire into the extent to which goods made in foreign prisons are imported into this country and to report whether any, and, if so, what, steps can be taken effectually to restrict the importation of such goods." It seemed to him that that was deliberately setting at naught the Resolution of the House of Commons. [Cheers.] The Committee reported to the effect that the quantity of such goods imported was not such as to injure British trade generally; that the evil results were confined to the importation of Belgian and German goods; that mat-making suffered slightly, and that the brush-making trade as a whole did not suffer any serious or lasting injury. He had never stated that the importation of these goods was a very large importation, nor had he ever said that the importation was a serious injury to their trade as a whole. [Opposition Cheers.] When they assumed Office they felt that, in view of the Resolution of the House of Commons, it was necessary that some steps should be taken with a view of endeavouring to carry it out. They did that which was suggested as a possible course in the Report of the Committee — received after they had assumed Office — and endeavoured to put an end to the grievance. They entered into negotiations and addressed communications to the four Powers who were mainly interested in the matter—Holland, Belgium, France, and Germany—with the object of endeavouring to arrange for some common action to stop the importation of these goods. The reply from France was to the effect that steps had been taken to utilise prison made goods with a view of stopping, or at least of diminishing, their exportation. Belgium replied that they could not undertake to prohibit their exportation; Prussia that they were restricting the manufacture more and more, hoping ultimately to abolish it; and Holland that the amount was very small, and that they could not assent to an international agreement. Though there was no reason to express dissatisfaction with the sympathetic tone of the replies, it was quite evident that there was no prospect of putting a stop to the importation of these goods by means of international agreement. The Government then had to consider whether they were justified in ignoring the Resolution of the House, and, in arriving at a conclusion upon that matter, they had to consider what was likely to be the action of the present House of Commons upon the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] He certainly had no hesitation in coming in the conclusion that if the House of Commons of 1895 arrived at such a Resolution there was every reason to expect that the existing House of Commons would be even more in favour of such legislation—[cheers]— and that, therefore, it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to give effect to the Resolution. The practical conclusion at which the Select Committee arrived was that the grievance was a small one and that British trade generally was not. injured. [Ironical cheers.] That, however, was no consolation to a particular trade which was injured. [cheer.]The Government had never said that the grievance was a large one, having regard to British trade as a whole; but they agreed with what the Commissioner of the Department of Labour in the United States said that the difficulty "did not lie so much in quantity as in the effect occasionally and here and there upon price." What the House was asked to legislate upon was the question of principle and not quantity. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to be inclined to think that a Bill of this kind would be of little use. That was not the opinion of Belgium. He saw the other day a copy of an influential Brussels journal in which the question of this legislation was commented upon. It was Le Petit Bleu. and this is what it said:— Public opinion in this country is much occupied with this Measure, which may have a serious effect upon Belgian trade. Owing to the extreme cheapness of these goods, England has been the principal market for articles manufactured in our prisons, and particularly in our penal settlements. That market once closed to our a trade of this particular kind, the latter will necessarily begin to raise a serious and even a disloyal competition against the regular trade of Belgium, and our free workers producing under less favourable conditions, we shall witness the decline of a whole series of interesting small industries. … But now that exportation is soon to become impossible, the whole weight of competition will fall upon Belgium. All the products which used to be sent to England will load the Belgian market; the free employer who pays a day's wage of from 2f. 50c. to 3f. cannot contend against speculators who run the workshops of the penal settlements and pay wages which never exceed 40 centimes a day. Hon. Gentlemen who jeered apparently had no objection to disloyal competition between convict-made Belgian-made goods and English free labour. [Cheers.] The proposal of the Bill was to add prison-made goods to the table of goods which were prohibited. That was the course which they found adopted both in Canada and the United States. The Canadian law prohibited "goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour or made in connection with any prison, gaol or penitentiary." The United States law enacted that "goods, wares, articles, and merchandise manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labour shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is prohibited." It might be said, and with some justice, that there would be difficulty in applying the law. On that point he bad consulted the Customs authorities, and they informed him that there would be no difficulty in applying the law if sufficient evidence be produced. [Laughter.] If the Bill passed it would he the duty of the Government to instruct our Consuls at foreign ports carefully to watch with a view to obtaining such evidence. Even assuming that the difficulties would be considerable, the mere existence of this legislation and the risk of confiscation would act as a deterrent in preventing such goods being sent. But. whether that were so or not, he was satisfied that in placing it upon record that this House would not tamely submit to the importation of prison-made goods to compete with the free labour of this country the Government were giving effect not only to the views of the House of Commons but of the immense bulk of the people of this country. [Cheers.] He should very much like hon. Gentlemen who were now endeavouring to minimise this Bill and were going to oppose it to go to any meeting of the working classes in any part of the country and advocate the admission of convict-made goods. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no doubt as to what the result would be.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)

Who is to tender the evidence?

*MR. RITCHIE

Who is to supply the evidence? Those people who have got the evidence to supply. [Laughter and cheers.] The Customs authorities will be prepared to receive evidence from anyone who will come to them with facts respecting any particular shipment of goods which arrive in this country.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

They can only take action upon evidence tendered.

*MR. RITCHIE

Certainly. For the reasons he had adduced he commended the Bill to the attention of the House, and he had no doubt hon. Gentlemen would find that the opinion of the House of Commons in regard to it was in accord with that of the last House of Commons and the opinion of the great bulk of the people.

MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

offered the Government his congratulations that at last, after two years of office, they had been able to find time for the consideration of that social and labour programme of which they heard so much during the General Election, and so little since. They might also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having performed a feat which he ventured to say was absolutely without precedent in Parliamentary history. The right hon. Gentleman, he supposed, was the first Minister who had ever asked the House of Commons to endorse a policy which a Committee appointed under the auspices of his own Department had not only declared against, but declared to be absolutely objectionable. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the courage he had shown in throwing over the men of tried experience and the public servants who had sat upon that Committee. But he must express his disappointment at both the time and the form of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Resolution which the hon. Member for Central Sheffield passed during the last Parliament. He would remember that the whole allegation against the then Liberal Government during that Debate was that they would not at once stop the importation of prison-made goods. The difficulty of preventing the importation was pointed out, and the critics were challenged to say what their remedy was to be, and what was their reply? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), said:— The thing is perfectly easy—give us the foes and we will give you the prescription. Well, they had been in office two years, they had had the fees all that time, and this was the result. The statement then made that they had the prescription in their pocket appeared to have been a very fruitless one, for after they had been in office some time, it was found that the only prescription they had been able to use was a proposal to send postcards to foreign Governments, and ask their co-operation. What did they ask the foreign Governments to do? They had the boldness, not only to ask them to deal with importations into this country, but also to set their own houses in order and stop the sale of prison-made goods even in their own countries—a matter which concerned them alone. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the original intention of the Government had completely failed. The foreign Governments refused to co-operate, and the result was that the prescription of a bad doctor had to be set aside, and they had that night, not the prescription of the President of the Board of Trade, but the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield five years ago. Well, if anyone was entitled to congratulate himself that night, it was the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. Although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had shown a warm affection for this Bill, he was not the real father—he was the step-father. The real legitimate father was the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, and he thought, after the progress the hon. Member had made in this matter, that any private Member might take heart and rest satisfied that, no matter how strong the opposition to his proposals might be at one particular time, he need never despair, if only he was persistent enough, of getting a Government weak enough to adopt his proposals. [Laughter.] Let them see what was the case presented in support of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, he should have thought, would have come forward with some important statistics from his own Department; but what had he done? Instead of giving the House Board of Trade returns, he had given them a paragraph from an obscure Belgium newspaper. Well, he knew that the Government were in the habit of going to Germany and other places for other portions of their policy, but he was surprised that they should find it necessary to go abroad for a justification of this particular Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gave them no statistics in favour of the Bill, because there were none to give. All the statistics he could give would be against the passing of the Bill. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say about the Bill himself? He confessed that, while listening to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, he wondered whether he was moving the rejection or the passing of the Bill. His whole speech seemed to be a speech against the Bill. Because what did he say? He said this was a grievance which was not large or serious.

*Mr. RITCHIE

What I said was that it was not large or serious relatively to the trade of the country as a whole.

MR. DALZIEL

If the right hon. Gentleman said that, it was hardly necessary to say it at all—it was so obvious. The grievance was certainly not large or serious, as he should be able to show. The right hon. Gentleman laid the whole case for the Bill on the Resolution passed by the late Parliament. Of course, he was perfectly justified in taking that view, but it was a new departure for the Government of the day to base the justification of its policy on a Resolution passed at the fag-end of a long sitting. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there would be difficulty in applying the law, if passed. He was safe in making that admission, because it was absolutely impossible, in his judgment, to make the Bill effective as it stood at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to show that any particular trade was suffering from the importation of foreign prison-made goods. Why? Because he could not. They had heard a great deal about the brush-making trade. What were the facts as to that trade? Ten years ago 14,000 people were employed in the brush-making trade in this country. At the present time the number was 17,000—an increase of 20 per cent., while the increase of the population had been only 8 per cent., and the trade societies were as complete in membership as ever. These were clear proofs that the brush-making industry had not suffered. The importation of foreign-made brushes amounted in value to £40,000 a year. If they made a liberal allowance, and said that one-half of these brushes were made in prison, and took the cost of labour at one-third, they had a sum of from £6,000 to £7,000 as representing the whole question of importation in this trade. The leading brush manufacturers had testified that this question did not concern them in the slightest degree. They could make better brushes, and put them on the market at the same prices as those quoted by the agents for the foreign goods, and the trade was rapidly growing. Yet in 1he face of such facts they were asked to pass a Bill dealing with an imaginary evil by applying an impracticable remedy. In the mat-making industry, also, they found that there were more men employed than ever, while the unions, such as they were, showed a larger membership. In the face of facts like this, the Government had absolutely failed to make out any case for the Bill. Further, there had been no public demand for the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could have done so, he would have quoted resolutions by the dozen from all parts of the country. he doubted whether he could have mustered more than half-a-dozen. True, the Trades Union Congress did pass a resolution on one occasion in favour of the Bill—["hear, hear!"]—but that was some years ago. He did not think the resolution had ever made its appearance since, and he should be surprised, indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to pass the Bill upon that solitary resolution. So little interest was manifested that the mover and seconder of the resolution and the Trade Congress never replied to the letter from the Committee inviting them to give evidence. Advertisements were inserted in 12 of the leading papers of the country inviting people who suffered from the importation of prison-made goods to give evidence, and only two persons came forward. Subsequently advertisements were inserted in 19 provincial papers, and those only produced one witness. ["Hear, hear! "] But was the Bill effective for its purpose? Evidence was to be tendered to the Commissioners of Customs that goods imported had been made in a foreign prison. Who was to give the evidence? Did the Government expect the consumer to come forward and complain that he got his goods too cheaply, or that the Germans were taxing themselves for his benefit? After these goods had passed through half-a-dozen hands, how was anyone to prove that they were prison-made? And if it were proved, was it fair that the last holder, who might be totally ignorant of the origin, should risk forfeiture? ["Hear, hear!"] No firm in this country would waste time or money in sniffing after goods made in foreign prisons; and what an agreeable duty to impose on our representatives abroad! The only person whose interest it would be to give evidence would be a rival importer; and while his allegation (perhaps anonymous) was being inquired into, the goods would be kept back and trade would be disturbed. The evidence in the Merchandise Marks Committee showed that all these restrictions were decreasing trade, and the House ought to be careful how they multiplied such restrictions. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole case for this Bill was that the brush-making industry was suffering. But how could the Government stop there? Every trade which was injured by unfair foreign competition had the same claim to protection. Was foreign sugar or Argentine beef to be stopped because its producers received a bounty from their Government? If this Bill was not protection, what was? It was simply to compel the consumer to pay more for brushes in the interest of the brush-makers. He could understand the hon. Member for Central Sheffield supporting the Bill, because he wished to extend its restrictions to all foreign-made goods. But was that the view of the President of the Board of Trade? Or was the right hon. Gentleman only the companion in arms of the hon. Member for the moment only? ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to get rid of the hon. Member for Sheffield, to whom the passing of this Bill would be an encouragement to persevere. [Laughter.] The President of the Board of Trade did not rely so much on the operation of the Bill itself as on the fear which foreign Governments would have of it. It required a stretch of the imagination to conceive any foreign Government being afraid of this Bill. [Laughter.] No cause had been shown for it; it em- bodied a violation of the settled policy of the country for the last 50 years; and it did not achieve the object which the Government professed to have in view. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a bogus Bill—[cheers]—brought forward, not in the interest of the consumer, but as a Party manœuvre to redeem pledges which ought not to have been made. [Cheers.] Its object was to tickle the ears of a certain section of the working classes in this country, who entertained a prejudice in this matter. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] Surely it was not the duty of a strong Government to encourage a false prejudice; and it was not fair to take advantage of a depression in trade and induce working men to believe that it resulted from the competition of foreign prison-made goods. He begged to propose to leave out the word "now;" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

*MR. T. P. WHITTAKER (York, W.R. Spen Valley)

seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, because he regarded the Bill as an insidious attack upon the free trade policy of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The real objection to goods made in prison was that they were cheap, and, being cheap, they competed with goods manufactured in this country. The fact that they were made in prisons did not matter at all. If the people of this country suffered from the importation of cheap goods, then cheapness was the evil, and it mattered not where those cheap goods were made. That the goods now in question were made in prisons was merely an excuse for an attack on the policy of free trade. If the principle of the Bill were carried to its logical conclusion the importation of all goods competing with labour and production in this country should be prohibited. Why not deal in the same way with jewellery, paper, toys, laces, silk goods, woollen clothing from Germany; French gloves; American and Swiss watches; glassware and prints? ["Hear, hear!"] It was no consolation to a man thrown out of work by the importation of some foreign article to tell him that that article was not made in a prison. The real grievance and difficulty was that the man was out of work, and, if that were a sufficient justification for the prohibition of the importation of goods made in prison, it was sufficient to justify the prohibition of the importation of all classes of foreign-made goods. ["Hear, hear!"] If the competition of imported goods was an evil everyone that suffered from it should be protected; but if it were not an evil, then no one should be protected from it. It might be said that the great objection was to foreign labour in prisons. He assumed that sweated labour on the Continent was more objectionable; and there was no proposed Bill to protect the working men of this country from that class of labour. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, if it was unreasonable to allow competition by the prison labour of other countries, it was just as unreasonable to allow competition by the prison labour of this country. Prisoners must be employed for their own benefit and, as a consequence, for the benefit of the community. The labour must be useful labour, for if it were otherwise it would be degrading; and, being useful labour, it must necessarily compete with the free labour of the country, even though the articles thus produced were not sold in the open market. If our prisoners produced something useful which would otherwise be produced by people outside, then our prison labour was competing with our free labour. But hon. Gentlemen opposite had not the courage to carry their principles to their logical conclusion. Again, if the importation of goods was to be forbidden because the conditions under which they were made were unsatisfactory, and little or nothing was paid for the labour employed; then carpets were made in Asia under very objectionable conditions, and they should prohibit the importation of articles made by our fellow subjects in India, where labour was paid at probably the lowest rate in the world. In fact, the whole principle of the Bill was unsound, and could not be defended from any point of view. He felt that this protective policy, this policy of interfering with trade, this policy of worrying industries at every stage had gone very much too far already. They had been making fools of themselves in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act. They had been advertising the foreign manufacturer too much. The mere passing of the Hill would be an announcement to the mat and brush buyers of the world that they need not come to England to purchase them cheaply, because those articles could be bought cheaper elsewhere. This policy of endeavouring to create work by keeping foreign-made goods out of the country was a great mistake. He contended that the importation of cheap articles was a benefit to the masses of the people of the country; and that it did not throw people out of employment. When the hon. Member for Central Sheffield moved a Resolution on foreign prison-made goods a few years ago he flourished before the House a foreign prison-made brush, which he said could be bought for sixpence, whereas if it had been made by English, labour it could not be bought for less than a shilling; and the hon. Member argued that that was a very great injustice to the working men of this country. He ventured to assert that the importation of that brush to be sold at sixpence, which would otherwise cost one shilling, was a boon and a blessing to this country. If a man had to pay a shilling for a brush which he could get for sixpence, he would have sixpence less to spend on other articles. It was the common-sense teaching of experience that if they made an article dear it would be bought less frequently than when it was cheap. That would mean that there would be less employment for the people. He entered into an argument to show that the importation of those sixpenny brushes meant more employment for the people as well as the advantage of a wider use of brushes. The competition of prison labour was not, and never would be, serious. Prison labour was not cheap, it was dear; it was inefficient and not properly-trained labour. The evidence before the Committee on this point was conclusive, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman could not bring forward any weighty statistics as to the injury which had been done showed that this was very largely an imaginary grievance. The competition of the free labour even of Belgium was far more serious than the competition of the prison-made article. The fact was it was the custom in this country for both employers and workmen to assume that an article was prison-made simply because it was cheaper than one that they could make. It was curious and interesting that this particular agitation had been set on foot by the European agent of an American firm. Evidence was given by brush makers before the Committee to show that by the adoption of improved machinery they could produce brushes vastly cheaper than those made in foreign prisons. It was free competition that led to the adoption and use of machinery, and it was by the development of machinery and by inventions that we must look to maintain our position in the commercial world. It had been given in evidence that the brush trade of this country had doubled in volume during the last ten years, and that the number of people employed in the brush and mat industry had increased far more rapidly than had the population. The Committee, which had before it the evidence of experts, reported against legislation in this matter as being impracticable and useless, and it must be evident to everybody who read the Bill that it was an unworkable scheme which was proposed. In the result trade would be harassed. It was impossible to trace where goods came from except from information obtained by trade rivals spying upon each other, and such a system would not be reputable. The Custom House authorities could only be put in motion by other people. He asked the House to show some backbone with reference to our great Free Trade policy, which had done more to develop our prosperity during the last 60 years than anything else, and not to allow it to be nibbled away by litle Bills of this kind.

*SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

expressed his gratitude to his right hon. Friend for having taken this early opportunity of giving effect to the Resolution of the House of February 19, 1895. A very large proportion of those on that side of the House had at the General Election pledged themselves to do all they possibly could to give effect to that Resolution. It was true that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen on that occasion offered a Committee to consider the Resolution, a proposal which was received with laughter by both sides of the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in the course of a very interesting speech said, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:— In presence of the universal demand from the constituencies, and an admission by the official head of the Department, we are asked to take a Committee. No, Sir: in that respect we are not the comrades of the hon. Member for West Ham. After upwards of two months' delay the right hon. Member for Aberdeen appointed a Departmental Committee to consider this matter, and, although he would not challenge the constitution of that Committee, he could only say from his experience of it that it was carefully selected from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. [Cries of "Oh!"] After 13 witnesses had been examined, and after they found that they were unable by any means to hasten the proceedings of the Committee, Colonel Bridgeman and himself felt compelled to resign their membership of it. The Report which was subsequently made stated that two trades only, the brush and mat making trades, made serious complaint of injury; that in the case of the former trade the allegations were not sustained, and in the case of the latter the injury was found to lie very slight. He did not hesitate to say that that opinion of the five Members of the Committee who so reported was not justified by the evidence which was given. The President of the Masters' Cocoa Nut Fibre and Mat Association, however, said: "Many of the former workers are in a state of destitution"; the President of the United Cocoa Nut Matting and Mat-makers Society," Half of the mat-makers are now out of the trade, and can get no employment at all"; the Secretary of the. Society of Operative Brushmakers, "Ruin practically stares us in the face"; Mr. Thornton, Progressist member of the London County Council, and brush manufacturer, "There is a strong feeling among, not only masters, but men, that the competition of foreign prison labour with free labour in England is unfair"; the Secretary of the Manchester Branch of the United Society of Brushmakers, "During the last three years the competition of foreign prison-made goods has been most severely felt, we only ask to be protected against criminals"; and the Glasgow Branch, "The brush industry of this country will be destroyed." Hon. Members might say it was only a question of the mat makers and the brush makers, but if they would road the report sent to the Government by Mr. Tower, second Secretary of H. M.'s Embassy in Berlin, who had made inquiry into prison labour in Germany, they would see that almost every trade was admitted to German prisons, and there was no industry in this country which, if not threatened, might not be threatened by this unfair competition in the near future. Speaking on February 19, 1895, in that House, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said:— What will happen in the brush trade is that nobody will be able to make a profit, no workman will get decent wages. The Germans have sent over to this country for models of English manufactures, that they may reproduce such articles in their prisons. At the present time they are thus making some 20 different articles, and when they have fully ruined the English trade in these, they, no doubt, will be prepared to go on with 20 others. The simple fact is that no industry will be safe so long as this stale of things is allowed to continue. What was true in 1895 was even truer now. The resolution of the Trades Union Congress, in denunciation of the importation of prison-made goods, had been referred to. It was the agitation of the Trades Unions against the unfair competition of prison labour with free labour which had led successive Governments to put a stop to the competition in English prisons, and he asked whether it was fair, right, or proper, when the labour in English prisons was stopped that goods made in foreign prisons should compete with free labour in England. The employment of foreign prisoners was no concern of ours; the employment of English prisoners did concern us. It was absolutely incumbent on the Government of this country, having stopped the competition of English prison labour with free labour, to protect English working man from unfair competition coming from foreign countries. As to the amount of the competition, the report of Mr. 'Powers, dated June 20, 1894, and presented to Parliament in January last, clearly showed that a daily average of 29,200 prisoners in Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, and the Thuringian States were employed in work which eventually reached outside trade, and that in Prussia alone 8,290 prisoners were employed in cigar manufacture, machine knitting, basket weaving and cane furniture making, cardboard work and fancy paper making, cocoa, matting making, button making, lamp making, etc., wood carving, toy making, picture frame making, iron ware making, copper ware making, and miscellaneous factory work. In Germany the production of prison labour was not allowed to be sold within a radius of the prison of origin; and in Belgium it could not be sold so as to compete with free labour. The bulk of prison-made goods then came to England —the only market which condescended to admit them. Steps had been taken in the United States not to admit them there. With regard to the practicability of restrictive legislation and of enforcing it, Mr. Charles Follett, C.B., for 17 years Solicitor to Her Majesty's Customs, gave most valuable evidence on this head, He said:— The prohibition of prison-made goods, if it were agreed upon, would be nothing new. There are several classes of goods prohibited. Prohibition is a long-standing thing. I should have no difficulty in drawing a Bill in the sense of my views supervised by the Parliamentary counsel. I should consider it a feasible and effectual way, as the best means of preventing these goods coming in, would be to require that prison-made goods should be prohibited, and that the classes of goods which are believed to be made in foreign prisons should be, from time to time, specified by Customs regulations with Treasury approval. I should not think it would put any serious drawback on trade. It would soon cure itself. Although my experience during the past 17 years has been in a certain sense theoretical and legal. I am in a position to know the practical working and carrying out of all Customs laws and regulations. Surveyor General R. T. Churchill said:— I have been nearly 40 years connected with the Out-door Customs Department, and I have passed through its different grades, examining and clearing goods. I am thoroughly acquainted with the administrative machinery. I have heard the evidence given by the solicitor to the Customs, and his general views as to the feasibility of drafting a practical Measure to prevent the importation of prison-made goods. I have no reason to dissent from any of these views. I generally concur. It is certainly my opinion that the importation of prison-made goods is injurious to the manufacturing and labour interests in this country, and should, in my opinion, be stopped if possible. Therefore the remedy suggested by the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government would go a long wav to deal with the mischief. If the Bill did not go far enough its supporters could come to Parliament to strengthen it. The importation of foreign prison-made goods began, in a small way and had gone on increasing. Some years ago the importation of foreign prison-made brushes was so small that the record of it was abandoned, but latterly it had increased 700 per cent., and the imports amounted to £40,000 a year. It was the duty of the House to take care of every trade and industry. The brush and mat trades were specially injured, and there was no reason why they should not receive protection. He earnestly urged every Member of the House to give his hearty support to the Bill. Although it might not be sufficient, at any rate it would do something to cure an evil which was recognised by the working men of every trade in all parts of the country, and he thanked the President of the Board of Trade and the Government for having done that which the late Government failed to do, and that was to give effect to the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons in the last Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]

On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,

MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last addressed the House complained of the delay of the late Government in this matter. He should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been wise to avoid that topic. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen caused a delay of two months, but the Government which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported had been guilty of a delay of two years. He purposed briefly to show what the present Government had done in the matter. In the first place they entered into communication with four European Governments and the Government of the United States, suggesting that they should enter into an international agreement to exclude prison-made goods from both the home and foreign markets. That did seem to him to be a very wild-goose chase. That request was absolutely impracticable, and it would be unjust to the intelligence of the Government to suppose that they thought the other Powers would comply with it. However much two of those Powers might have been inclined to comply, there was a constitutional difficulty which would prevent them—he meant the Germanic Empire and the United States —in those two countries the question was a State question and not a Federal question.

*MR. RITCHIE

said that that course was suggested by the Committee.

MR. PICKERSGILL

said that was not the case. The Committee referred to the great practical difficulty in the way of carrying such an agreement into effect, and added that the question whether it should be encountered was for the Government and not for the Committee to decide. He did not think the action of the Government was altogether prudent, and in view of the answers they had received to their communications, he was surprised they should still consider it necessary to legislate. The answers received from most of the Powers were not only friendly in their tone, but, as far as the main question was concerned, decidedly favourable. Then, Germany was not able to answer for all the States of the Empire, but the Prussian Government said that it was intended to restrict prison-made goods more and more and that they hoped to abolish it entirely. He did think the Government ought to acknowledge the extremely friendly way in which foreign Governments had received the communications. They had agreed to act as our own Government acted with regard to prison-made goods. They would so use them as to do no injury to anyone. He should like to know how any hon. Member of that House could distinguish a case of prison-made goods from other goods. There was no intention on the part of any foreign Government to injure England, and grounds of complaint had been largely diminished, if they had not been entirely removed. Then he came to the Bill. He never saw a Bill drawn like this. The right hon. Gentleman had expatiated upon the moral effect of enacting the prohibition of goods made in foreign prisons. Why, this Bill did not prohibit such goods. ["Hear, hear!"] It prohibited goods which, by the evidence tendered, were shown to be made in prison. There was an unconscious humour about this for which he did not give the right hon. Gentleman credit. He did not think that a lawyer had drawn the Bill. He rather thought that it had the Birmingham mark upon it. How was proof to be given? To the Customs Department, so that they could act upon it? They might prove that the original consignor used prison-made goods, or labour, but if he employed other labour outside for producing the same class of goods who could distinguish between the two? ["Hear, hear!"] How in the world could they distinguish a particular bale of goods as made by prisoners and not by free labour? This Bill did not at all carry out the recommendations made to the Committee. The hon. Member referred to Mr. Follett, but he was not responsible for this Bill. What Mr. Follett would have proposed was not that Bill. Mr. Follett proposed to throw upon the importer the duty of proving that the goods were not prison-made. That was the way in which a lawyer would draw a Bill, but this Bill proposed to do everything against which Mr. Follett warned them. They had the experience of the Merchandise Marks Act. Out of the thousands of cases which came under that Act very few indeed had been seized on information; not I per cent. He did not hesitate to say that this was a bogus Bill. [cheers.] He did not believe that the Government thought it a workable Bill. It was like some Bills introduced into the Chamber at Washington which everyone knew were never intended to be acted upon. He would rather pass a bad Bill than a Bill like this, which the promoters knew would not be workable. As to prison labour, so long as they took care that it was spread over a number of industries it could not do any appreciable injury to the working classes, and he should be ashamed of the British workman if he disputed the right of the criminal to be employed. ["Hear, hear!"] It was wise, just, and merciful to employ the criminal in useful labour. They had been threatened with the resentment of the workmen if they opposed this Bill. He was not afraid of his constituents. He had a large constituency of working men, and he had not the least fear of offending them by voting against that Bill, because he thought the reasonable working man would see that this Bill wax a sham, and that it was a red herring drawn across the track.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

, as the representative of a working-class constituency, maintained that if constituencies containing working men were consulted now, when trade was fairly good, and were not subject either to the cry of the unemployed or to the bogus plaint of designing politicians, who had no other claim to represent them than their capacity to draft bogus Bills and get up artificial cries about tooth brushes being made in Belgium and eve-glasses in Japan, he believed that even in Sheffield the hon. Member would lose his case by a proportion of 20 to 1. When, however, this question was mixed up with Home Rule, alien immigration and grants to Voluntary Schools, its effect was lost sight of, and the constituencies voted on the major question, while taking for granted the minor but not less important questions. He asked the hon. Member for Sheffield to give the date of the Resolution and the speeches when the Trade Union Congress voted in favour of this Bill. The only time when the question of prison labour was argued out on its merits was at Belfast in 1893. A Motion was made condemning the competition of British prison labour with British free labour; but the Resolution was opposed by men who represented some of the trades alleged to be claiming the passing of this Bill. The Motion was unanimously rejected by the Congress. He pointed out that under the Bill there would be great difficulty in detecting what were and what were not prison-made goods. Were the prison-made foods lo be labeled? Goods made in prisons would be taken to the port from which they were going to be sent. They might be labelled, which he doubled; but long before they reached the port and were sent to this country the labels might be changed, and then it might be convenient for the free labour products to bear the prison label while the prison-made goods might be marked as made either in Belgium or Germany, but not as having been made inside a prison. The quantity of prison-made goods was indeed very small, not sufficient to warrant the introduction of a Measure like this, while the quality was invariably bad. The proportion of prison-made goods was diminishing. France was restricting it and confining it to hand labour; Belgium had pledged itself to have no machinery employed in the prisons; Germany had promised to confine it to non-competitive industries. He had visited 15 of the largest prisons in the United States, and there they were confining the prison trade to new non-competitive work. The United States prisoners were hired out to contract; they were not engaged in milking the article from the raw material up to the finished state. On the ground of cheapness there was not much reason for the introduction of the Bill. If by the Bill the Government labelled or identified these goods, they affirmed to the English people the low-water mark of cheapness and dragged English competition down to the lowest possible limit, and by that means caused ruin to trade not only at home but abroad. If cheapness was the reason for the Bill, why did not the Government include corn, machinery, textile articles from India, and jute? The Government knew well that they dared not do this. Every workman in England, Belgium, or Germany would be only too pleased to know that the best way to get a man out of prison and to keep him in an honest path was to provide him with a decent means of employment in making useful articles, and that this was the best agency for reducing crime. But if the Bill was passed the tendency would be to restrict prisoners to the picking of oakum, in digging a hole here and filling it up there, to the punishment of the treadmill and to oilier demoralising forms of punishment. He bad been in prison, and he knew quite well what would be the effect of this silly proposition in England if universally applied. it would mean that when masons were out of work and were clamouring for harbours and breakwaters to be made, the prisoners at Portland would have to be stopped from working. To its credit, England had stuck bravely to Free Trade; it had done so to such an extent that Lord Salisbury, who generally spoke straight—[Ministerial cheers.]— slated the other day that any man who advocated a going back to Protection would be a fool. [Cries of "No!"] Well, if he did not say that, he implied it. But this Bill was an attempt to introduce the doctrine of Protection, and they had selected the trade of a people who were the least prejudicially affected by foreign competition.

*SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Is not trade unionism a protection of labour?

MR. BURNS

said that trade unionism was a protection of labour inasmuch as it demanded a living wage, a maximum number of hours, decent Factory Acts, and sanitary conditions, and over and above that it believed in fair play for a free people in the free production of interchangeable commodities. He did not believe the British workman feared competition to the extent alleged; certainly he did not in the mat and brush-making trade. And if that competition did prejudicially affect to the extent of demanding the attention and interposition of the House of Commons, he would ask that the interference should be applied, not to 300 or 400 men whose trade had not been diminished, but to half a million of men in the textile trades, three-quarters of a million of men engaged in the coal trade, half a million of men engaged in the engineering trade, and the million and a quarter of men engaged in agriculture. He never heard a weaker case presented by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of a Bill than that made out by the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of this Bill. If they wanted to employ the unemployed, let them do away with the pluralists, assimilate the Factory and Sanitary Acts, and apply them in India and all over the Crown colonies. Why bring in a paltry bogus Bill like this? This was a brutal and an inhuman Bill, a Bill which no one who had had the slightest experience of the treatment of criminals in this or any other country could justify. No doubt this House would pass the Second Reading. It seemed to him that this House was capable of committing any folly in the direction of Protection, though sometimes it had a lucid interval. It did happen that at times the constituencies were humbugged and chloroformed by Bills of this description, but he believed that when they thoroughly understood this Measure, their verdict would be that the Government wanted Protection, but had not the courage to apply it to every industry. A permanent injury had been done to British trade by the marking of foreign-made goods. This was a mischievous Bill, and on that ground he should vote against it.

MR. CUTHBERT QUILTER (Suffolk, Sudbury)

said that, as the representative of a large number of men engaged in one of the industries which it was sought by this Bill to protect, he cordially supported the Measure. He was as good a free trader as the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division, but that should not prevent him rising to say that the men whom he represented felt it was a hardship to them that mats and matting made in the penal colonies of Belgium should be allowed to be imported into this country without any restrictions whatever. The hon. Member for Batter-sea spoke strongly of the attitude of the Trade Union Congress upon this matter. He had had the honour and privilege of conferring with trade union leaders on this matter, and he was thankful to say that after eight or nine years' hard work, and with the cordial assistance and wise counsel of those leaders, he succeeded in impressing the then Government with the propriety of discontinuing the unfair practice of contracting with prison labour in our own prisons. The consequence was that his constituents and their wives and families were starving.

*MR. SPEAKER

said he must remind the hon. Member, as he had reminded another hon. Member, that the question was not the employment of criminals in English prisons, but the importation of goods made in prisons abroad.

MR. QUILTER

said he would obey Mr. Speaker's ruling at once, but would like to explain that he was going to point out that, having been a consistent advocate of their protection against prison labour in this country, it was quite natural he should press that position to its logical conclusion, and support the Government in now doing away with what they had found to be unfair in their own country. He could not conceive how any Gentleman, even on the opposite side of the House, could regard that to be fair in Belgium which was admitted to be unfair in this country. The result of the manufacture of these mats in the Belgian penal colonies was that the English market was flooded with them, and it was impossible for their workers to live. If the late President of the Board of Trade had been m his place, he would like to have reminded him of the many occasions on which he had brought this matter to his attention, and of the several occasions on which he said that if there was a ease at all for this Committee, or for legislation on the subject, it was the case of the mat weavers, especially in the district he represented. It was said what a small affair this was in the whole trade of the country, but it was the day of small things. It was the people who attended to small things who won in the end. They had had too much legislation on a grand scale—too much interference with everybody's property, and too much upsetting of everybody's business. What they wanted was to put everything in order, and to try and undo, as far as they could, the mischief which had been done in the three years of the preceding Parliament. He thought it spoke well for the business-like qualities of the Government, and especially of the President of the Board of Trade, and the Colonial Secretary, that they had not thought it beneath them to try and remove the grievance of a small number of people. He thought the Bill should have received the support of the Labour representatives. The Labour representatives in Belgium were far more alive to the interests of their constituents than were the Labour Members in his country, for when they found out that these prison-made mats were underselling the free labour of that country, they put such pressure on their Parliament that they were obliged to take measures to stop it. He implored the Government to stand firm to the proposal they had made, and to do their best to see that the Belgian prison labour was treated in exactly the same way as prison labour was treated in this country. As to the carrying out of the Bill, he would deal with the question in a very simple way. He would put the onus on the importer. He would make him answerable for not selling in this country as free labour goods articles made in foreign prisons, and he thought that would very soon have the desired effect.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said he was inclined to think that the true defence of this Bill had yet to come. The authorship of the Bill hail been imputed to the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, and he understood he accepted the soft impeachment without demur. It had also been imputed to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it, but there was another right hon. Gentleman on that Bench who, he imagined, would by-and-bye give the true defence of the Bill, and an explanation of it such as they had not yet had from that side of the House. The President of the Board of Trade convinced them that his heart, at all events, was not in the work he had to do. He was an old and experienced Member and Minister. He had had to pilot many difficult Bills in that House, and on many occasions he had distinguished himself by the success with which he had discharged his functions as Minister; but he had never heard him resort to such arguments as he had resorted to that night. His main argument in support of the Bill was that the Government was bound to obey a mandate, not of that House, but of the preceding House. He had never heard that before held out as a principle of Ministerial action. Why, a Motion carried by a private Member on a Friday night was by universal consent of the Leaders treated as one which might be ignored. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were going to accept as mandates all the Resolutions passed by the last Parliament they would have their hands full. The President of the Board of Trade gave himself away at the very beginning by admitting that the grievance, if any, was a. small one. The right hon. Gentleman's chief piece of evidence was a quotation from a Belgian newspaper of which he never heard before. What was the dale of the article?

*MR. RITCHIE

March 15.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

asked the question because he could not gather from the extract that the writer had ever seen this Bill or was referring to it; it he was he was very easily alarmed. There were two main questions—Was this thing worth doing at all, and secondly, was this the way to do it? On the first question he was not a bitter opponent of the principle— [Ministerial laughter and cheers]— whether as against home prison or foreign prison produce he had no great objection to ordinary, free, non-criminal labour being protected. But the language of the President of the Board of Trade was very different from the mighty thing made of this grievance by the Secretary of State for the Colonies last year, and by every Unionist candidate at the last election.

MR, J. CHAMBERLAIN

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly quote the words in which I made a "mighty thing" of this last year?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his whole speech. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "Oh!"] I appeal to those who heard him that I am not giving an unfair account of the speech. [MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "I deny it!"] One of the right hon. Gentleman's expressions, as reported in the "Parliamentary Debates,"was:—"There is no industry which is safe if this thing continued." [Cheers.] Was not that making a mountain out of a molehill? [Cries of "No!"] That sentence was characteristic of the whole speech. The main question, however, upon which comparatively little had been said was— Was this the right way to do it? Goods proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs by evidence tendered to them, to have been made or produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison, gaol, house of correction, or penitentiary, were to be added to the table of restrictions and prohibitions in Section 42 of the Act of 1876. This addition was entirely out of line with the category therein set forth. In every prohibition in that category, a plain, imperative duty was laid on the Commissioners of Customs. But here the Commissioners of Customs were to take no action unless they were set in motion by somebody who tendered evidence to them that the goods had been made in prison. He invited the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir H. Vincent), who was the father of this whole legislation, to consider the sham his Leaders were palming off upon him. How the Commissioners were to satisfy themselves, what the procedure to be adopted—all this was left in nubibus in the Bill, and he declared that to offer such a thing as this Bill to so loyal a supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for Sheffield and his hon. Friend below the Gangway was to play upon their credulity. If they were to have these things prohibited, they should be prohibited in some effective way. Something might be said for the plan of the hon. Member below the Gangway, but for this proposal to be made by a strong Government which condescended to deal with small things was an experiment that ought not to be made. The Bill had been well described as a bogus Bill—a sham Bill. Apparently the Government were willing in this case, as they had not been willing in more important things, to accept Amendments; and while he did not approve the Bill in its present shape at all, if it was carried through the Second Reading he should certainly consider himself free to strengthen the back of the right hon. Gentleman by withdrawing this condition about tendering evidence, and putting upon him and his subordinates the duty and responsibility of prohibiting goods when they came within the prohibition clause. ["Hear, hear!"] They now had the prescription for which they had waited two long years. Was that a policy— that? [Laughter.] Goods were to be prohibited, not because they were prison-made, but because evidence might be tendered which might prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for tile time being that they were prison-made. It was a policy that was not worth the name. He did not know whether this was the prescription of a regular practitioner or not, but it was a prescription that would justify one in applying strong epithets to the author, and if this was all they had to expect from a Government of social programmes on a matter which was regarded as of so much importance two years ago, then the sooner the House was up the better. [Opposition cheers.]

MR. T. H. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

did not desire to say much in support of the Bill. But there was one argument winch appeared to him to be very strong indeed, and which the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with. Why, if our own prison-made goods did not compete with our own free labour goods, should we admit the labour of convicts abroad to compete with free labour in this courtly? Was not the Government justified, nay, compelled to take these steps? Was not the Bill the logical consequence of the steps taken by Mr. Matthews to prevent our own prison-made goods competing with free labour goods? The right hon. Gentleman said there had been no defence of the Bill from the Front Bench. He ventured to say there had been no attack upon the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself had made no attack upon the principle of the Bill. He seemed to him to be rather a weak and faint-hearted supporter of the principle of the Bill; but he had not the courage of his opinions like his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had. [Laughter.] Well, he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Board of Trade expressed such derision; and he hoped that before the Debate concluded they would hear why. That this Bill was of considerable importance to the country was, he thought, admitted by all hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Battersea, he thought, had said that party capital had been made of this, and nearly all the hon. Members who had spoken on the other side had spoken in a similar sense. How could party capital be made out of a Bill if the people of the country took no interest in it? He ventured to say this was a subject in which the constituencies, in which the working classes had and did take a very great interest. Even if only a few of their number were affected, they stood together and had a fellow feeling— ["hear, hear!"]—and even if only a small and isolated body of brushmakers were injured by the competition he ventured to par that the whole of the working classes had a feeling of sympathy for them. If that was the case he did think that the Front Opposition Bench had shown a spirit of singular indifference to the importance of this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman, one of the Presidents of the Board of Trade in the last Administration, made in 1895 a most valuable contribution to the Debate: and said in the course of his speech that if was only natural and reasonable that the working classes should feel aggrieved when their free labour came into competition with foreign convict labour. Had the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say now? He ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not intend to take any part m this Debate. The country would certainly remark, if he did not, upon the absolute indifference shown by the two men on the front Opposition Bench best qualified to form an opinion on the subject, viz., two ex-Presidents of the Board of Trade. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton)

as one of the representatives of a town where brushes were made, accepted the challenge of the hon. Member who had challenged any one representing the working classes to take part in the Debate. He thought that the Gentlemen who pleaded for the Bill should give the House some statistics to show to what extent the importation of foreign prison-made goods affected the trade of this country. If they took the brush trade, no one who had read the evidence contained in the Report presented by the Committee some time ago could avoid coming to the conclusion that so far as the brush trade was concerned, the evidence was not conclusive in favour of the theory that the importation of foreign prison-made brushes affected in any way the trade of this country. It was stated by almost every brushmaker who gave evidence before the Committee that, as far as the best brushes were concerned there was no decline in the manufacture in this country. As to the cheaper brushes, there was the evidence of the representative and part owner of the Star Brush Company, which had the bulk of the business in such brushes, and of Mr. Page, representing a large Norwich firm, that in supporting the agitation against these prison-made goods, the workmen of this country were on the wrong scent. During the four months ending April 30th, 1896, we imported £59,000 worth of brushes, while during the same period we exported £38,000 worth. As to mats and matting, during four months of 1895 we imported £25,000 worth, and exported £16,300 worth. The table presented by the Customs showed that out of £25,000 worth of mats and matting imported, no less than £18,331 worth came from China and Japan. Therefore, in that period only £2,800 worth of mats and matting was imported from Holland and Belgium, and during that same period we exported to Holland and Belgium £2,277 worth. The importation of prison-made goods could not be checked without enormous expense in obtaining evidence. There was astounding evidence before the Merchandise Marks Committee that since the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act the transhipment trade of the country had been deeply affected. This week a representative of the shipowners had stated that the interference with packages by the Customs was prejudicially affecting our shipping trade; and such a result would injure far more workmen than could possibly be concerned in the competition of foreign prison-made brushes. He thought that the House ought to have further evidence that this Bill would effect its object.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.

, who was received with Ministerial cheers: I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire that we have not heard anything in the course of this Debate from the representative of the Department chiefly concerned in the time of the late Government. I do not forget the very important Debate in 1895, in which the right hon. Gentleman examined the whole question very carefully, and I admit that I am surprised that he has not thought it worth while to give the House the benefit of his opinion, and to tell the House whether, like the whole of his followers, he has completely turned round in the course of the last few years. [Laughter and cheers.] I am well aware that we must not make too great demands on the Front Opposition Bench, and that we have already had a speech from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Opposition on so many occasions. The hon. Member for Dundee always speaks on matters connected with the Navy or with foreign affairs; and now he has undertaken the work of the Board of Trade. [Cheers and laughter] And it may be said, in the absence of his Leader, that the hon. Member for Dundee is the representative of the Leaders of the Opposition. [Cheers and laughter.] I have personal reason for desiring to magnify the office of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty—[laughter]—and I congratulate my hon. Friend the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty—[renewed laughter]—upon the greatness which is in store for him when the Government of the day is again changed, and when the hon. Member will have to answer for all our affairs. [Laughter.] I have said that this Debate is remarkable as showing a most extraordinary and at present unexplained change of front. For what happened in 1895? In February 1895 a Motion was made calling attention to this grievance, and demanding; that the Government should at once—the words "at once" were purposely inserted in the Resolution—["Hear, hear!"]—proceed to deal with the importation of these prison-made goods. The right hon. Gentleman who then represented the Board of Trade did not complain of the Resolution, did not deny that a grievance was established, and did not deny that a remedy was necessary. But he plainly said that, having consulted with his officials, he was unable to find a remedy, and that he would be extremely pleased if the Opposition furnished him with something practical in that way. Then, as soon as he heard that the Opposition could not assist him in that direction, he proposed the appointment of a Committee, which we had reason to believe would take a long time to conduct its investigations, and would lead to no definite or satisfactory end. ["Hear, hear!"] We refused the offer of the Government. It was refused by my hon. Friend the then Mover of the Resolution; it was refused by myself, who was then an independent Member of the House and the Leader of a small section of the House; and it was subsequently refused by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Bal four), then Leader of the Opposition. That was a direct challenge to the Government. [Cheers] We refused their offer; we insisted that they should deal with the matter in a practical spirit. What did they do? Did they divide against us? Not a bit of it. [Cheers.] In the first place, they tried to count us out. [Laughter and cheers.] I have said there was a singular inconsistency on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are at least consistent in this, that to-night they tried to count us out again. [Laughter.] Having failed to count us out on the former occasion, they challenged a. Division on our Amendment, but when the time came to divide—in the meantime there had been communication between the Front Bench and the Benches below the Gangway there was no one to call out "No," and accordingly our Resolution was carried nemine contradicente in February, 1895. But afterwards, the then Government, instead of complying with the Resolution, acted in direct disobedience of it by appointing a Departmental Committee, which certainly was not considered satisfactory by those who had supported the Amendment, and which had the effect of delaying the matter until after the general election, ["Hear, hear!"] Up to that period the Government, as I have shown, had admitted, but avoided, their obligations. But now it is entirely different. Here is a Bill to carry out an obligation which has been unanimously supported by the House of Commons, and yet Member after Member gets up on the other side of the House in order to show that the grievance is imaginary, that the evil does not exist, or that if it does exist it ought not to be remedied. [Cheers.] And for this extraordinary change of views and action there is no explanation whatever, except it be the fact that in February, 1895, we were within a month or so of the General Election, and that now, in May, 1897, hon. Members opposite think the General Election is very far off indeed. [Cheers and Laughter.] But that is not all. This matter has not been allowed to drop even within the period of office of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman who has now moved the rejection of this Bill got up during the discussion on the Address at the opening of last Session and denounced the Government for not attempting even to fulfil their pledges, and among the pledges to which he gave prominence and importance, as a matter of serious obligation, as a matter to which the greatest attention ought to be paid, but which the Government had neglected, was this very question of prison-made goods. [Laughter and cheers.]

MR. DALZIEL

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. I was on that occasion inquiring for information. [Ministerial laughter.] The Government on that occasion were pledged to do something, and it seemed as if they were not going to do anything. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Of course we perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman's desire for information. [Laughter.] When we attempt to carry out the promises we have given, it is declared that the Measures we propose to pass are absolutely unworthy of the support of the House; but if we do not bring forward Measures to fulfil our obligations and pledges, we are told they are matters of the utmost importance, and we are denounced for not bringing them forward. [Laughter and cheers.] We understand these tactics very well, and are fully satisfied. [Renewed cheer a and laughter.] But here is a fact which I wish the House to notice, and which I am sure the country will notice. Here is this Measure, and here is a broad issue. In February, 1895, we all appeared to be unanimous in favour of it. That is no longer the case. I want to emphasise that fact. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot go down to their constituencies and pretend that they are in favour of the exclusion of prison-made goods. [Cheers.] I do not suppose that even they, for very shame, would dare to run away from the question once more. [Laughter.] They must take a division upon it. [Ministerial and Opposition cheers.] We are grateful to them for having given us the opportunity of separating—what shall I say?—the sheep from the goats. [Laughter.] Now we know what is the value of their support of a Measure in the immediate anticipation of a General Election. [Cheers.] The fear of a General Election being now removed from them, they oppose as bitterly and as strongly as they can the very Measure to which they had previously given their assent so far as its principle is concerned. [Cheer.] At all events, we are satisfied with having the opportunity of redeeming the pledges we have given. [Renewed cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot say after this Session that we have disappointed our friends, or that we have been false to our pledges. I undertake to say that at the end of this Session, after two working Sessions, we shall have fulfilled a, larger part of our programme than any Government have ever done before. [Loud cheers.] And this, although confessedly it was one of the minor Measures of our programme, is not a matter of that very small importance that the hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think. He will find that it will grow in importance as time goes on. [Laughter.] I feel perfectly certain that as soon as the next General Election is in sight, the hon. Member will begin to think that this is a matter of paramount importance. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dundee, referring to a speech I made in the House before the last General Election, said I declared it was a most significant Measure. I said nothing of the kind. In every instance in which I referred to the matter—and I did refer to it in the course of the General Election—I pointed out that in itself it was a small matter, that it was of small economical importance. In this House, however, I pointed out that it was a matter of great political importance. [Cheers.] Yes, and hon. Members have reason to thank me that they took my advice then. ["Hear, hear!"] My advice, given frankly, was that this was a matter to which constituents attached very great importance, and that they would be wise to remember that, and that if they did not remember it we should. What was the result of that frank statement? I did not conceal it; I took advantage of it afterwards. But I gave them the information, and as a result none of them dared to vote against the Resolution. [Cheers.] Now, I say, we are justified, having fairly warned our opponents, in taking advantage of the extremely bad strategy which they have exhibited this afternoon. They have actually given this little Bill a more violent, and more strenuous opposition than they have given to any other Measure of the Government, except the Primary Education Bill. Very well, all I hope is that they will stick to this line of policy—["Hear, hear!"]—that they will on every platform of the country call attention to their magnificent action tonight — [laughter] — to the opposition which they have offered to this Bill for preventing the importation of prison-made goods, and that they will upon that demand the further confidence of their constituents. [Laughter.] If they do demand that, I hope they may get it. Now, Sir, I have said that I have never exaggerated the economic importance of this matter, but at the same time as a matter of principle it is of very considerable importance, and as a matter of fact it is of enormous importance to a small number of people, and when it is a question of justice, a small number of people have quite as much right to be considered as a large number. Just let us see what is the fact. We are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they admit there is a certain amount of public feeling in this matter. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley, I think, said that that was the case, that there was a prejudice among the working classes against having to compete with, and losing their employment in consequence of, the unrestricted importation of goods made by foreign convicts, principally Germans and Belgians. He admitted that, but he called upon us to sacrifice ourselves in the great cause to which he himself is a votary, and show our courage by disregarding public opinion. Well, Sir, that advice comes from a queer quarter. [Laughter.] Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite pay disregard to public opinion? Why did we not have all these admirable economic arguments at the time of the General Election of 1895? Why did not the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs tell us that free trade was in danger on that occasion? He never opened his lips. All this, therefore, must either be new information, or, as I have suggested, hon. Members opposite think the circumstances have change and that they have still time to repent. I have said that, although it is not a gigantic evil, neither is it an imaginary evil. What is the fact? The fact is this—that these goods made in foreign prisons and imported into this country compete especially with the brush trade and the mat trade, two minor trades, and that they also compete to a less extent with a considerable number of other trades; and, further, that, if they are not restricted by legislation, we have it on the authority of some German speakers and politicians that it was the intention of the authorities in Germany to spread the industries in the prisons over a larger number of trades, so that we do not know what trade may not ultimately be affected. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, who gave the effort of a speech which I believe he had not heard, and refused to quote any language which justified—

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

I beg pardon; I listened to every word of the speech.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

In 1895?

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON

Yes; to every word of the speech.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I can only say then that the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. [Laughter.]. But when challenged to produce proof of the statement that I have described this matter to be of extraordinary importance as an economical problem, he quoted as my statement that there was no industry which was safe as loner as this state of things was allowed to continue. What was the "state of things? "He did not quote the context, because the speech was only handed to him at the moment, and he had not time to make himself acquainted with it. It was that the then President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, had explained, as a reason for minimising the evil, that the Germans were benevolently going to extend the process to a great number of other trades.

*MR. J. BRYCE

No, I said nothing of the kind.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

This is what I said on that occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman being present took no exception to it:— The right hon. Gentleman made an admission. He said that the Germans had spread these prison industries over as many manufactures as possible.

*MR. J. BRYCE

Certainly.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

What, a satisfactory state of things! How admirable it will read in the newspapers to-morrow! The right hon. Gentleman will be enabled to go to Aberdeen and say to his fellow-citizens there:—'At the present time the Germans in their prisons have not dealt with the jute manufactures;' but a member of the audience will say:—' Oh! but you say that the Germans have spread their prison work over as many industries as possible, and how do you know that the German prison system may not spread even to our industry?' [Cheers.] And it was imputed to me, in reference to what I said as to the state of things described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, that I said that, under those circumstances, no industry would be safe! Now, Sir, I say that it is quite true that a very considerable number of industries might really be affected if this principle were unrestricted. But some of the hon. Members opposite have argued that this cannot be a matter worthy of any consideration on our part because prison labour is not cheap. I think it was the hon. Member for Battersea who said that. What an extraordinary ignorance of the state of things that argument shows! In what sense does the hon. Member say that prison labour is not cheap? Of course it is not cheap if a book of profit and loss were kept by every prison, and if a prison conducted its affairs as a private firm does, and opened capital, and interest, and depreciation accounts, and went into the actual cost and everything else. Of course it would not pay to make brushes in prisons in that case. But when practically it does not cost anything because you already have prisons, and do not pay for them, and when everything you get for a brush is profit except the cost of the raw material, then prison labour is by the necessity of the case the cheapest of all labour, and prisons can afford to make goods at what would be a loss to others. We employ prisoners, as the hon. Member for Batter-sea has said, in making breakwaters, or for work of that kind; but of course it has been found by comparison with ordinary labour to be the most extravagant business possible. At the same time it would be perfectly possible for us to hire out these men at 4d. a day, and the profit would be 4d. a day, although the expense, because of the article manufactured, would be very much more than the cost under ordinary systems of trade. There is no doubt about it, and it is useless for the hon. Member or anyone else to deny it; they do not wish to know where the shoe pinches, but the people engaged in these industries do. They know perfectly well, and it has never been contradicted, that this particular trade has been injured; not merely that the amount of the trade has been diminished, but the profits of the industry altogether destroyed; and it means also that wages are reduced and the workers put in an unfair position. The hon. Member for Battersea says," Why do not you deal with any other trade? "I defy him to find any other trade in the same position. What is the case here? You have actually by Resolutions in this House prohibited prisoners in this country from working on this productive industry. ["Hear, hear!"] Do let the House bear that in mind when we are dealing with such arguments as those put forward by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. The hon. Member for Battersea asserts that criminals should be taught an industry and make goods which will be afterwards sold. Why then does he not, to be consistent, propose that prisoners in English gaols should be allowed what they are not now allowed to do—compete with British industry?

MR. BURNS

, interposing, said the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. The Government did not prohibit British prisoners from competing with free labour to the extent he represented. What the Government, to its credit, did was to confine the employment of prison labour to certain areas.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Out of 18,000 prisoners in gaols 300 are employed on work of a kind which comes into competition with free labour. In Germany and Belgium all prisoners are employed on productive work, and this is not allowed to be sold in Germany. It is ear-marked for consumption in this country. [Cheers.] I said "in Germany, "I should have said" in these foreign countries." This is what is said by the Belgian newspaper referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee: — The fact that a Bill of this kind wins to be introduced into the British Parliament shows that public opinion is much occupied with this Measure, which may have a serious effect on Belgian trade. Owing to the extreme cheapness of these goods "— see how this article by anticipation contradicts every one of the arguments of hon. Members opposite against this Bill— England has been the principal market for articles manufactured in our prisons, and particularly in our penal settlements. That market once closed to a trade of this particular kind—England no longer condescending to take prison-made goods—they will naturally begin to raise serious and even disloyal competition against the regular trade of Belgium. [Cheers.] I call the attention of the House to these friends of the working classes. [Cheers.] Here is their proposal—that goods made in Belgian prisons, and which Belgians will not sell in Belgium because it would be disloyal competition with Belgian working men, should come unrestricted into this country to engage in loyal competition with British working men. [Cheers.] The Opposition may be divided on questions of foreign policy, of South African policy, and colonial policy. On this question it is indeed united! [Cheers.] Here is a policy to go to the country with—" Convict labour; convict goods for the British consumer! "[Laughter and cheers.] The hon. Member for Spen Valley said the Bill was a violation of the principles this country had adopted during the last 50 years—" an insidious attack on free trade." He put it forward as a principle of free trade that cheapness to the consumer was the one thing to be regarded. We had nothing to do with where the goods came from, or how they were made.

*MR. WHITTAKER

said this was not quite his point. It was said that prison-made goods, because of their cheapness, displaced labour here, and he submitted that, if that argument was sound, it ought to be applied to all classes of goods, whether made in prisons or anywhere else. [Cheers.]

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

That is quite true. Bill, unless my memory deceives me, the hon. Member went further. He emphasised it by saying that the great object was that the consumer should buy his goods in the cheapest market. The hon. Member for Kirkealdy adopted the same line of argument. Were the hon. Members consistent? Why, under these circumstances, do they support a resolution against sweated goods. The other side has again and again pressed the view that we are not to buy sweated goods—goods made cheap—because the labour employed in making them is badly paid. Very well; do they mean to say in the same breath that you are not to buy goods cheap when made by ill-priced labour, but you may when they are made cheap by prison labour?

*MR. WHITTAKER

said his argument was that the conditions of labour in prisons were not as bad as many other conditions of labour.[Ministerial cries of"Oh!"] His contention was, if they opposed the importation of floods because made in prisons, why not oppose the importation of goods made under worse conditions?—and he referred to carpets made in Turkey and Asia and to the cheap labour of India. ["Hear, hear!"]

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I am afraid I should be abusing the time of the House if I followed the hon. Member into all his arguments. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] But I am unable to see the consistency of refusing to avail yourself of cheapness, when the result of low wages, and accepting all the conditions of cheapness when the result of foreign convict labour. Yet that is the position to which hon. Members have reduced the theory of free trade. I have said that I hope even now, before the Debate closes, we may hear something from a more prominent Member of the Opposition than the hon. Member for Dundee. If we are favoured to-night with any expression of opinion from either of the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke in 1895—the Member for Aberdeen and the Member for Montrose—then I am sure they will repeat the language which they then used, and which will convey a most valuable lesson to their followers in regard to the true principles of free trade. [Cheers.] Here is what was said by the Member for South Aberdeen:—"He did not consider that the question of free trade arose in the matter at all." [Ministerial laughter.] Has he changed his mind since 1895 with regard to that point? He cannot say. [Renewed laughter.] I make all allowance for the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. ["Hear, hear!"] I now come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. J. Morley). He said:— If there is an ardent free-trader in the House it is the humble individual who is addressing you. But can I for one moment think I am bound, in the interest of free trade, or in order to be a consistent free-trader, to admit into the markets of this country convict-made goods made in this country, or convict-made goods made elsewhere? [Ministerial laughter and cheers.] Has my right hon. Friend changed his mind? [Mr. J. MORLEY was understood to intimate that he had not.] No; my right hon. Friend is not so coy as his right hon. colleague. [Laughter.] I no longer implore the right hon. Member for Aberdeen to speak. I do not think in the circumstances he could add much to the Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] I am sure I do not mean any disrespect to him, but I mean that, until he has made up his mind about the principles of free trade, I do not see that he can assist us. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, if he would repeat the lesson he gave in 1895 to his followers below the gangway—if he would teach the hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for the Kirkealdy District the true principles of free trade—really might do the whole House very considerable service. [Cheers.] I say that under these circumstances it is perfectly absurd for hon. Gentlemen opposite at this time of day to pretend that the principles of free trade are in question. It has nothing to do with the principles of free trade; it has only to do with the principles of common sense and common justice. [Cheers.] I want to point out to the House that every speech to which we have listened, with the possible exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, has been a speech directly against the principle of this Bill. It is true the hon. Member for Dundee said everything he could think of against the Bill, professed his disbelief in it, and minimised the evil, and undoubtedly, if his arguments were accurate, there ought to be no Bill. But still he did not venture to say, as the other hon. Members opposite did, that he opposed the principle of the Bill. That had hitherto been the main argument, and it is the argument to which I should tie hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition. It is true they added another argument, which is almost one of those works of supererogation. They said the Bill would be ineffective. Of course it is open to them, and if they think they can make it more stringent—if they can make a Bill which is wrong in principle, mind you, which is dealing with a matter which ought not to be dealt with, and does not deserve to be dealt with, more effectively, we shall welcome their assistance. [Cheers.] But in the meantime we, who gave this promise and believed there was a real injustice which ought to be remedied, are satisfied with, this Bill, and we believe it will be a remedy. [Cheers.] We have produced our prescription, after all, with very slight delay. [Ministerial cheers.] The Opposition consider there is no disease. You cannot argue the thing from both points of view. Their point is there is no disease. We have produced our prescription and we believe it will be a remedy. As to the persons who think there is no disease, I should say, on the whole, it would be unwise to ask them for a prescription, because under these circumstances it is probable that their pills would be flour and their draughts would be plain water. [Laughter.] But we, who believe there is a grievance, have honestly endeavoured to find a remedy; we believe we have found a remedy, and if in the course of examination in Committee any defect can be shown, we shall be perfectly ready to improve our Bill and to improve our remedy. [Cheers.]

*MR. JAMES BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)

would very frankly satisfy the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman as to why he did not speak earlier in the Debate. He was very curious to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and was very anxious to hear how he would reconcile his speech of two years ago with the Bill of to-day. He was very curious to know how he would reconcile the extreme and extravagant language which he used in speaking on this question of foreign prison-made goods in February, 1895, with the minimising and deprecatory language which had been used that night by the President of the Board of Trade. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] He was very anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the prescription, and to hear him explain and defend a Bill which, on the face of it, seemed an absurd and preposterous remedy. He had been disappointed. [Ministerial cheers.] He had been entertained and amused, and he had listened to an admirable exhibition of political agility. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] But he had had no light cast upon the question with which the House was asked to deal. It was all very well to make a jest and sport of the matter as the right hon. Gentleman had tried to do. [Opposition cheers.] They had been amusing themselves for the last five hours. They had not been dealing with a serious matter in a serious way at all, but had been merely amusing themselves by putting up a sham Bill on whose behalf not a single word of argument had been offered on the Government Bench. The right hon. Gentleman opposite endeavoured to escape from the language which he used in February, 1895. He would compare the right hon. Gentleman's language then with that which he had used on the present occasion. He had just told them that there was a very small number of people who were affected by it; but what did he say in 1895? He said:— There is no question upon which the working classes of this country have more, generally made up their minds than upon this. [Ministerial cheers, and Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: "I say it now!"] The right hon. Gentleman said it, but it was a different thing to prove it, and he had not attempted to prove it. At the General Election this question was treated with complete contempt. [Ministerial cries of "No !"]

*SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Fifty per cent. of the Unionist Members put it in their programmes. ["Hear, hear!"]

*MR. BRYCE

said that, anyhow, the question had failed utterly to excite the interest of the people of this country. [Ministerial cries of "Prove it!"] He could prove it from his own experience, and he had consulted a great many of his friends, who all said that the question made no difference to them at the election. [Ministerial cries of "Where are they? and Opposition cries of "Order !"] If hon. Members would refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee they would find that that Committee endeavoured to obtain trade opinion upon this subject. They appealed to the trade union councils, and advertised in a great many newspapers, but they had scarcely any response to their appeals, and they were satisfied that the working classes of this country did not take any interest in the question. [Ministerial cries of "Oh !"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, on the occasion to which he had referred:— We are face to face with what is practically a national and almost unanimous demand. Where was the evidence of such a demand, and if there was such a demand, why had the Government waited for two years before responding to it? The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a question of great practical importance. They knew what that meant. Practical importance meant in his eyes electioneering importance, and nothing else—["Hear, hear!"]—and even in regard to the electioneering importance of the question the right hon. Gentleman was utterly mistaken. [Laughter.] He adhered himself to every word which he used in the Debate in February, 1895. He said then that this was an infinitesimal grievance not worth notice, much less legislation, and that it was useless to legislate for this grievance, such as it was, unless they could legislate effectively. The Bill before the House would not effect a remedy; it would be futile. Let him recall to hon. Members' minds the Report of the Departmental Committee. It was a perfectly impartial Committee.[Ministerial cries of "Oh !"] Its impartiality was not challenged at the time of its appointment.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

I took every opportunity of saying it was packed. [Cheers and laughter.]

MR. BRYCE

At that time no one ventured to say that it was not a fair and competent Committee.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

I beg pardon. I said so always. [Laughter.]

*MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman never said so in this House.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

I never had the opportunity. It was a hole-and-corner Committee packed in the right hon. Gentleman's own office. [Loud laughter.]

*MR. BRYCE

said that the right hon. Gentleman generally found an opportunity of saying a thing which he wanted to say. [Laughter.] He repeated that, although the subject was frequently mentioned in the House, the impartiality of the Committee was not challenged. The hon. Member for Sheffield was himself upon it. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "Yes, but I left it !"] [Laughter.] The Report of the Committee went to show that the quantity and value of all prison-made goods imported into this country were extremely small, that it was too small to have any substantial influence on the trade. ["Hear, hear!"] It was an interesting fact that the number of persons employed in the brush and mat making trades had increased during the few years in which the competition of prison-made goods was stated to be injuring the trade; and another interesting fact was that it appeared that in those countries which sent brushes and mats to this country goods were produced by free labour quite as cheaply as by prison labour, so that, as far as the interests of the British workman were concerned, nothing whatever would be gained by prohibiting the importation of prison-made goods. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary error in his statement about the Germans, when he said they ear-marked these goods for British consumption. That was not the case. ["Hear, hear!"] What the Germans did was not to sell them in the immediate vicinity of the prison—[Ministerial cheers]—that was to say, within eight miles of the prison—but they sold them in other parts of Germany. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to twist some words of his in the former Debate into a meaning they did not bear. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to represent that he said that the German Government were increasing the production in a variety of industries in order to compete with British goods. What he did say was:— The policy of the German Government had been to spread prison labour over as many trades as possible"— ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. CHAMBERLAIN]— in order that it might have no injurious effect on any particular trade. [Cheers and Ministerial laughter.] That was to say, in order that it might not be said that in Germany they were competing with any particular trade, they spread their prison production over a variety of trades—["Hear, hear!"]—and it was shown before the Committee that no practical harm could come to British trade from that, or, of course, to German trade. There was not, a title of evidence to show that any harm was done, and the right hon. Gentleman had never tried to produce any.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I? I did not offer myself as a witness before your Departmental Committee. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.]

MR. BRYCE

The right hon. Gentleman did what was much more important. He offered himself as a witness before the House—[cheers]—and he made statements before the House which were utterly baseless, which he had never even attempted to substantiate, and which he now defied him to substantiate. [Cheers.] Another interesting point was brought out by the Committee—namely, that British machine-made goods, even in the lower kind of brushes, could be produced just as cheaply as foreign-made, and the reason why foreign-made goods were allowed to come in, particularly prison-made goods, was because the British manufacturers found it better worth their while to bestow their attention on the production of the superior. This Committee gave every possible opportunity to the brush and matmakers to state their case, and these were the conclusions they came to, and no one had ever disputed them. [Cheers.]

*SIR HOWARD VINCENT

That was a majority Report. There was a minority Report.

MR. BRYCE

said that was the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member left the Committee because he did not like the way the evidence was going. [Cheers.] However, the Committee went further. They inquired not only whether there was a substantial grievance, but also whether, if there was a grievance, it could be remedied. The Committee called some of the officers of the Customs before them and cross-examined them at some length, and they came to the conclusion that the suggestions put forward were unworkable, that they could not be made effective, and that in whatever form they were tried they failed. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not want to detain the House on minor points; they would be found set forth in the evidence and summarised in the Report of the Committee. He was accurate in stating that the suggestions put forward by the Customs were held to be impracticable. He read the words of the Report on this point which declared that the suggestions would do more harm than good, and went on to urge that they were entitled to have some substantial case made out. When they pressed for some kind of figures the Colonial Secretary was obliged to fall back on some anonymous article in a Belgian paper. [Opposition laughter.] He could only say they must have some other evidence than that of an anonymous writer, who might be the Member for Sheffield himself. [Loud, laughter.] It was little short of an insult to the House of Commons—["Hear, hear!"]—to ask them to pass legislation on the authority of some writer in a Belgian paper. [Cheers.] They asked the promoters to tender evidence, but they could not get it. How were they to get evidence that a brush was made in a prison or not? A brush did not tell its own tale as to where it was made. It was not stamped that it was made in a German prison. The idea was absurd. The Colonial Secretary seemed to have an idea that some persons would be watching round the doors of German prisons, and that they would follow the brushes from one wholesale warehouse to another until at last it came here. [Laughter] They knew that in, the case of the Merchandise Marks Acts traders would not come forward to help the Board of Trade to enforce those Acts. The Board of Trade must do it themselves; yet the Merchandise Marks Act was much easier of application than this Bill would prove to be. There was not the slightest reason to believe that the evidence would be attainable. They had some experience of other countries. In America, and, he dared say, in Canada, there were a good many laws which looked well on paper, but not in fact. The authorities had received power to make regulations, but none were made, and it was impossible to make out what the authorities were doing. It was easy when there was some trivial demand, or when some one was playing an electioneering card, to bring forward a Bill like this; but the business of responsible and worthy statesmanship was not to bring in Bills unless they could make them work. [Cheers.] The "prescription" of the right hon. Gentleman had been referred to. He remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman well; it was a curious speech, and it was remarked at the time as being noteworthy for an unaccountable bitterness of tone and language. It culminated in the expression, "We are not going to lend them our prescriptions while he takes the fees." It was observed at the time that it was not, at any rate, a very patriotic course if he had the prescription and was not going to give the country the benefit of it. But now we know that he had no prescription at all. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman went a little further. He did a thing on that occasion which he never remembered a responsible Minister doing before. He turned upon and accused the officials of the Department over which he once had presided. [Cheers.] A less becoming act on the part of a responsible Minister had never been done before. [Cheers.] Now the House knew what the "prescription" was. It was a bread pill. [Laughter.] Any one could prescribe a bread pill; the late Government could have prescribed it then; in fact, there was a Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield before the House which was like this Bill, only a little better. [Laughter.] That Bill might, at any rate, have been tried: this Bill was not worth trying; and he thought that the bread pill of the right hon. Gentleman would be received in every quarter with that unconcern and indifference it deserved. [Cheers.] The Bill was a sham and an imposture from beginning to end. [Cheers and "Divide !"] He went further and said that the Bill and the whole of the agitation on this subject had been a piece of demagogy—[cheers]—which was not creditable to those who had practised it. [Cheers.] He did not think that the Bill could do any harm — [ironical laughter]—but he thought it was not creditable to the House to pass Bills which would do no good, and which would be an unworkable remedy for an insignificant grievance. [Cheers.]

MR. SAMUEL HOARE (Norwich)

, as the representative of a constituency which did not look on this Bill as a trifling Measure, protested against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He also protested against the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman that when, this question was brought before the electors at the last election it was treated with contempt. The contrary was the fact. It was also said that because it was a small matter the House ought not to take up the question. Hon. Gentlemen might as well say that because a man had his pocket picked of 6d., the thief ought not to be punished, because he had not taken more money. In his constituency they considered that this prison labour had robbed the working people of their labour and wages, and he hoped that the House would pass the Bill by a large majority. He mentioned the case of a manufacturer who found that the competition of prisons and reformatory colonies in Belgium was so strong that he had been compelled to go to Belgium and attempt to contract for the labour himself in order that he might be able to compete. The evidence of another brush manufacturer was that he could not possibly compete with prison-made goods, and he knew of three firms, employing 120 hands, who had had to give up their businesses owing to the competition of such goods. We did not allow our own prisoners to compete, except to a very trifling extent, with free labour. Surely, therefore, we ought not to allow the authorities of foreign prisons to send their goods here, goods which were not sold in their own countries. If might be that this Bill would not prove a remedy for the grievance, but, at any rate, it would express the opinion of the House of Commons that some remedy for the evil should be devised, and experience would enable them to amend it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire had said he was filled with disappointment by the statement of the Colonial Secretary. In 1895 the right hon. Gentleman said he did not believe it was possible to introduce a Bill—[Mr. BRYCE: "An effectual Bill!"]—and therefore, no doubt, he was filled with disappointment because this Government had introduced a Bill, one which would be very acceptable to the country. It might be true that only a very small number of people were affected by the Measure, but the country would realise that though the numbers concerned were small, the Government were desirous of seeing justice done to the working classes. In face of the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite had supported a Motion which declared that it was necessary to take at once some step to remedy this evil, he could not understand why they now thought the remedy could be put off. By going into the "No" lobby upon this occasion they would express their opinion that it was impossible to remedy the evil by legislation, and that therefore they would not make any attempt at a remedy. The supporters of the Bill would vote for it with the conscientious feeling that they were trying to find a remedy for the evil, that they were trying to prevent honest labour being interfered with by the work of prisoners in foreign prisons.

MR. W. ALLAN (Gateshead)

saw in the Bill a portion of that policy which they heard of a few nights ago for the taxation of corn. It was said it was meant for the benefit of the working classes, but it did not go far enough to do that. It was honestly meant for that purpose; why did not they go further? What did they do for the working classes who were out of employment by window-sashes and frames being brought into this country, or by flooring, planed, beaded and grooved, being brought in; or what did they do for the glass trade? Had they ever shown any desire whatever to look after these trades? [Ministerial cries of "Yes!"] None whatever; and, forsooth! the House was asked to deal with brushes and mats. Had they come to this, that they had to spend hour after hour in discussing shaving brushes and door mats? The whole amount involved per annum was an absolute trifle, and, above all that, they were the cheapest rubbish that came into the country, and that was the reason so few of them were sold. The Bill was simply an absurdity. It was of no use at all, and would not benefit the working classes one iota. The House of Commons was wasting its precious time by such legislation. They wanted something more in keeping with the traditional greatness of the House than trifles of that kind. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite want Protection? [Some Ministerial cries of "Yes!"] Now they knew where they were, and he would tell those hon. Gentlemen that he would fight them to the death on that question. Speaking as a working man, and as one who knew the working men as well, perhaps, as anyone in that House, he said honestly and fearlessly that this Bill was a sham.

MR. J. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

maintained that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had shown his characteristic prescience when he said that no industry was safe while the present state of things existed. He had canvassed every house and workshop in his constituency, and there were in it numbers of brush factories and mat factories, and boot factories too, which today were suffering from the unfair competition of penal labour in foreign countries. In the London County Council he had had something to do, in conjuntion with the hon. Member for Battersea, in drafting a clause, which appeared in all their tenders, to provide that fair wages should be paid to all the employés of those who competed for contracts, but such a clause was largely neutralised while they allowed contractors to supply asylums and other public institutions with goods imported from abroad, some of them the very goods of which they now complained. As a close student of the matter he asserted that, while this might be a small question in the main, yet in a constituency like his own it was a very large question.

SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

appealed to the Government not

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter
Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme)	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)
Arnold, Alfred	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lane. S. W	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Hobhouse, Henry
Arrol, Sir William	Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Howell, William Tudor
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Dane, Richard M.	Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. Grice.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Balcarres, Lord	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Baldwin, Alfred	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kenyon, James
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)	Doxford, William Theodore	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Banbury, Frederick George	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Knowles, Lees
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Lahouchere, Henry
Barry, A. H. Smith. (Hunts.)	Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan	Lafone, Alfred
Barry, Francis Tress (Windson)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)
Bartley, George C. T.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	Lawrence Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bass, Hamar	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Fielden, Thomas	Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Finch, George H.	Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)
Bethell, Commander	Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Fisher, William Hayes	Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)
Bigham, John Charles	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R (Essex)
Bigwood, James	Flannery, Fortescue	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bill, Charles	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Flower, Ernest	Long, Rt. H n. Walter (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Folkestone, Viscount	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Garfit, William	Lorne, Marquess of
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gedge, Sydney	Lowles, John
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond)	Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Loyd, Archie Kirkham
Butcher, John George	Godson, Augustus Frederick	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Carlile, William Walter	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Gordon, John Edward	Macdona, John Cumming
Cecil, Lord Hugh	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Maclure, John William
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)	McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	McKillop, James
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Graham, Henry Robert	Malcolm, Ian
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gretton, John	Milward, Colonel Victor
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Greville, Captain	Monckton, Edward Philip
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gull, Sir Cameron	Monk, Charles James
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	More, Robert Jasper
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Morrell, George Herbert
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hardy, Laurence	Morrison, Walter
Cox, Robert	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Muntz, Philip A.
Cranborne, Viscount	Holder, Augustus	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

to continue the system of legislation by reference, but to make their Bills self-intelligible.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:— Ayes, 221: Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 208— appended.)

The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers and counter cheers.

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter
Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme)	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)	Hickman, Sir Alfred
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden	Cubitt, Hon. Henry	Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)
Arnold, Alfred	Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lane. S. W	Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)	Hobhouse, Henry
Arrol, Sir William	Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Howell, William Tudor
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Dane, Richard M.	Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. Grice.
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)	Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Balcarres, Lord	Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Baldwin, Alfred	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Kenyon, James
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)	Doxford, William Theodore	Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Banbury, Frederick George	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.	Knowles, Lees
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart	Lahouchere, Henry
Barry, A. H. Smith. (Hunts.)	Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan	Lafone, Alfred
Barry, Francis Tress (Windson)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)
Bartley, George C. T.	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)	Lawrence Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Bass, Hamar	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)	Fielden, Thomas	Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Finch, George H.	Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)
Bethell, Commander	Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne	Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bhownaggree, M. M.	Fisher, William Hayes	Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)
Bigham, John Charles	FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R (Essex)
Bigwood, James	Flannery, Fortescue	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bill, Charles	Fletcher, Sir Henry	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Flower, Ernest	Long, Rt. H n. Walter (Liverpool)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Folkestone, Viscount	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)	Garfit, William	Lorne, Marquess of
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Gedge, Sydney	Lowles, John
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond)	Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)
Bullard, Sir Harry	Giles, Charles Tyrrell	Loyd, Archie Kirkham
Butcher, John George	Godson, Augustus Frederick	Lucas-Shadwell, William
Carlile, William Walter	Goldsworthy, Major-General	Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Gordon, John Edward	Macdona, John Cumming
Cecil, Lord Hugh	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	Maclure, John William
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.	Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)	McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)	Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	McKillop, James
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Graham, Henry Robert	Malcolm, Ian
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)	Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)	Martin, Richard Biddulph
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.	Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.
Coghill, Douglas Harry	Gretton, John	Milward, Colonel Victor
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Greville, Captain	Monckton, Edward Philip
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gull, Sir Cameron	Monk, Charles James
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.	More, Robert Jasper
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)	Hanson, Sir Reginald	Morrell, George Herbert
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hardy, Laurence	Morrison, Walter
Cox, Robert	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Muntz, Philip A.
Cranborne, Viscount	Holder, Augustus	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson	Thornton, Percy M.
Myers, William Henry	Robinson, Brooke	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Newdigate, Francis Alexander	Round, James	Valentia, Viscount
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Northeete, Hon. Sir H. Stafford	Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Pease, Arthur (Darlington)	Seely, Charles Hilton	Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Penn, John	Seton-Karr, Henry	Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)
Phillpotts, Captain Arthur	Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Shaw-Stewart, M H. (Renfrew)	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.
Pollock, Harry Frederick	Simeon, Sir Barrington	Whiteley, H. (Aston-under-L.)
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Skewes-Cox, Thomas	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.)	Spencer, Ernest	Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)
Pryce-Jones, Edward	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Pym, C. Guy	Stewart, Sir Mark J. Mc Taggart	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)
Quilter, William Cuthbert	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Rankin, James	Stock, James Henry	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	Stone, Sir Benjamin	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Renshaw, Charles Bine	Strauss, Arthur	Young, William
Rentoul, James Alexander	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Richards, Henry Charles	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier	TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Richardson, Thomas	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W.	Thorburn, Walter
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Maden, John Henry
Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke	Flynn, James Christopher	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John
Allison, Robert Andrew	Fowler, Matthew (Durham)	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Goddard, Daniel Ford	Oldroyd, Mark
Barlow, John Emmott	Griffith, Ellis J.	Owen, Thomas
Billson, Alfred	Haldane, Richard Burdon	Paulton, James Mellor
Brigg, John	Harwood, George	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Burns, John	Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.	Price, Robert John
Burt, Thomas	Holden, Angus	Rickett, J. Compton
Caldwell, James	Horniman, Fredk. J.	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Causton, Richard Knight	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cawley, Frederick	Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshire)
Channing, Francis Allston	Jordan, Jeremiah	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)	Kearley, Hudson E.	Spicer, Albert
Commins, Andrew	Kilbride, Denis	Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Crombie, John William	Kitson, Sir James	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Daly, James	Lambert, George	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)	Leng, Sir John	Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, W. Rees. (Pembrokesh.)	Lloyd-George, David	Ure, Alexander
Dillon, John	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Wedderburn, Sir William
Doogan, P. C.	Macaleese, Daniel	Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Evershed, Sydney	McArthur, William	Wilson, John (Govan)
Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)	McGhee, Richard
Fenwick, Charles	M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Whittaker.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	McLeod, John

Main Question put, and agreed to.— Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc."—(Mr. Ritchie.)—Debate arising, And, it being after midnight, and Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.