Commons Sitting of 20 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Orders confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be considered To-morrow.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].

    NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    WOLYERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
    MOSS SIDE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    WITHINGTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    STRETFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [Lords].
    HASTINGS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
    OYSTERMOUTH RAILWAY OR TRAMROAD BILL [Lords].
    LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
    GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Petition from London and other places, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
  Petition from Colne, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Petitions against;—From Sunderland, and Halifax; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  AGRARIAN OUTRAGES (IRELAND.)
  Copy presented,—of Return for the quarter ended 30th June 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE (GALWAY.)
Copy presented,—of Report of the President for the session 1898–9 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, entitled "The China, Japan, and Corea (Supreme Court) Order in Council, 1899" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, approving certain bye-laws made by the Trinity House in Kingston-upon-Hull fixing the rates of pilotage between Hull and Goole [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, sanctioning a reduction made by the Trinity House in Kingston-upon-Hull of certain buoyage and beaconage dues levied by that Corporation between Hull and the sea [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, approving certain Pilotage Bye-laws made by the Corporation of Bristol [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, approving an amended bye-law made by the Newport (Mon.) Pilotage Board, in lieu of Bye-law No. 11 of the bye-laws approved by Order in Council of 3rd October, 1895 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, authorising the increase,
1360
by the appointment of an additional lower grade clerk, of the establishment of the Trinity House [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
Copy presented,—of Order in Council of 14th July, 1899, sanctioning an increase in the salary paid to Mr. George Napier M'Murdo, a clerk in the service of the Commissioners of Irish Lights [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MALTA (POLITICAL CONDITION).
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 8th June; Mr. M'Iver]; to lie upon the Table.
SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.
Copy presented, of correspondence relating to the Bloemfontein Conference, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Returns ordered, "(1) from each savings bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the names of the officers, their respective salaries, and other allowances, if any; the amount of security each gives; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries, for the year ended the 20th day of November, 1898; the rate per centum per annum on the capital of the bank for the expenses of management; the rate of interest paid to depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing, to depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt; the balance in the hands of the Treasurer at the 20th day of November, 1898; the total amount of the separate Surplus Fund on the 20th day of November, 1898; other assets, including estimated value of bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of depositors; the number and amount of annuities granted; and the average cost of each transaction; also the year in which business commenced in each bank, and the name of the day or days,

1361
and the number of hours in the week, on winch the banks are open for the deposit and withdrawal of moneys; including in such Return a list of all such savings banks as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic., c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Banks; showing, in each case, the number of such banks, as well as the number and amount of depositors' accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the officers of such banks respectively; and showing also the years in which such banks were respectively opened and closed, and the number and amount of their depositors' balances, and the number of days and hours in each week on which the same banks were open for public business at the close of the year next preceding the date of such closing; distinguishing the same, as in the form of the return, for each separate county, as well as collectively, for England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel islands, and for the United Kingdom; and (2) for the year ending the 20th day of November, 1898, showing the total number of depositors in trustee savings banks; the total number of deposits; the average sums paid in and drawn out; the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 254, of Session 1898)."—(Sir John William Maclure.)

NORTH ATLANTIC WINTER FREEBOARD.
Return ordered, "of the Minutes of Evidence given before a Committee appointed to consider the operation of the North Atlantic winter freeboard as prescribed by the Load Line Tables, to examine the present mode of assigning freeboards to vessels of the turret-deck type, and to advise as to the extension of the present Load Line Tables for steam vessels not having spar or awning decks (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 126, Session 1899)."—(Mr. C. T. Ritchie.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 283.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    INSTRUCTION OF NAVAL OFFICERS IN STRATEGY.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what provision is made for the instruction of naval officers in strategy: and what means are adopted to ascertain whether officers of the higher ranks have studied the subject.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): There is not now, nor has there ever been, an established school for the study of strategy by naval officers of the higher ranks; but the whole education of the naval officer from entry in the Service to the attaintment of high command leads him to this study. The right hon. Member speaks of strategy only. Tactics, or the science of disposing naval forces in order for battle and of performing naval evolutions, are constantly taught in our Fleets and Squadrons.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is no instruction given in strategy at all? Is there no professor of naval strategy?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Naval officers, when they assume high commands, study this question; but there is no professor of naval strategy to teach them. I do not know whether such a gentleman exists.

    CHIROPODY IN THE ARMY.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, during the forthcoming military manœuvres in England and Ireland, any steps will be taken to employ chiropodists with the infantry, brigades for the purpose of attending to soldiers' feet, and with a view to furnishing independent reports as to the shoeing of infantry, and to the expediency of establishing a permanent system of efficient regimental chiropodists for service with infantry battalions.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This matter has been under the careful consideration of the military authorities. As an experiment, some men of the Royal Army Medical Corps were last year instructed in chiropody, and a class for a certain number of noncommissioned officers was subsequently

    1363
    formed at Aldershot. The experiment was successful, and its extension is under consideration. But it would obviously be impossible to provide trained men for the manœuvres this year.

    THE ESQUIMALT COMMAND—MAJOR GRANT.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, before conferring local rank on a junior officer of Royal Engineers serving in garrison at Esquimalt, thereby putting him over the head of his senior belonging to another arm of the Service, the Secretary of State for War was made aware of the fact that during the preceding period of nearly five years, dating from the establishment of the garrison, the command was held only for an interval of about one year by a Royal Engineer officer; and whether he adheres to his statement that the local rank in question was conferred because a Royal Engineer had heretofore been in command; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for War proposes in future to exclude officers of other arms of the Service from command of garrisons at Esquimalt and elsewhere, by conferring local rank on junior Royal Engineer officers in such garrisons whenever it can be shown that a Royal Engineer officer has, by the accident of relative seniority, once previously held the command.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The length of time during which Lieutenant Colonel Muirhead commanded at Esquimalt in no way influenced the selection of Major Grant as his successor in that command. He was selected because it was considered desirable that the command should be held by an officer of Royal Engineers. There is no rule, and future cases will be judged on their merits.
    SIR J. COLOMB: If it was decided that this was to be an Engineer's command, why was not an officer of superior rank chosen?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered several questions on this subject. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, important works are in course of construction, and while that is so it is considered the command should be held by an officer of the Royal Engineers. That determination having been come to, we had to send an
    1364
    officer of that corps. We have not many at our disposal at any time, but we chose the one we thought suited for the command and gave him local rank so as to make him senior at the place.

    MARK IV. CARTRIDGE.
    COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if any further experiments have been made with Mark IV. cartridge; and, if so, whether the result has been to cause any change in the manufacture.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Further experiments have been made, with the result that the few cases of "stripping" which have taken place are attributed to the softness of the metal of which the bullet is made, and to imperfect cleaning of the rifle. To remove all metallic fouling the double pull-through must be constantly employed. When this is done no difficulties arise. 620,000 rounds have been fired in testing the ammunition without a single accident, and, as I stated, this ammunition was used at the battle of Omdurman. A bullet of somewhat harder material is now being manufactured.

    CANTEEN AND MESS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has received a copy of a memorial addressed to General Sir Robert Biddulph, R.A., in reference to the contract for supplies to the Army Service Corps canteen at Gibraltar; whether the Captain King mentioned therein is an officer on the head-quarter staff of the Army for supply inspection; and, if so, whether he has received the sanction of his superiors at the War Office in canvassing business for the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited; and whether it was Captain King's duty to have made his report relative to the Army Service Corps canteen at Gibraltar to the Commander-in-Chief there, leaving it to his Excellency to take such steps as he might think necessary after investigating the report.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The only copy of the memorial received at the War Office is that forwarded by the hon. Member. The Captain King referred to in the memorial is an officer on the supply

    1365
    inspection staff at Woolwich. He is not authorised to canvass for any particular source of supply, nor does he do so. Captain King made his report in duplicate, one copy going to the general commanding on the spot, the other to the War Office, so that either authority can take any steps considered necessary. The reports show that the memorialist has sold margarine, calling it butter, and that his prices generally were high, whilst the articles supplied were inferior in quality.

    BARRAKUR IRON COMPANY'S AGREEMENT.
    MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the paragraph on page 126 of East India (Progress and Condition), published 7th June, 1899, in which it is stated that the Barrakur Iron Company have agreed to supply the Indian Government with 10,000 tons of castings and pig iron yearly for 10 years; that the company is in a condition to increase their output from 30,000 to 50,000 tons a year when they see an outlet; and that the quality is uniform and equal to Middlesbrough iron; has his attention been called to a statement by the chairman of the company at its annual meeting in London, to the effect that, whatever may be the movements of markets and exchange, this iron has to be supplied under a reduction in price below the average of English prices, which practically amounts to a protective duty in favour of English or Continental iron; and is it the invariable practice of the Indian Government to treat all Indian manufacturers on absolutely equal terms with British or Continental manufacturers, as ordered by paragraph 28 of Resolution 185, January, 1883; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): My right hon. friend the Secretary for India has requested me to answer this question in his absence. In 1896 the Government of India, being desirous of assisting the Barrakur Iron Company, offered to place with them a contract for the supply of 10,000 tons of iron annually at a price 5 per cent. below that at which materials of similar quality could then be obtained from England, the contract to be in force for ten years. This offer was gratefully accepted by the company, as the terms
    1366
    were such as to give them at that time a fair margin of profit, and the certainty of steady employment for the next ten years. I am not aware whether the agreement has so far turned out advantageously for the company or not, but I consider that it was a reasonable and proper agreement for the Government of India to make at the time when they made it; and, as I have said, it was then regarded by the company as a very acceptable arrangement.

    LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS OF INDIA.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, whether he can state the relative number of native-born and British-born subjects holding seats upon the Governor General's Executive Council in India, the Viceroy's Council when it meets for purposes of legislation, and the various legislative councils in provinces which meet under the presidency of governors and lieutenant-governors; whether these native-born members are elected direct by the people or are nominated by the Government; and if he can see his way to introduce legislation with the object of making all the legislative councils of India elective, and of extending a franchise for that purpose to all British subjects, native or foreign born, who are taxed for the necessities of Indian Government.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Lord G. HAMILTON): All the seven members of the Governor-General's Executive Council are British born subjects. Of the Legislative Council, which at present numbers twenty-one members, seven are natives of India. In the Madras Legislative Council ten out of twenty-three members are natives of India, in Bombay twelve out of twenty-three, in Bengal ten out of nineteen, in the N.W.P. and Oudh Council six out of fifteen, in the Punjab four out of nine, and in Burma two out of nine. All the members of these councils are nominated by the Government, but in every case except those of Burma and the Punjab a proportion of the seats is filled as a matter of practice on the recommendation of certain public bodies. I cannot say that I am prepared to introduce legislation for the purpose of having all the various Indian Councils elected by universal suffrage.

    INDIAN SECTION OF THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the working of the Indian section of the Imperial Institute for the year ending 31st March last is prepared and submitted to him; whether that Report, as well as those for the preceding two years, embodies the results obtained in the scientific investigations of selected natural products from India; and whether in view of the importance of the industrial utilisation of those results and of promoting manufacture from the raw products of India, he will place those Reports upon the Table of the House.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Lord G. HAMILTON): The Report for 1898–9 has been received; it contains accounts of scientific investigations of Indian products, as do also the two preceding Reports; 120 copies of each Report have been sent to the Government of India. The Secretary of State will be glad to lay copies of the three Reports on the Table on my hon. friend's moving for them; but he would in that case propose that only those parts which are likely to be of permanent interest should be reprinted.

    PUNJAUB FRONTIER—DISARMAMENT OF PATHANS.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the order for the partial disarmament of the Pathans on the Punjaub Frontier came into operation; what is the area to which it applies; and, whether any robberies of arms from and murderous assaults upon Her Majesty's troops within the area affected have taken place since the order became operative.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Lord G. HAMILTON): On the 6th of May, 1899, the Government of the Punjaub, with the sanction of the Government of India, extended Section 15 of the Arms Act XI., 1878, to the Hazara, Peshawur, and Kohat Districts. By this extension no person can have in his possession arms except under a licence. The area of the three districts is 8,206 square miles. I have received no information on the subject of the third question.

    CAMP FOLLOWERS IN INDIAN CAMPAIGNS.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it has been brought to his notice that the camp followers of the different regiments engaged in recent campaigns on the Indian frontier were called upon to give up the warm clothing supplied to them at the commencement of the operations; and whether, seeing that these garments when collected and sold did not realise more than a few pence each, he will consider the advisability in the future of allowing the wearers to become the owners of the garments.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Lord G. HAMILTON): No information in regard to the disposal of the extra clothing issued to followers in the recent campaigns on the North-West frontier of India has been received by me, but a reference on the subject will be made to the Government of India.

    EGYPTIAN LIGHTHOUSES.
    SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state approximately the present annual nett revenue of the Egyptian lighthouses after allowing for current expenditure, and also the total amount of the balance now accumulated to the credit of this fund; and, what prospect there may be of the balance thus obtained being devoted to the construction at an early date of the long desired lighthouses for the southern portion of the Red Sea.
    MR. BRODRICK: The average annual nett income of the Egyptian Lighthouse Administration, after deducting expenditure, amounts to £45,000 Egyptian. The sum accumulated for the construction of Red Sea lights now amounts to £73,000 Egyptian. As I stated on the 11th ultimo, in answer to a question in this House, the Porte has now arranged for the construction of the four most needed lights in the Red Sea, and under these circumstances the eventual destination of the sum accumulated will remain a matter for future consideration.

    BRITISH CONSUL AT CAGLIARI.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the post of British Consul at Cagliari has

    1369
    been recently filled by the appointment of an Italian subject, and whether, amongst the applicants for the post, there was an Englishman who had been for some years an officer in one of Her Majesty's regiments, has a considerable knowledge of Cagliari and of the Island of Sardinia, and was otherwise well qualified.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Consulate at Cagliari, an unsalaried appointment, was recently conferred upon Mr. R. H. Pernis, on the recommendation of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome; and on the receipt of a memorial in his favour signed by British residents and representatives of British firms in Sardinia, Mr. Pernis was appointed Vice-Consul in 1892, and was reported as well qualified for the post of Consul. An application (no doubt from the gentleman alluded to in the question), not for the Consulate, but for the post of Vice-Consul, had reached the Foreign Office through the Board of Trade, to whom it was addressed. The Vice-Consulate was not at the time vacant, and the applicant was so informed. He subsequently wrote to say that he had applied for the Vice-Consulate by inadvertence, and that he was a candidate for the Consulship. The latter had, however, in the meantime already been conferred on Mr. Pernis.

    THE WAIMA INCIDENT.
    MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision on the question of giving some temporary pecuniary assistance to the families of the British officers awl men killed at Waima in December, 1893, pending the result of the arbitration proceedings with the French Government, in accordance with the answers given in this House by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 6th May, 1898, and by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 28th June and 28th July of the same year.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of a settlement by France, Her Majesty's Government have yet considered the question of making some advance to the surviving relatives of the officers and men who lost their lives at Waima some five years ago.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the French Government will consent to refer this matter to arbitration. When this consent has been obtained they will consider the question of an advance to the survivors. Meanwhile, in considering these claims Her Majesty's Government cannot forget that the relatives of officers killed in action with an enemy suffer equally with the relatives of these officers, and have no claim to compensation beyond the pensions provided in the warrants, to which the relatives of these officers are equally entitled.

    BURMESE EXTENSION RAILWAY.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have yet received any official report in reference to the survey of the projected Burmese Extension Railway, to connect the Burmese Railway when it reaches the Chinese frontier with the capital of Yunnan; and, if so, whether he will indicate the nature of the report.
    MR. BRODRICK: The reports of the officers engaged on the recent survey will be addressed to the Yunnan Company, by whom they were employed. Most of them have now, I understand, either returned or are on their way home, and until their final reports are received the company will not be in a position to come to a definite opinion in regard to the trace of such a railway.

    BRITISH INDIANS IN NATAL.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is a wane that there are 50,000 British subjects from India in the Colony of Natal who are denied the franchise and have no share in the government of the colony; whether the children of these people are to a huge extent excluded from the Government schools; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any steps to insist on the franchise being granted in Natal to these British subjects
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) By the law of Natal (No. 8 of 1896) natives of countries which have not possessed elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise are not entitled to the franchise unless they obtain an

    1371
    order from the Governor in Council exempting them from the operation of the Act, and British Indians are embraced in this category. (2) There is no rule, I understand, excluding Indians from Government schools. The Government supports special schools for Indians in centres where there is any considerable population. (3) The answer is in the negative.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether British subjects from India settling in Natal are as such entitled to the franchise and are allowed to exercise it; if he can state approximately the proportion of the 50,000 Indian British subjects in the colony who are thus privileged; whether any provision is made by the laws of the colony for the education of these subjects in their own language; and if he can state how much of the taxes, to which these people contribute, is devoted to this purpose.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) I have already given the answer in reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Mayo, E. (2) I am not aware of the exact number, but it is small. (3) I believe not, and I am not aware of any demand for such instruction of Indians, but in the special schools for Indian children, numbering about thirty, which receive grants from the Government, a number of Indian teachers are employed. (4) The Government grant-in-aid of Indian schools for the last financial year was £2,200.

    ASIATIC LABOUR IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the probable injury to white labour interests in the mining industry of British Columbia through the disallowance, for Imperial reasons, of the law passed by the Legislature of that colony prohibiting the introduction of Asiatic labour; whether this Asiatic labour is in any sense free labour; and, whether, as the action of the Legislature of British Columbia in trying to safeguard the working population of the colony from labour competition has been arrested in the interests of an Imperial policy, some steps will be taken to give protection to the white wage-earning
    1372
    classes of this colony against too large an influx of cheap Asiatic workers.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The laws of British Columbia prohibiting the employment of Japanese labourers, which have been recently disallowed, were no doubt enacted with the object of preventing competition with white labourers by an excessive influx of Japanese labour. So far as I know Japanese labour in British Columbia is in every sense free. Her Majesty's Government have pointed out that if there is any real prospect of a large influx of Japanese labourers into Canada the question might be dealt with by legislation of the Dominion Parliament, similar to that which has been adopted in Natal and in some of the Australian Colonies.

    SIERRA LEONE TROUBLES.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the High Commissioner, Sir David Chalmers, upon the troubles in the hinterland of Sierra Leone will be in the hands of Members.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Papers have been laid, and I am informed that the printers will deliver the Report in the course of next week.

    TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is official confirmation for the statement that on Tuesday last the Volksraad of the South African Republic adopted, with President Kruger's approval, a seven years' prospective and retrospective franchise for Uitlanders; and whether he has any statement to make to the House.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yesterday I received the following telegram from Sir A. Milner:
    "19th July. British Agent South African Republic reports Article IV. of Franchise Law passed by twenty-two votes to five with following alterations in Clause 1, viz., the words 'at least seven' are substituted for 'nine' and the words from 'or five years' to end of clause are deleted. This has effect of making residental qualification for franchise seven years retrospective."
    I have no official information as to redistribution, but it has been stated that the Government of the South African

    1373
    Republic proposes to give seven new seats to the districts chiefly inhabited by aliens. If this report is confirmed, this important change in the proposals of President Kruger, coupled with previous amendments, leads the Government to hope that the new law may prove to be a basis of settlement on the lines laid down by Sir A. Milner at the Bloemfontein Conference. They observe, however, that the Volksraad have still retained a number of conditions which might be so interpreted as to preclude those otherwise qualified from acquiring the franchise and might therefore be used to take away with one hand what has been given with the other. The provision that the alien desirous of burghership shall produce a certificate of continuous registration during the period required for naturalisation is an instance of this, for it has been stated that the law of registration has been allowed to fall into desuetude and that but few aliens, however long resident in the country, have been continuously registered. It would also be easy by subsequent legislation to alter the whole character of the concessions now made, but Her Majesty's Government feel assured that the President, having accepted the principle for which they have contended, will be prepared to reconsider any detail of his schemes which can be shown to be a possible hindrance to the full accomplishment of the object in view and that he will not allow them to be nullified or reduced in value by any subsequent alterations of the law or acts of administration. I may add that I received last night the following telegram from the Governor of Natal:
    "19th July. Resolution proposed to-day in Assembly by Baynes, seconded by Escombe: Begins: Legislative Assembly Natal desires to express its sympathy with and approval of action of British Government in its endeavour to secure equal rights and privileges for all Europeans in South Africa whereby peace, prosperity, and termination of racial animosity in this country can alone be assured. Ends: Prime Minister, who had to be carried to Assembly from his bed, to which he has been confined by result of an accident for a fortnight, strongly supported on behalf of Government. Resolution carried unanimously amidst cheers."
    MR. DAVITT: May I ask when additional Papers will be presented?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Bloemfontein Papers are laid on the Table to-day.

    DUBLIN EXCISE OFFICERS.
    MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer will he explain why, notwithstanding the assurance given by him on the 16th March last that the Board of Inland Revenue had no intention of replacing first-class officers in Dublin excise warehouses by assistants, on the first vacancy that occurred, a first-class officer in Dublin 18th Station has been replaced by an assistant; and was the recent appointment of a first-class officer to that station subsequently cancelled by the Board of Inland Revenue.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): The facts as stated in the question are correct, but the answer given on the 16th of March last must have been misunderstood. It had reference to a scheme by which it was proposed to abolish first-class officers in Dublin, and supply their places with assistants of Excise. After consideration, this scheme was rejected. It would be quite impossible for the Board to give an undertaking not to substitute junior for senior officers, or vice versâ, in Dublin or elsewhere, as occasion requires. This is constantly being done to meet the exigencies of the service or the fluctuating conditions of trade.

    AUSTRALIAN SOVEREIGNS AT THE MINT.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the suggestion of the Sydney bankers, referred to at page 28 of the recently published Annual Report of the Master of the Mint, that a gold tradeingot should be issued from the Royal Mint in order to stop the wasteful practice of melting down Australian coined sovereigns, has yet been carried into effect.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I am awaiting reports which have been called for from the branch mints in Australia before coming to a decision upon the subject of this suggestion.

    LIPTROT CHARITY, RUNCORN.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division as representing the Charity Commission.

    1375
    whether he will request the trustees of the Liptrot Charity in the township of Runcorn, No. 990, in the books of the Charity Commissioners to fulfil their statutory duty by sending copies of their three last yearly statements of accounts to the Urban District Council of Runcorn.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): The statutory obligation of the trustees of the Liptrot Charity in respect of rendering accounts to local authorities is confined, as regards non-ecclesiastical charities, to annually laving accounts before the parish meeting of any rural parish affected by those accounts. In the case of ecclesiastical charities these accounts are to be rendered to the vestry. The Runcorn Urban District Council have obtained under Section 33 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, the powers of the parish council; but, inasmuch as those powers do not include the powers of a parish meeting, the Urban District Council have not acquired the right of requiring accounts from the trustees of the charity. Copies of the accounts of the charity can be obtained by the Urban District Council from the office of the Charity Commissioners on payment of the charge of copying.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
    MR. J. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the fact that in the great majority of accidents included under the Act of 1897 compensation is being paid by employers without recourse to a county court or arbitrator, and that it consequently goes unrecorded, he will consider if it may be possible to obtain through the factory inspectors, who already receive notice of all serious accidents, a quarterly or annual Return from employers of the total sums so paid, and the duration of each such case of accident for statistical purposes.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I am afraid that this suggestion cannot be carried out satisfactorily. An attempt to collect the statistics indicated would seriously impede the work of the factory inspectors, and as experience shows that
    1376
    Returns of this kind cannot be obtained from employers unless they are required by law to make them, it would at the same time fail to secure complete or accurate results. I entirely agree with the object of my hon. friend.

    TODMORDEN BOYS' CONVICTION.
    SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a sentence passed on the 11th instant by the justices sitting at Todmorden upon two youths of one calendar month's imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine, upon a conviction for stealing gooseberies worth fourpence; whether his attention has also been called to the statement of the police superintendent concerned in the case that nothing was previously known against the accused; and, whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he will order the immediate release of the prisoners.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I have made inquiries into this case. There seems to be nothing known against the prisoners previously; but as they are seventeen years of age, and the offence of robbing gardens appears to have been prevalent in the neighbourhood, I am not prepared to order their immediate release. I will, however, consider whether a substantial reduction may not be made on account of the facts above stated.

    FATALITY AT CAMMELL'S WORKS, SHEFFIELD.
    MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Burnam, who recently received fatal injuries while shifting a bogie along some rails at Messrs. Cammell's works, Sheffield; and, whether, in view of the rider added by the coroner's jury to their verdict of accidental death, which was to the effect that there was not sufficient room at the sides of the line for the men to work in safety, he will consider the advisability of issuing at an early date special rules embodying the recommendations of the Dangerous Trades Committee, which apply to the use of locomotives in factories.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am making inquiries into the case referred to. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the dangers attending the use of locomotives in factories seem to be closely connected with the questions which have been referred to the Royal Commission on Accidents to the Servants of Railway Companies and Truck Owners, and I must await the Report of the Commission before deciding as to the issue of special rules on the subject. In the meantime the factory inspectors will do their best to secure improvement of the conditions where possible.

    PATERSON v. THE DONEGAL FISHING COMPANY.
    MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can yet state the grounds upon which the Crown Solicitor failed to give the statutory notice to the respondents in the recent appeal case in Dublin, Paterson v. the Donegal Fishing Company.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed that the failure to give the statutory notice was due to regrettable neglect to carry out instructions.

    IRISH HISTORY IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can see his way to recommend the teaching of Irish history in the public schools of Scotland in addition to that of English and Scotch history; and, if not in all public schools, in those mainly attended by the children of Irish parentage.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The choice of the historical subject to be taught in the schools is primarily a matter for the consideration of the managers. The Department is ready to consider any course of teaching proposed, but is not prepared to make antecedently a recommendation in the direction suggested

    THE OSPREY.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that by the order of Mr. Fellowes Gordon, of Knockespock, an osprey, a bird of great rarity and said to have only two breeding places in Scotland,
    1378
    was shot recently, in contravention of the Wild Birds Act; that, upon a prosecution being instituted before the Aberdeen Sheriff Court, the gamekeeper, who was found guilty, was fined £1, whilst the dead osprey is worth £20 or £25 as a specimen; and whether, in view of the rarity of these birds, the Government can see its way to increase the penalty for their destruction.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am aware of the case referred to by the hon. Member in the first paragraph of his question, and the whole occurrence was a very regrettable one on the part of people who might have been expected to know better. I am not aware whether the value of the bird is so high as stated by the hon. Member, but if acts of this class are persisted in, the Secretary for Scotland thinks there will be a strong case for proposing legislation with the object of increasing the penalty.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the magistrates the desirability of inflicting as severe penalties as possible in these cases?
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I cannot answer for the moment, but I think the maximum penalty under the Act is a very low one.

    GENERAL LIGHTHOUSE FUND.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to comply with Section 679 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and with Section 1 (c) of the Merchant Shipping Mercantile Marine Fund Act of 1898, by laying before both Houses of Parliament, as soon after the meeting of Parliament in every year as may be, the accounts of the recently-created General Lighthouse Fund, which came into existence on 1st April of the present year; if so, in what form, and at what period of each year, does he propose to lay these accounts before this House; whether any estimate of the receipts and expenditure of the new General Lighthouse Fund for the year 1899–1900 will be laid before this House; if not, whether he can state approximately what the total receipts and expenditure of this fund are estimated to be for the year 1899–1900; and, whether any, and, if so, what opportunity will be afforded to this House

    1379
    of exercising any direct control over the application or administration of this fund.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): Accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund will be audited and laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the Acts referred to by the hon. Member. They will be presented in a similar form to that used for the statement of the Mercantile Marine Fund Accounts, which of recent years have been included in the Appropriation Accounts. They will be presented as soon as may be after the accounts are closed, which cannot be till November in each year. No estimate of receipts and expenditure of the fund will be laid before the House, and it is impossible at present to state with any degree of accuracy what the receipts and expenditure of this fund will be for the year 1899–1900. There is no legislative provision for the control by Parliament of this fund, which, as the hon. Member is aware, does not contain any money provided by Parliament. But I shall always be glad to supply any information on the subject which the House or any hon. Member may desire.

    COCKETT TUNNEL.
    MR. RANDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the accident which occurred on the Great Western main line between the Landore and Cockett Stations in June last, whereby a portion of the Cockett Tunnel fell through just after a New Milford excursion train had passed; whether he is aware that mines had been worked underneath the tunnel for some time previously; that the water was being, and is now, pumped from the said workings, and that further subsidence is probable; whether an inquiry into the circumstances of the case has been made by the Board of Trade, and what was the result of such inquiry; and, whether any and, if so, what precautions by way of examination of the said tunnel are being, or will be, made by the Board of Trade for securing the safety of the travelling public and the railway servants before the tunnel will again be used for traffic.
    MR. RITCHIE: The inspecting officer appointed to inquire into the causes of this accident has not yet made his Report to the Board of Trade, and his attention shall be directed to the hon. Member's question.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state the amount to be deducted in respect of the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill from the sums receivable on account of the Estate Duty Grant by the County of Glamorganshire, and the county boroughs of Cardiff and Swansea, respectively; and if he can state approximately the amount of relief that will be paid to the incumbents of benefices within such county and county borough areas.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The share of the county and county boroughs named in a sum of £87,000 distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants" would be £799, £260, and £198, respectively. The cost of the relief given to the clerical owners of Tithe Rent-Charge in the County of Glamorganshire as a whole is estimated to amount to between £600 and £700.

    WATERING TROUGHS FOR HORSES.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the chairman of the Improved Cab Company at a meeting of shareholders on the 14th instant, in which he stated that throughout the year the general health and working condition of the company's horses have been mossatisfactory, that there had been an entire absence of contagious disease in the stud, which it is believed was largely due to precautionary measures adopted about five years ago when glanders was epidemic in London. Strict orders were then issued prohibiting drivers from watering the company's horses at public watering troughs, and an inspector was appointed to watch the troughs and prevent drivers from evading the rule, that glanders in London would be almost exterminated if these public drinking troughs were done away with and re-

    1381
    placed by taps, and that this had been stated by Professor Pritchard and other authorities over and over again; and whether the Board of Agriculture have any reason to believe in the agency of public drinking troughs in disseminating diseases.
    MR. LONG: I have seen the statement to which the hon. Baronet refers. So far as the prevention of the spread of glanders is concerned, our view is that standpipes afford a safer means of watering horses than troughs as they are usually constructed, but it is desirable that drivers should carry their own pails. I am not prepared, however, to say that the disadvantages of troughs outweigh their advantages.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Has any case of glanders ever been traced to infection from water-troughs?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is not the water in these troughs almost always running water?
    MR. LONG: I believe that is so. As to the question of the hon. Member for Epping, I should not like to say that no cases have ever been traced to this source of infection, and I therefore gave the answer I did to the hon. Baronet.

    LORD BROUGHAM'S EVIDENCE ACT.
    MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor-General whether he is aware that although certain provisions of the Statute 14 and 15 Vic., c. 99 (Lord Brougham's Evidence Act) are still unrepealed and in force, a Government Department has recently refused to give effect to s. 14 of that Act (which affords a simple means whereby persons desirous of obtaining certified copies or extracts from public records may do so on payment of a prescribed fee) thereby defeating the intentions of the Legislature in passing the Act: and whether, if a specific case of refusal be brought to his notice, he will be prepared to draw the attention of the Department in question to the provisions of the Statute, with a view to preventing any further breach thereof.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I understand from a private communication from the hon. Member that the question relates
    1382
    to the general entry book kept by the officers of Excise for each station. The statutory mode of proof of these entries is provided by s. 12 of the Revenue Act, 1867, and the proviso at the end of the section on which I understand that the hon. Member relies applies only to entries made before the passing of the Act, and refers apparently to s. 19 of the Excise Management Act, 1827. The view of the Department has always been that the Statute referred to in the question has no application to these entries, but they are about to take the opinion of the law officers on the point, by which they will be guided in the future.

    VACCINATION OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. MELLOR: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the case of a young girl named Frances H. Richardson, who applied for the position of assistant mistress in a Board school at Sowerby Bridge, and who was rejected by order of the Education Department on the ground that she was not vaccinated; whether the Department was then aware that her father had obtained a certificate dispensing with vaccination for his children; and whether, in his daughter's case, the objection will now be removed.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to paragraph 1 is in the affirmative, to paragraphs 2 and 3 in the negative. The Committee of Council are advised that the vaccination of teachers is desirable in the interests of children attending the schools.

    IRISH COUNTY COURT ACTS.
    MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if a Return, by clerks of the peace and clerks of the Crown and peace in Ireland, could be given of affidavits filed in their several offices under the default sections of the County Courts Acts, stating the number made respectively in places situate in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and abroad showing the number of cases in each county in which decrees were made for the amounts sought to be recovered, or part thereof; also in how many cases

    1383
    defences were entered and dismisses granted.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): No objection will be offered to the Return in question if the hon. and learned Member will move for it in the usual way. In order, however, to facilitate the preparation of the Return I would suggest that the period to be covered by it should be one of, say, five years.

    IRISH FOOD INSPECTORS.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a prosecution for milk adulteration recently brought by a local food inspector before the Petty Sessions at Castle Martyr, County Cork, and dismissed on the ground that under the 115th section of the Local Government Act, 1898, the office of food inspector was not included in the list of public offices which were by that section transferable to the county councils; and whether steps will be taken so to define the position of the food inspectors us to prevent the possibility of similar abortive proceedings.
    MR. ATKINSON: My attention has been called to the matter referred to. The court was, in my opinion, in error in its construction both of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and of the Local Government Act, 1898, in assuming first that under the first statute only an inspector daily appointed can prosecute the person who sells to him adulterated milk; and secondly, in assuming that under the second statute this particular inspector was not an officer transferred to the county council. No legislation is necessary on the subject. The county council can remove all doubt, if any is entertained, by re-appointing as inspector the member of the Constabulary force who has hitherto acted in that capacity.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: In view of the uncertainty which seems to exist in regard to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly have the information he has just given conveyed to the various petty session courts?
    MR. ATKINSON: There is no uncertainty. If the local magistrates had only concurred with the resident magistrate
    1384
    who correctly instructed them on the law this difficulty would not have occurred.

    BELFAST POLICE PROSECUTION
    MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Alexander Hopkins, Wesley Street, Belfast, who summoned two constables named Downes and O'Donnell for assaulting him on 3rd June; whether he is aware that on a cross case, tried also on the 6th July, brought by the constables against Hopkins, two Roman Catholic magistrates, Messrs. John Burke and Charles M'Lorinan, refused to believe evidence given in favour of Hopkins, who is a member of the Salvation Army, of excellent character, and sentenced him to a fine of 20s. and costs, declining to allow an appeal; and whether a memorial has been presented to the Lord Lieutenant, praying for a re-hearing of the case, and what has been the decision of his Excellency.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. G. W. BALFOUR,): My attention had not previously been drawn to this case, the facts of which, I am informed, are substantially as stated, except that I am not aware that the magistrates refused to believe the evidence given in favour of Hopkins. The summonses against the two constables were dismissed on their merits, and there were no witnesses examined for Hopkins except as to general character. The constables denied on oath that they assaulted Hopkins, or saw anyone assaulting him. A woman who was with him on the occasion swore, however, that she assaulted and struck him in the face. As regards the third paragraph, it is not in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to direct a re-hearing of the case, but a memorial, if received, in favour of a remission of the fine will of course be considered in the usual way.
    MR. DILLON: Was not the summons in this case one for indecent behaviour in the streets, and was it not issued under the Borough Act? Was not the man discovered by the police in company with a woman in a low quarter of the city, and was not the police testimony confirmed by the woman's own statement? Is it not the fact that under the Act Hopkins had a right of appeal up till the 13th July, and did not act upon it?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: As to the last question, I cannot say, but the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. YOUNG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these are two of the most respectable—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question on the Paper has been fully answered, and also the supplementary question.
    MR. DAVITT: On a point of order, is it in accordance with the usual practice of this House to make reference to the religious persuasion of magistrates on questions pertaining to their administration of the law?
    MR. SPEAKER: Such questions are sometimes asked, and I think it is unfortunate that they should be asked.

    MARYBOROUGH PRISON WORKS.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the stone-cutters employed on the building works at Maryborough Prison have been locked out by the contractor for refusal to work more than nine and a-half hours per diem, which is the standard time for the country; can he say whether the fair wage resolution of the House of Commons was considered in the conditions of contract; and what action, if any, the Prisons Board will take in the matter.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that there has been no lock-out as stated in the first paragraph, hut that the stonecutters, having demanded a reduction in the working hours, which was refused by the contractor, the men ceased work on the 6th instant. Some of them, however, have since resumed work on the old terms—namely, ten and a-half hours per day for five days of the week and seven and a-quarter hours on Saturday; that is to say, fifty-nine and three-quarter hours in all. I understand that the time referred to as "the standard time for the country" has never been adopted in this district. The resolution referred to in the second paragraph was embodied in the specification in connection with the contract. The General Prisons Board do not, under the circumstances, propose to take any action in the matter.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he see his way to introduce a Bill to remove the doubts and inconsistencies of the Irish Local Government Act, in the same manner as is now being done for another measure in the improvement of Land Bill.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware what are the doubts and inconsistencies to which the hon. Member refers, but I shall be happy to consider any statement in writing which he may be good enough to forward to me on the subject.

    THE SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended by the Government to give Government time in the present session to the Service Franchise Bill.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The principles which ought to under lie the "starring" of Private Members' Bills at this time of the session are very simple, and really it depends on the condition of Government business. At this time of the year it is always felt to be a hardship that, when we suspend the 12 o'clock rule, all Private Members' privileges are abrogated, and that even the most uncontentious Bill cannot pass. The practice of "starring" is intended to remedy that difficulty, and I think it should be confined to the purpose for which it was originally devised. Therefore, although I am myself in hearty sympathy with the Bill to which the right hon. Baronet refers, and although it has reached an advanced stage in its Parliamentary history, I think it would be an evil precedent, and one capable of great abuse in the future, if I were to yield to my natural inclination and give Government time to the further discussion of the Bill. In these circumstances I shall not be able to "star" the Bill. I propose to adhere resolutely to the precedents which have been set, and which ought to govern all leaders of the House in dealing with this question.

    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the

    1387
    Treasury whether, before the Third Reading of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill is taken, he will, in view of the important alterations on the Report stage, have the Bill reprinted, and follow the precedent of 1897 in the case of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has not been the practice to reprint a Bill before the Third Reading, although there have, I think, been precedents for doing so in the cases of the Home Rule Bill and the Workmen's Compensation Bill. I do not think it is desirable to depart from the usual course unless strong reason is shown or a demand is made for it by those who have a right to speak for the Opposition.
    DR. CLARK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Report Stage the Bill was considerably modified? Several new clauses were put in, and we really do not know exactly the proposals of the Bill.
    Mr. COURTNEY: Do not the same printers reprint the Bill for the House of Lords? Could not the reprinting be expedited so as to enable it to be done before the Third Reading in this House? It would not cost much.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not base my answer on the question of expense, although the printing of 1,200 additional copies would involve some slight increase on the Estimates. I said I thought it would not be convenient to depart from the usual practice, and that it would be an innovation not desirable in the interests of public business. It is true a great many alterations were made in the Bill on the Report Stage, but I understand that the alterations affecting the principle and machinery of the Bill were made in Committee.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do think that this case is somewhat exceptional, for the reason that on the Report Stage a long amendment, covering more than a page, was proposed by the Lord Advocate and accepted, and it really altered the fundamental constitution of the principle of the Bill.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Might not a different practice be applied in such a case as this, where the Report Stage was really the Committee Stage, and the Third
    1388
    Reading practically becomes a Second Reading?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot express agreement with the strange version of Parliamentary procedure which my hon. friend has given in regard to this Bill, which was most thoroughly dealt with in the Committee Stage. As I promised in my reply to the question that if the Leader of the Opposition thought the matter of sufficient importance for him to intervene I would differentiate this case from ordinary cases, I will have the Bill printed, but I hope that that will not become a general practice.

    THE ESTIMATES.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Supplementary Estimates will be laid upon the Table, and when they will be discussed; and are there to be Supplementary Estimates for the Army and Navy as well as for the Civil Service.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Estimates will be laid on the table on Monday or Tuesday next. I think that no Supplementary Estimates for the Navy or Army will be included.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to business next week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will depend a good deal upon to-night. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will defer his question till to-morrow.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Or as to Friday week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question which I should be reluctant to answer now. It partly depends on the views of the Colonial Secretary, which he is not yet, probably, in a position to give me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. DILLON: What Bills do the Government propose to proceed with tonight, if they get through the Tithes Bill and the Food and Drugs Bill in good time?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose, after the Tithe Rent-charge Bill and the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, to take any Bill this evening likely to lead to.

1389
any prolonged controversy. Neither the Niger Company Bill nor the Colonial Loans Bill will be taken.
MR. BARTLEY: Will the Board of Education Bill be taken this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not this week.

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 284.]
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS BILLS.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 285.]

HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF.
Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEVIIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to
be printed. [Bill 281.]

POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 282.]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As Amended, on consideration, to be printed. [Bill 279.]
CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
  RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILLS [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
AGED DESERVING POOR.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill of the present Session be referred to the Select Committee on Aged Deserving Poor.—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL,
Without Amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.

    CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    With Amendments.
    Amendments to Amendments to—

SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Without Amendment.
Amendments to—

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [Lords].
  FURNESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL [Lords].
    KIRKCALDY CORPORATION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Without Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to give powers to the executive committee of the Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum to invest trust funds in certain securities." [Gordon Memorial College at Khartoum Bill [Lords].
    And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of a tramroad in and near to Southport; and for other purposes." [Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [Lords].

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS).
Bill to amend the law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
"To amend the law with respect to Customs Duties in the Isle of Man," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on Mr. Lambert who had an Amendment: "To read the Bill this day three months."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On a point of order, I have an Amendment on the Paper to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 1. Can I move that Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no rule to that effect, otherwise any hon. Member might, by putting down such a notice, obtain precedence over other hon. Members.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Have I the right to intervene with it in the discussion on the Third Reading?
  MR. SPEAKER: Not if the hon. Member for the South Molton Division moves his Amendment.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When shall I be in order?
  MR. SPEAKER: Not this year.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: May I ask you, Sir, whether the Bill has complied with Standing Order No. 45, and what is the general practice of the blouse in cases where attention has been drawn to non-compliance with the Standing Orders?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it is enough for me to say that the objection, whatever it is worth, should have been taken before the Second Reading. No objection can be taken now.
  MR. LAMBERT: In rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I wish to point out that it is a measure which proposes to add a fresh endowment to the Church of England. A good deal has happened since it was introduced, and I should imagine that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has at last been disabused of the idea that it is a non-contentious Bill. We have had an opportunity, also, of testing the feeling of the country upon this matter in several constituencies. Three constituencies which formerly returned Members who were supporters of the Government have transferred their affections, and their representatives are now to be found among the followers of the Leader of the Opposition. In every case in which there has been an election the Liberal majority has gone up, and the Tory majority has correspondingly decreased. I do not quite understand why there has been such a great hurry in endeavouring to smuggle this Bill through the House. Undoubtedly there has been a great desire on the part of the Government to shirk debate on the subject. We have had the closure

  1393
  applied in a manner which has deprived hon. Members of their rights and privileges, and the Bill has been forced through Committee without a single word of amendment. I can only remember one precedent for that course, and that was a somewhat similar Bill to this, the Voluntary Schools which was another measure for the relief of the clergy. It was brought in to relieve them of the necessity of subscribing towards the support of voluntary Schools, and now you are relieving them of the duty of paying half their rates. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, in regard to clerical matters, the Government has some sort of divine inspiration in bringing a perfect measure before the House. I certainly do not look on this Bill as so perfect, for I think it could well have been altered in the interests of our constituents. I believe the right hon. Gentleman feared, and with good reason, that if he allowed a single amendment to be introduced tile Whole edifice of the Bill would have been entirely shattered. Certainly during the course of the debates the case for this Bill has been completely smashed, and there is not a single reason, or vestige of reason, why the Bill should pass into law. At first sight, when one looks at the fact that the clergyman is rated upon his income, it would seem that he deserves some consideration at the hands of the House. But it has been proved over and over again, especially by my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, that the maintenance of the poor is as sacred and as strongly attached to the payment of tithe as the title to receive it. It is an extraordinary thing that, although this payment towards the Poor Rate has been constantly dwindling, the share of the clergyman has constantly increased. It has not been controverted that the rates are levied, not upon the clergy in respect of tithe, but on the tithe itself, and therefore it is impossible to contend that this is a personal grievance. No one will deny that a perfectly fair arrangement was come to when the Tithe Commutation Act was passed; for it has been proved that in the great majority of cases the rates were added to the tithe at the time of the commutation. The Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, than whom there could be no higher authority on this subject, has stated that the rates
  1394
  at the time of the commutation amounted to 5s. in the £; that is to say, the receiver of £100 commuted tithe paid £25 in the form of rates in those days, whereas now he does not pay more than £7 10s. This works out that if the rate on the commuted value of tithe now stood at the same level as at the time of commutation, the annual payment would be something like £600,000 a year, whereas at the present moment the whole of the rates paid by the clergy, according to the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, come to only £175,000. It is an undoubted fact that the clergy have gained enormously by the commutation, because the rateable value has gone down considerably. No doubt, the incomes of the clergy have also gone down, but the same remark applies to everybody else, for whereas on investments it was possible thirty years ago to secure a return of 5 per cent., only 3 per cent. is now obtain. able. There was one subject that did not receive attention in Committee, because of the manner in which the, right hon. Gentleman thought proper to conduct the Bill. I refer to the ease of heavily-tithed land. There is a considerable amount of land in this country on which the tithe is extraordinarily heavy. In some places it reaches 10s. per acre, and it was shown before the Commission on Agriculture that in counties where rent, had been reduced to a merely nominal sum the existence of a heavy tithe rent charge had become an almost intolerable burden, which placed difficulties in the way of the continuance or revival of cultivation. Further than that, the landlord had no sufficient security justify him in undertaking the requisite outlay for the improvement of the farm, and in one case it transpired that the tithe owner had to take possession because nobody could be found to pay the tithe and other outgoings upon the holding. The Report from which I am quoting was signed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture himself. He is responsible for this Report as other members of the Commission; and I will ask him whether he thinks it is going to conduce to the best interests of the Church to call upon the lay ratepayers of a district not only to pay heavy tithes, I but also to provide the funds to relieve the tithe receivers of one half of their rates. Let us take the case of a distressed district such as is to be found in the

  1395
  county of Essex. Hon. Members who support the Government were very eloquent in regard to Essex when they were in opposition, although it seems that now their concern has somewhat died away. Look at the case of the labourers and shop-keepers who live in some of the Essex villages. They see the land going out of cultivation because of the very heavy tithe imposed upon it, and, suffering as they already are from a very heavy burden, they are to have an addition made to that burden by this Bill, simply to relieve the tithe receiver of one half of his rates. In 1891 an Act was passed, the intention of which was to relieve many districts of the excessive burden of tithe, but unfortunately, as is the case with too much of the legislation initiated by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, they have taken away with one hand what they gave with the other, and I believe there has been hardly a single case of reduction of tithe. We are told that this measure is based upon justice, but what justice is there in relieving of their rates tithe-owners who are in receipt of a tithe which is so heavy that it is driving the land out of cultivation? I do not want to excite prejudice; indeed, one cannot do that by stating sound facts. But I wish to show how inconveniently this relief is to be distributed. Take the case of Hatfield, the seat of the Prime Minister. There the tithes were commuted at £1,876. At present they are rated on about £1,000, and the rates would be £125. But at the time of commutation £300 was added on for the payment of rates, and therefore the tithe-owner has been receiving £300 a year for rates since 1836, although he is now only paying £125 a year. And what is the relief he will receive? £62 10s. a year—this gentleman in receipt of £1,000 a year. This is not an isolated case, because there are 127 cases of tithe held by clergy who have over £1,000 a year, and they will receive from £50 to £60 a year in relief of rates, while the clergyman with an income of £100 will receive only £6 5s. Is there any semblance of justice in this? (Cries of "Yes.") Well, if hon. Gentlemen like to go to their constituents and announce that they desire to give more money to the rich and less to the poor, they are quite welcome to that part of their political programme. This is a measure of justice which we are told is only to
  1396
  last two years. Will the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for it tell me whether it is really intended to drop it at the end of two years? It is not quite honest towards the House to endeavour to shirk discussion on these matters or to smuggle Bills through on the pretext that they are to be temporary, when it it is probably intended that they shall be permanent.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The Agricultural Rating Act was made temporary at the request of the hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it was thought right that this Bill should be put on the same footing.
  MR. LAMBERT: I do not think that it was done in deference to appeals from this side of the House. I rather fancy that the limitation of the duration of the Agricultural Rating Act to five years was due to the action of the hon. Member for Stockport. I am afraid the right hon. gentleman does not consult our wishes to the extent which he suggests. With regard to this plea of justice, the right hon. Gentleman has himself broken it down by refusing to admit all tithe-owners to the benefits of the measure. Surely if the proposal is just the relief should be extended all round; if it is unjust, then no single class should take advantage of it. It has been said that the clergy are entitled to relief from their rates because they have in some cases to employ skilled labour, just as skilled agricultural labour has to be employed by the landowners. Is not this degrading the sacred calling of the clergyman to reduce him to the position of a skilled labourer? Are we going to reduce the curate in charge of a cure of souls to the same position as a man who loads manure into a cart? I do not wonder that Convocation did not like the Bill, and that it was only with great difficulty that it could be got to assent to it. Indeed, I feel pretty certain that a good many rich clergymen and wealthy laymen belonging to the Church of England disapprove of it, for when they were appealed to to provide a sum of £340 to cover the cost of laying certain evidence before the Local Taxation Commission, only £140 was obtained. The hon. Member for Tunbridge, who is a kind of Parliamentary parson, sent round circulars to the clergy asking them

  1397
  to send him in a statement of their grievances. And he got but comparatively few answers. But why did he not send to the wealthy clergy and laity and ask them to subscribe to relieve the necessities of the poorer clergy? Why did he so sully Christian teaching as to make it degenerate into a squabble over rates? I contend it is absolutely pitiable to see such a proposal as this in connection with a rich church, which enjoys an income of over seven millions a year. Why should it come down to this House and ask for a fresh endowment which, if capitalised, would represent a sum of three millions sterling? We have been told over and over again by the Colonial Secretary that during the existence of the late Liberal Government no single working man was a penny the better for the legislation it introduced. I think I could find out a great many working men who are a good many pounds the worse for the legislation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why do not the wealthy members of the Church of England put their hands into their own pockets for the relief of their poorer clergy? I am reminded of some writings by the Rev. Sydney Smith upon bishops' incomes, in which he pointed out how the incomes of future bishops might fairly be reduced in order to provide for the improvements of small livings. He suggested that the Archbishops could surely do with less than £15,000 a year and two palaces, whilst a future Bishop of London might not require a palace at Fulham, a house in St. James's Square, and £10,000 a year. Now, this was the opinion, not of a Dissenter, but of a Church of England clergyman, and I commend it to the consideration of hon. Members opposite. The writer of a book dedicated to the Bishop of London declared it to be a sin on the part of Churchmen to assist Dissenters in any Way by attending their chapels or by giving them money. Is it not an equal sin to call upon Dissenters all over the country to pay increased rates in order to give a fresh endowment to the Church of England? Lord Halifax, who has 4,000 clergymen at his back, recently complained of the action of the hon. Member for Flintshire, and suggested that, as he was a Nonconformist, he had no right to interfere with the doctrines of the Church of England. But is it right that a Church which is infinitely more wealthy than
  1398
  any Nonconformist body should be unable to support its own ministers without calling in the assistance of those who do not belong to it? This is bound to go on in the country. A Cornish farmer writes:—
  "There are a large number of the clergy who, teach that they can turn the bread into the body of Christ and wine into His blood. If they can do that we might expect them to be able to put up the price of wheat to 15s. the bushel."
  That is the view of a Cornish farmer who has a right to express his opinion on this subject. I contend that this injustice will sink deeply into the mind of the electorate of this country, and it is a measure which will increase hostility to the Church in the country districts. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg leave to second this motion, and I join with my hon. friend in hoping that the House will reject the Third Reading of this Bill. The measure has a bad history. It was introduced under the ten-minutes' rule, and the Second Reading was so curtailed that hon. Members were prevented from expressing their opinion, and the Committee stage of the Bill was so pressed forward by the closure and other means that no adequate expression of opinion has taken place upon the merits of this measure. These are some of the reasons why I have joined with my hon. friend who has moved the rejection of this measure. I agree that it will be a long remembered Bill for the Conservative party, and I believe that they will probably wish, before many years are over, that they had never put their hands to this undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill has again reminded us that the operation of the Bill is limited for two years. When he has time to attend to the Debate, I should like to ask him in the course of his reply whether he will assure the House that at the end of two years the Bill will drop and will no longer be in operation. If he can give us that assurance, it will be some relief to our mind in that respect. I oppose this measure on two distinct grounds. In the first place, it is a distinct re-enactment of the Church rates under another form and by another name. It is the direct taxation of the free churches in

  1399
  order to maintain the State Church, and on those grounds I oppose it. And, further, I oppose this measure because it is a Bill to minister to the wants of the pampered law breakers in the Church of England. At the present moment the country is shocked by the procedure of a large body of the Church of England clergymen who are breaking every law which they have sworn to obey, and are outraging the feelings of the large masses of the Protestant citizens of this country, both Churchmen and Dissenters. I think this is the most ill-judged time that could have been chosen to re-endow the Church of England at the expense of the community. It is well known that many of the clergy in the country are, perhaps, the most unpopular persons in the villages. We know that in many parts of the country the clergyman is the least popular of any person of position in his parish for many reasons. This Bill will add to those reasons, and instead of the mistrust which at present exists hatred will be begotten when it is known that the poor labourers of the village will have to make contributions towards the relief of the clergymen whom they already mistrust.
  SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: No, no.!
  MR. BROADHURST: But this £87,000 comes from public funds, and every person who consumes taxable articles makes a contribution to that £87,000. Therefore the Free Church population of this country will pay in equal proportion towards this sum with the Church members of this country. Now this is a distinct wrong and injustice, for we have to maintain our own Churches. The Free Church community maintain their own clergy and their own Church; they pay the rates chargeable on the manses in which the ministers live, and out of their hard earned wages they maintain every charge that is made upon their places of worship. But, in addition to that, they will now be called upon to pay rates for the clergy of another denomination. I was going to explain to the Committee the other day that if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had come for advice to this side of the House we could have shown him a much more constitutional way of relieving the clergy
  1400
  than the one which he has adopted. We would have shown him how, when our ministers want more money, we put our hands into our own pockets and not into the pockets of members of other denominations. During the month of January this year I attended a large number of meetings in many parts of the country to endeavour to assist my hon. friend the Member for Louth in raising, by voluntary contributions, a million of guineas for the Wesleyan body. Labourers earning only 12s. a week have promised to pay a guinea during the year to this fund out of their very small wages. Surely if the farm labourers, the mechanics, and the small shopkeepers of this country can support their own Church, the members of the Church of England should be ashamed to come to the public funds for money for their clergy, which they ought to pay themselves out of their own pockets. I have in my mind at this moment a particular district which is dotted all over with residential millionaires, bankers, brewers, and money-lenders, all of them members of the Church of England. Why any one of these families could perfectly well find at least half the sum that you are now going to wring from the unwilling and oppressed taxpayers of this country. These wealthy people might have provided this small sum out of their private income without being any the worse for it at the end of the year. Surely this is a humiliation which ought to be felt, and which if I were a member of the Church of England I should feel most keenly, and I am sure there are many Churchmen and Church women in this country—and some of the Church clergy themselves—who, to their honour, will feel humiliated at being classed among the paupers of this country by this system of outdoor relief which the right hon. Gentleman is providing for the clergy under this Bill. I do not know of anything that could do more harm to the Church than this measure. I am sure that nothing can help forward Disestablishment more than measures of the kind which we are discussing this evening, and if it is the design of the Government to promote Disestablishment then I congratulate them upon having taken a policy which certainly will have that effect to a considerable degree. I do not suppose any protest that we can make here, no matter how justifiable or how strong our case may be, or however true

  1401
  our allegations against the system of robbery of the poor in order to further enrich those who are not in want, will change a single vote on the opposite side. I am afraid that loyalty to their leaders will induce hon. Members opposite to vote for a Bill which they know in their heart of hearts to be unjust, and based upon unjust principles which they know is enforcing from the poorest people in the country contributions in order to further bolster up and maintain a Church which is being ministered by a large number of lawless clergymen whose actions are condemned by thousands of Churchmen themselves. We shall, however, have the satisfaction of endeavouring to do our duty to our constituencies and to the country by voting against this measure, for I do not believe that any amount of argument will induce a single vote from the other side to come over to this side, which their commonsense and sense of right and justice would lead them to do were they not bound under such strict discipline by party management. I had an opportunity last night at a large representative gathering of county people, which included many shopkeepers and tradesmen, of ascertaining their opinion upon this Bill, and I may say that it was universally condemned and repudiated by the Churchmen who were present. I am sure the Government will find that to be so to a larger extent than they imagine. This wrong, added to the other wrongs of this Government, will go a long way indeed to make our task easier in bringing about a change of Government in the near approaching future, which we on this side of the House are looking forward to with confidence, while you on the opposite side of the House are staving off the evil day to the longest possible period. I beg to second this motion for the rejection of this Bill, which is an unjust and wicked imposition upon the poor taxpayers of this country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: If the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill be all that can be said against it I think I can congratulate my right hon. friend on the case for it being unanswerable. I do not propose to deal at length with the speeches of the hon. Gentleman, but one matter has been mentioned on which I desire to say a few words. One of the arguments used in support of the rejection of this measure was that a great number of people were going to suffer a great wrong in order to benefit a comparatively rich class of ratepayers. I should like the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to ask himself in calmer moments what number of his constituents will, when this Bill is passed into law, find themselves a penny the poorer. If the hon. Gentleman will pause for a moment in his career of somewhat heated denunciation of the Church of England to which he does not belong—
  MR. BROADHURST: But for which I have to pay.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: If the hon. Gentleman will pause and ask himself the true facts of the case, I think he will find that the relief which this Bill proposes to confer comes out of a fund which really does not in any way oppress the persons whom he represents. The contribution of tine ordinary ratepayer to this fund is almost infinitesimal and the county authorities will not be a penny the worse as a result of this Bill except in so far as they may be deemed to be worse by not having received the increment to which they may have looked forward. The hon. Member asked why did not the richer members of the Church of England relieve the clerical tithe owners. As a matter of fact, a very large amount is paid at the present moment in voluntary subscriptions by the members of the Church of England towards the relief of the poorer clergy. The Queen Victoria Clergy Fund and several other funds are supported entirely by members of the Church of England for the relief of the necessitous clergy. This Bill is not a matter of charity, but of justice. It is asked for in order to redress what we believe to be an unjust mode of assessing the rate. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not admit that it is an

  1403
  unjust mode, but that is the contention of the Government and of men who have studied the question. I would remind hon. Members how soon political memory fails. Not many years ago the great statesman who led the Liberal Party, and who was considered to be a great authority on financial matters, Mr. Gladstone, said that an absolute case had been made out for the relief of the clergy in this matter. I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that because a grievance has gone on for many years it ought not to be redressed. It has been said to be characteristic of the party to which I belong that when a thing had lasted for many years, it was allowed to continue unless a very strong case was made out against it. But the chief boast of the hon. Gentlemen opposite is: "Point out an injustice however long standing, and we will remove it." It is no answer to our arguments to say that as this grievance has been borne for years it can continue to be borne. That is not a fair way of stating the case. But I did not rise so much for the purpose of answering the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite—if they can be called arguments—as to express, on behalf of the great number of clergymen through out the country whom I have the honour to represent in this House, my extreme obligation to the Government. (Opposition cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen may indulge in ironical cheers, but I am not ashamed to thank the Government for this measure of justice, and for removing a grievance which has pressed hardly on the clergy for many years. We were urged to represent this matter to the Government; we did so to the best of our ability, and the Government, having carefully considered it, came to the conclusion that it was a case of justice and not of charity. I support this Bill because I believe it to be a sound measure for the relief of an established grievance which presses on a class of the community unique in this respect, that it has no direct representation in this House. The clergy of the Church of England, with the exception of the clergy of the Church of Rome, are the only class of the community prevented by statute from entering this House, and therefore it rests with us to represent their interests, and to advocate their just claims. We have advocated them, and the result is that Her Majesty's Government have introduced this Bill. I am quite aware this is not a popular measure, and on that
  1404
  very account I am even more obliged to the Government. It is very easy to pass measures that are popular, and to create a furore in the country in their favour. That does not require much effort. But when Ministers redress a grievance from conscientious motives, although they expose themselves to political obloquy, I think they are entitled to special gratitude. I think also there is another class of the community who ought to thank Her Majesty's Government, and that is Her Majesty's Opposition. They have been provided with a cry for which they have been longing. They have now got something with which to endeavour to agitate the country. They will find, however, that the country on grounds of logic and argument, as well as of justice and consideration, will be with the Government. When the electors look at this matter calmly and deliberately, and apart from the heated atmosphere of the House of Commons, they will conclude that this Bill is not an act of charity, but of justice. It has been passed on behalf of a class which does not exercise any large political influence in the country. ("Oh, oh!") Well, the hon. Gentleman opposite said that the parson was the most unpopular man in the parish, and it is impossible to be unpopular and to exercise great political influence. The clergy of the Church of England do not deserve the odium cast upon them by the hon. Member in his speech. Taking all things into consideration, they are a class, I will venture to say, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, who are more moderately remunerated than any other class of educated Englishmen, and who are doing noble, praiseworthy, and self-denying work. Not on the ground of charity, but on the ground of justice, I therefore heartily support this measure.
  MR. C. WENTWORTH BEAUMONT: In supporting the motion of my hon. friend I ask for the indulgence of the House, because I have never yet ventured to address it, either with you, Sir, in the Chair, or in Committee. I do so because I agree generally with the reasons expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and partly because if even the principle of the Bill is accepted it is too wide in its operation. In my view the provisions of this Bill should not extend to clergymen

  1405
  presented to benefices after the passing of the Act. That point has been very little discussed, partly because some hon. Gentlemen who had put down Amendments in that direction did so in the wrong place, and partly owing to the constant application of the closure. If one thing came out more clearly than another in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and it has not been seriously denied by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is that in estimating the value of the Tithe by the Commissioners in 1836 no deduction was to be "made for Parliamentary, parochial,….and other rates," and that "whenever said tithes should have been compounded for on the principal of rent or composition being paid free for all such rates, the Commissioners shall have regard to the circumstance, and shall make such addition on account thereof as may be equivalent." Those acquainted with the matter will know that what I have quoted is taken from Clause 37 in the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 which dealt with that part of the subject. This is, indeed, not seriously contested by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it has rather been ignored by the Government and by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Passing over that paint, therefore, what is the ostensible ground for the Bill? It is that owing to the fall in value of the Tithe Rent-charge, clergymen who accepted a living on the understanding that they would have a certain income find that that income is very much reduced, and that they suffer thereby. That is not denied; but why should it be called an injustice? It is said that this Bill has been brought in to remedy this injustice. We admit that there is some hardship, but I do not think that the word "injustice," which has been so largely used by hon. Gentlemen opposite, should be applied to all. But, admitting, for the sake of argument, that there is an injustice, how has it arisen? It has been created by the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, which excluded the clergymen from the so-called benefits of that Act. This injustice would not have been discovered at all had it not been for the omission of the clergy in passing the Act in 1896. There was not a thought of injustice by the Government in 1896. At all events the Chancellor of the Exchequer is credited with having expressed the opinion that the clergy had no claim for relief on that score. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is suspected to be not very fond of the clergy, and I think if the
  1406
  language used by that right hon. Gentleman had come from this side, it would I have been said that it arose from hostility to the Church of England. Now, the Government have tried to find a remedy for this "injustice" by making another; because we on this side of the House hold that it is an injustice that any particular class of persons should receive relief out of the public purse. It was on that ground that we contested the Agricultural Rating Act, and on the same ground, however great the hardships some of the clergy may have to endure, we contest this Bill. The Government seem to have thought that they could remedy one injustice by creating another, on some sort of idea, I suppose, that two blacks make a white. However, admitting that there is some hardship on those who were presented to benefices under different financial conditions, I want to know why the relief provisions of the Bill should be extended to those to be hereafter appointed. They will accept their appointments to livings knowing what income to expect from them, and they can have no ground of complaint afterwards. It has never been contended (so far as I am aware) that there is any difficulty in obtaining clergymen to accept benefices when there is a vacancy, in spite of this grievance. On the contrary, the supply of these gentlemen is far greater than the demand. The unfortunate patron knows that whenever he has a living vacant he is inundated with applications from men, good, bad, and indifferent. I think it was the late Lord Melbourne who said when he had Episcopal patronage to give away through the death of a bishop, "I believe these bishops die to spite me." I feel sure that most patrons of livings must have feelings very similar to that when they have patronage to bestow. By rejecting this Bill the House would not prevent a single man going into the Church, or a single clergyman from applying for a living; and this grievance would right itself automatically in the end. It is a great pity, to my mind, that the members of the Government do not have more opportunities of mixing with their supporters in the House in order to learn their real views. They confine themselves too much to their rooms. If they had been on the terrace or in the smoking-rooms they would have heard recently very strong language in regard to this Bill—language which, if expressed in this House, you, Sir, would not have held to be un-Parliamentary. The only amusing

  1407
  incident of this dull session is the abuse lavished on the present Government by their supporters, who, with a few exceptions—notably the hon. Member for Stockport—have blindly followed them into the division lobbies. I thank the House very much for the patience with which I have been listened to, and I shall have no hesitation in voting against the third reading of this Bill.
  COLONEL V. MILWARD: I cannot agree with very much that the hon. Member for South Molton Division has said, and I regret especially the reading of the letter which he has thought fit to read to the House. But there is one point upon which I do agree with him, and that is that it does place the House and the country in a difficult position when it is necessary to bring forward a Bill at this time of the year of a contentious character, and when, in order to pass the Bill through the Committee stage, it is necessary that the speeches should be extremely short, and the discussion confined to one side of the House. It is evident that the result must be that the country must have a distorted view of the Bill itself. When Members get up one after another to attack the Bill, and when the conduct of the Bill is thus one-sided, it is quite evident that the country at large must form an erroneous idea of the Bill and of the defence of it. In the course of the Committee stage there were 54 Government and 203 speeches from the Opposition. But if they excepted from the Government speeches those of the right hon. Gentlemen the Minister for Agriculture, the Solicitor-General, and the First Lord of the Treasury, there remained on the Government side twenty speeches against 203 from the Opposition. I think it is a notable fact that of those 203 speeches no fewer than 91 were delivered by Welsh Members, who have so great a feeling and so small an interest in this matter. I admit that nobody could have conducted the case with greater ability than the Minister for Agriculture, nor could the case have been placed more fairly before the House than by the three Ministers who have been concerned in the progress of the Bill; but when Member after Member rises and takes a false view of the position taken up by the Government I confess I can see no chance of remedying this state of things, unless we adopt the suggestion of the hon.
  1408
  Member for South-East Essex, to limit the speeches, let us say Committee speeches, to ten minutes, so that the speaking may be fairly divided between the two sides of the house. There is another constitutional question in reference to the Bill that I wish to raise. The clergy themselves have been astounded at the reception which their case has met with in the House of Commons. Here is a set of men who, as ratepayers and taxpayers, in common with other members of the community, have a right to address themselves to the House of Commons for the redress of any grievance they have. It is acknowledged that the relief from taxation or rating is an interest which should be dealt with by the Crown or the House of Commons. These gentlemen have addressed themselves in a perfectly constitutional manner to the House. They have, through their Members, urged their views upon the country; but when their case was brought forward in the House it was flouted and sneered at, and was met by the perfervid—almost impassioned—eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and by raillery on the part of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire, and this culminated in the studied travesty of a preamble, which it was proposed to attach to the Bill, and which said that "the clergy were poor and unable to pay their rates,' and that "the Church failed, out of its vast possessions, to make provision for them or their families." I deny both these charges. I deny that it is because of their poverty that they have a right to have their wrongs redressed here. I maintain that, whether poor or rich, they have a right to come to the State and ask that their wrongs should be redressed. I deny also very strongly that the Church has failed out of its riches to redress the poverty of the clergy. Let me state to the House what the Church has done during the last few years. In the year of the last Jubilee of the Queen a fund was raised called the Queen Victoria Jubilee Fund. In the first year it amounted to £100,000, and in 1898 to £45,000. These sums are specially applied for the purpose of raising the smaller incomes of the clergy. But in addition there is another fund called the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. In 1897 there was contributed voluntarily to this fund

  1409
  £106,613 for the permanent augmentation of the livings of the clergy, and in 1898 £116,932. Altogether, therefore, the sums contributed by these two funds for the augmentation of the livings of the clergy during the years 1897 and 1898 amounted to £206,613 and £161,932 respectively. Now, I do not desire to diminish for one moment what is being done by the Wesleyan or any other body, but it is unfair and I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel it is unfair—to say that we are doing nothing for the augmentation of the livings of the clergy when we contribute as much as £200,000 a year for that purpose. In the diocese of Liverpool, moreover, there is the fact that every living has been raised to £200 a year. In addressing myself for a few moments to the objections which have been raised to this Bill, they appear to me to range themselves under three heads. The first objection is that the poor are being made to pay for the rich. Sometimes we hear the clergy called the rich and sometimes the poor, but I suppose that depends upon the line of debate taken by hon. Members. At all events the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Logan) raised very strongly the fact that the poor labourers were being made to contribute the sum of £87,000 for the benefit of the rich clergy, and he observed that it was disgraceful that in a certain county (Dorset) the labourer should be paid only 9s. or 10s. a week. I do not, however, see how the House of Commons is going to interfere with the price of the labourers' wages. But this I do say—that no poor person under any circumstances will contribute one penny to the relief which is being given to the clergy under this Bill. Hon. Members who make the contrary assertion either have not studied the Bill or are not acquainted with the facts. The whole of the relief is given from a portion of the annual sum which is given in relief of local taxation, viz., that portion which comes from the probate duty. It will not, I suppose, be contended that poor people who get 9s. or 10s. a week contribute anything to the probate duty. The relief given by Exchequer contributions to Local Rating is given from two sources, the Probate Grant and the Licenses. Now the Licenses are levied almost entirely from the rich; they are for armorial bearings, carriages, servants, &c.; but there is one
  1410
  license which may be subscribed to by the poor, and that is the dog license. It is quite possible that here and there a few shillings may be contributed for a dog license by the poor, but that source is entirely exempted under this Bill. The relief which is to be given under this Bill is entirely from the Probate Duty, and not a single farthing can under any circumstances come from the poor. In point of fact, however, the particular sum which is given under this Bill does not come from the Probate Duty; it comes from the increment of the Probate Duty, so that not only is it money that never has come from the poor, but it is money that never has gone to the poor because it is money that has never yet been received or expended by the County or Borough Authorities. I wish to refer to the argument that the amount of the rates was added to the tithe in 1836. That is true in one sense, but it is not true in another. The case is precisely the same as that of a landlord who lets two houses side by side. One house he lets at £10 a year and pays the rates; while the other he lets at £8 a year, and the tenant pays the rates. Suppose there came a law that in every case the landlord should pay the rates, it is quite evident that he would charge £10 a year for each house. That is exactly what happened in 1836 with regard to the rates being added to the tithe. In some cases the clergyman had paid the rates, in some cases the farmer, but after 1836 the clergyman was by law required to pay them, and for this reason they were added to the tithe. We have never denied that the tithe was rateable. We have never denied that it should fairly pay the rate. We furthermore say that personal property should pay the rate also, and did pay it under the Act of Elizabeth. But we say that the rates have become an intolerable burden. There is not a single person in this House who will deny that for years past rates have been going up, but even if they were higher in 1836 what does it matter to us? The clergy who lived then are no longer alive, and to present incumbents there is only one experience, and that is that, owing to the fall in the value of tithe and the continual increase of rates, the burden has become so intolerable that the clergy have come to this House, and have been perfectly right in coming to this House, in order to get relief. There

  1411
  is only one other objection to which I shall refer for a few moments, and that is the question between town and country. That question was raised particularly by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, who I am sorry to see is not in his place. The hon. Member wished that London should be exempted from the operation of the Bill, and a number of hon. Members on the opposite side supported him because they knew the adoption of his suggestion meant the destruction of the Bill. It is obvious, however, that to be effective, relief of this kind must have application to the whole country. Let me cite the case of two millionaires who died in my neighbourhood during the last three or four years. I suppose they must have paid at least £200,000 to the country under the Death Duties, and their share of the Probate Duty was very large. It would be perfectly fair according to the arguments on the other side of the House that the Probate Duty should go to the identical villages from which it was paid. The effect of that would be that these villagers would pay no more rates for the rest of their lives. But that is not the only question. Do you think villages contribute nothing to the towns? My opinion is exactly the contrary. Ever since the enormous increase of the road rate there has been an immense contribution of the villages towards the towns. My opinion is that the country contributes more to the towns than the towns to the country. What is the case of London? Do we in the country contribute anything towards London? I submit that we do. We pay for the parks, and a portion of the Metropolitan Police; £58,000 towards the parks, £54,968 towards the police, against the £19,000 which it is claimed that London contributes towards their relief of the clergy. Does the country clergyman share in the enjoyment of the London parks? Once, in a blue moon, he may bring his wife to to London, but he amply contributes his share towards the cost of the parks and police through his hotel bill. It is perfectly clear that in a matter of this kind you should spread the whole of the cost over the whole of England. What is the cost? Of the amount of aid proposed by the Bill London contributes only one-seventh of a penny in the £ on the rates, as the London assessment now reaches the enormous value of £40,000,000
  1412
  a year. I believe the London rates are about seven shillings in the £, and surely one-seventh of a penny out of eighty-four pence is not excessive as a contribution towards the act of justice which we are trying to effect. I wish just to say one or two words with reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Fowler), and to quote a very pregnant sentence from the speech of the right hon. gentleman on the Second Reading of this Bill. He was speaking on the urban rates and the Royal Commission, and he said:
  "I say their first duty is to deal with the task entrusted to them, which is to suggest a remedy for the grievances under winch all property holders labour with respect to local taxation."
  These are very pregnant words, and I hope that in future the great Party opposite will live up to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wolverhampton, and endeavour to so decide matters that property and rent will no longer be considered to be the measure of a man's capacity to pay rates, but that rates will be spread not upon householders only, but upon personal property holders, and that thus there would be a great shifting of the burden. I have never dared to hope for it, myself; I think it almost past bearing that all the local taxation of the country should fall upon house and landed property, and I long to see the time when the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will bring their intelligence to bear on the subject, so that property in dividends and shares shall be made to bear a portion of the local burdens. I support most heartily the Third Reading of the Bill. I believe it to be a measure of justice which will not be attended by any appreciable amount of injustice; I am sure that the cause of the clergy will benefit by the Bill now being enacted; and I hope that heated feeling which has passed over the House lately will soon be forgotten and that we shall all feel that we have tried to do something which will bring justice to a distressed class of our population.
  MR. BIRRELL: The right hon. Member for Oxford University has made one of the most "sporting" offers to the hon. Member for Leicester I have ever heard. He offered to write his speeches for him. Whether he was

  1413
  also willing to deliver them I did not quite understand. But the hon. Member for Leicester, being I suppose anxious to retain his seat, did not accept the offer. But I, being of a milder mould, and the weather being hot, would be only too happy to accept his offer to make, write, and deliver the speech which it is necessary for me to make on this occasion. There can be no pleasure in taking part in Debates of this kind. The inevitable consequence of an unusually large Parliamentary majority is that it robs all the steps Parliamentary instincts require to be taken before a Bill becomes law, of their reality, sincerity, and significance, and the time-honoured forms of this House Seem to become mere vehicles of obstruction. But we were bound to remember that the Opposition has its duties—although it may be questionable whether nowadays it possesses any rights—and one of them is the duty of maintaining the forms and traditions of the House, waiting for better times, which this Bill may do something to accelerate, when the Government majority may not be so great as it is now and Gentlemen opposite may be glad the Opposition maintained for them the ceremonies which they look upon now with abhorrence and dislike. I opposed this Bill on the Third Reading on the same ground as I would oppose it on the Thirtieth Reading, because it is an essentially unjust and ill-omened Bill. There was a time when there might be found, scattered up and down this pleasant country, rate-paying and taxpaying persons who took no active part in political contentions, even during the turmoil of general elections, not greatly caring for the success of the "ins" or the "outs"; and most of us in our hours of langour, when the wheels of life run slow, have felt a sneaking sympathy with those gentle spirits who, if accused of unpatriotic indifference, were able to allege, and allege truthfully, that in the past, at all events, whichever Party succeeded in clutching the golden keys, there was one key on the bunch which would never be basely turned to party purposes—the key of the National Exchequer. They could always rely that whichever Party occupied the Treasury bench it would supply a Chancellor of the Exchequer who would regard himself as the trusted guardian of public funds, and would never consent to allow himself to become the mere party paymaster of greedy and mercenary forces. If ever there was a Bill which required to be defended in principle and
  1414
  details by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is this Bill, which, in the opinion of a large number of people, diverts public funds into very private uses indeed, and pays off half the rates of the clergy of a particular Church out of the probate duty. It is a Bill which might be right or which might be wrong, but it ought to be defended. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken no part whatever in the discussions. Rumour, always rife in the lobbies of this House, alleges that he did not like the Bill. Rumour is a lying jade. I am not prepared to believe the rumour, and I will assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves of the Bill and likes it because, although his tongue may be silent, his is the responsibility for it, for his is the hand that turns the tap that fills the clerical pail. We have had some useful discussions during the progress of the Bill, and one thing became clear during the course of those discussions which was not quite clear when we began. All persons are agreed that tithe rent-charge is rateable property. The hon. and learned Member for Stroud, the apostle of rating and the high priest of assessment committees, took a large part in the Debates until my hon. friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan discovered that he had written a book on the subject, which was in the library, and then my hon. and learned friend, if he will allow the quotation in all kindliness, "Curled up on the floor, And our subsequent proceedings seemed to interest him no more." Tithe rent-charge is rateable property, and directly that is admitted away goes the argument of the clergy that they are rated on professional incomes. It is admitted that professional incomes are not rateable property, and there is no proposal to make professional incomes rateable property. Therefore tithe rent-charge is rateable property, whether in the hands of a lay impropriator or in the hands of a clerical holder of a living. I am quite able to appreciate the difference between tithe rent-charge in the hands of a lay impropriator and the net rent-charge which remains in the hands of the clergyman compelled to discharge the duties of the parish to which he is attached and to see that public worship and the rites of the Church are properly performed there. But that is not a question of rating, but of the mode of assessment, and the mode of assessment depends on the circumstances, not of the

  1415
  clergy as a body, but on the circumstances of each particular case, and demands and requires that each particular case shall be considered on its own merits. Therefore there was no general injustice in rating the clergy in the way they are rated now. The very highest way it is possible to put it is that in particular cases, after particular inquiry it might be that good sense and good judgment would suggest that certain deductions should be allowed. Putting myself in the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite seeking to support this Bill as they best can, I would ask them whether they can really put the case of the clergy higher than this: that at the most some of the clergy ought to be permitted, under a proper equitable mode of assessment, to make certain deductions from their tithe rent-charge. But this Bill does not pretend to do anything of the kind. It does not alter the law of rating or the mode of assessment, or permit a single clergyman to make legitimate deductions. It simply dips its hand into the purse of the National Exchequer and takes £87,000 out and gives it to the clergy, totally irrespective of whether any of them are entitled to make a just claim on which the whole case for the Bill rests. The Bill is doubly unjust—it is unjust to the clergy, because it divides the money among them independently of their moral claim to make deductions. It is also grossly unfair to the country, because it will not be pretended that this £87,000 is not a larger sum than would be required to make up anything the rates may lose if the deductions of which I have spoken are made. Therefore I will ask whether this mode of dealing with the question is not one of gross injustice both to the clergy, whose interests the Government seeks to serve, and the interests of the country, which they are bound to protect? I cannot myself agree that these deductions are right and proper to be made, because I cannot forget that for sixty years the courts of law and justice have decided that they cannot be permitted. The difficulty of making these deductions in particular cases is very great, and there is not a single gentleman alive who has not accepted his living on the condition that these deductions were not likely to be allowed. However that may be, I submit they have not made out a single case to justify the appropriation of this sum of money to
  1416
  alleviate the distress, or rather the injustice which they insist upon. However, I suppose we must soon part with this Bill, and it will go and seek its fortunes elsewhere. I must say that to anyone who loves irony and delights in an ironical situation more than justice, there is something peculiarly charming in the spectacle of a council of lay impropriators—of men holding the greatest tithes which once, at all events, were devoted to religious and charitable purposes—meeting in solemn conclave to consider—what? How best to relieve the necessities of the holders of the small tithes which are still devoted to religious purposes—at the expense of the public exchequer. There is where the weak point comes in. At the expense of the public exchequer! How many times during the last twenty years have I not read in the truth-loving columns of the Guardian newspaper—an organ of opinion for which I have the profoundest and most sincere respect—the complaint that if only the lay impropriators would tax themselves voluntarily at one half the amount at which the poor clerical holders of the small tithes do for church purposes, it would not be necessary for the Church of England to make these annual raids upon the public exchequer, but she would be able both to pay her own clergy and to maintain her own schools. I venture to make these remarks here, because I doubt very much whether they will be made elsewhere. The point I am really desirous of making is that I do think it is a public scandal and a constitutional wrong that a measure of this sort should be sent from beginning to end through Parliament sub silentio by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. SETON-KARR: It has been suggested on the other side of the House that we on this side have entered into a conspiracy of silence because we cannot justify our support of this Bill. Under those circumstances I do not feel inclined to give a silent vote. I have voted for this Bill all through with a light heart and a clear conscience. I most cordially support the measure, and in doing so I have not discovered the slightest strain on my allegiance to Her Majesty's Government or to the party to which I belong. My chief objection to the Bill is that it does not go far enough. On the ground of

  1417
  justice we ought to relieve the clerical tithe-owner not only of half his rates, but of the whole. I support this Bill, to put it shortly, on two grounds. In the first place, on its merits; and, secondly, because it seems to me that it is a Bill to which the present Government and the Unionist Party are committed by their previous acts, statements, and measures which have been passed. They are committed to it by the Report of the Royal Commission on Rating (which they themselves appointed), and they are committed to it by the precedent of the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896. This Bill is a simple and necessary act of justice. I have listened to nearly the whole of these Debates, and I am bound to say that most of the speeches and criticisms directed against the measure have been very largely animated by party feeling; they have contained a maximum of party feeling with a minimum of solid argument. Hon. Members have argued from all sorts of premisses; it is difficult to criticise any two arguments together. What is it that this Bill proposes to do? It proposes to relieve the tithe-rent charge attached to benefice of half its rates. What is the simple reason for that? That there is other property rated in the same way; and therefore it is unfair to rate this in that way. It is not a question of the gross or net income; it is not a question of rating the incomes at all. What is the fact? The clerical tithe-owner is taxed on his income like everybody else, whether it is a tithe rent-charge income or an income from other sources; he is rated on his dwelling like everybody else, but he is also rated On his tithe rent-charge like nobody else. On that ground, when it is established—and I venture to say it is estahlished—logically the whole of that unfair burden ought to be removed. Have any hon. Members opposite brought forward a single analogous case in which incomes are rated in the same way? The hon. Member for Carnarvon delivered an eloquent but violent party speech on the Second Reading, and made the only attempt I have heard to cite some analogous cases. The instances he cited were the income of a colliery proprietor and the income received by a house proprietor from small houses which he owned, and the hon. Member said they were analogous cases in which the holders were rated on their incomes. I submit that there is absolutely no analogy at all. For this simple reason; in the case of the
  1418
  colliery proprietor or the owner of house-rent, the amount of the rent is a question of private bargaining between the lessor and lessee, in which the rates are taken into account. In the case of tithe, the rates cannot possibly be taken into account, because it is not a question of private contract.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not think I said they were rated on their income. I said they were very often rated on more than their income.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I do not quite follow the interruption. I think the hon. Member said the owners of house property and collieries were rated on their incomes.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On more than their income.
  MR. SETON-KARR: On more than their income. Of course, they are rated on the assessment of their property. The clerical tithe owner is also rated on his dwelling, quite apart from the tithe. The point I am endeavouring to make is that in the one case it is a question of private contract, and in the other it is not. Here is where the shoe pinches. Rates are in the habit of going up. In the one case the rent may go up, but in the other case the net income of the clerical tithe-owner goes down. Let me state my reasons why, as a borough Member and a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, I am entirely in favour of this Bill. Whence does the opposition to this Bill come? In the first place, there is the opposition of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin. I listened to his speech on the Second Reading with very great interest. But we ordinary Members cannot but be influenced by the thought that my right hon. friend is the "candid friend" of the Unionist Government, and his standard of legislative excellence is so high that it is almost impossible to conceive any measure which would receive the stamp of his approval. I shall, therefore, criticise with the utmost diffidence one argument which my right hon. friend pressed upon the House. I think the argument that he pressed with the greatest force may be summarised in three words—priority of title. I think I am putting the case in its outline when I say that the argument was that the tithe rent-charge is prior to the ownership of the land, and therefore under no circumstances can it be interfered with—in other words, that what

  1419
  has been going on for three centuries cannot be altered now. The consideration at once occurred to me that the rates are not a fixed quantity. If the rates were the same now as they were three centuries ago, I could see some force in the argument, but rates are constantly going up. The owner of tithe who had a certain income many years ago has not the same income now—for one reason, because the rates are constantly going up to meet the advance of civilisation.
  AN HON. MEMBER: The rates have gone down.
  MR. SETON-KARR: I contend that rates generally go up. At all events, they vary, they are not a fixed quantity. My argument is that if the rates were a fixed quantity there would be some ground for the argument of antiquity or priority of title. But the rates vary; they may go up, and they have gone up; in some cases possibly they have gone down. What was fair and right three centuries ago is not, necessarily, right now. We want to see the incidence and burden of rating so equally distributed that they are shared as well by personal property as by real property, and I submit that this Bill is founded on that great principle. I desire to allude to the position of my hon. friend the Member for Stockport. He opposed this Bill in a somewhat violent speech, in which he said that it was unfair to the boroughs and the urban districts. He went even further, and used stronger language, saying that this Bill betrayed the interests of the towns of the country. In passing, let me deal with a side argument on this point. My hon. friend did not give any figures, but I propose very shortly to quote some figures to the House. In the first place, he said that the interests of the boroughs had been sacrificed to the interests of the counties. Under this Bill we are taking £87,000 out of the Local Taxation Fund to relieve the clerical tithe owner. That means to the clerical tithe owner about £8 per head. Under the ingenious and wise provision of the Bill, what does it mean to the general body of ratepayers? I admit at once that it means, in the first place, that £87,000 is taken away from the Local Taxation Grant, which would otherwise go to the relief of the rates of the ratepayers of England and
  1420
  Wales. But the rateable capacity of England and Wales is quoted at £172,000,000. £87,000 spread over that means 1/10d. in the £. I ask the House in all seriousness, Do those figures justify the heroic language of the Member for Stockport? Take a £25 householder. In that case he has to pay towards the relief given by this Bill the large sum of 3d. a year. The burden is inappreciable. So strongly do I feel that this Bill is a just Bill, that even though the burden were appreciable, I still would heartily vote for it; but as the burden is inappreciable, it does not in any way justify the language which has been used. The hon. Member went further, and said that the borough supporters of Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to go down and justify this Bill in the face of their constituents. I do not know by what right my hon. friend arrogated to himself the right to speak for the boroughs of the country. He represents but half a borough; I represent a whole one, but I do not propose to speak of anyone other than myself. I voted for the Agricultural Rates Bill. I have supported this Bill in all its stages, and intend to vote for the Third Reading. I have not received from a single constituent a single line of remonstrance of any sort or kind. I can only say that I am quite ready to go down to my constituents and justify my vote on any occasion and on any platform. The position of hon. Members opposite in opposing this Bill has been already dealt with. They are all agreed that this Bill is a godsend to them. There are many Members opposite whose fixed and determined policy is to disestablish and disendow, if they can, our national Church. It is only natural that those Members should oppose the Bill; it recognises the vested interests of our national clergy in the funds of our national Church. Language has been carried so far as to describe this Bill as a piece of class legislation, a dole to the clergy; or, as one hon. Member said, the squire and parson have combined to rob the poor ratepayer. We can liberally discount that language; we know exactly what it is worth. But why do not hon. Members opposite go and use the same words in the constituencies? I am glad to think there is at least one consistent Member of the Opposition who is opposing this Bill, and that is the hon. Member for Northampton.

  1421
  During the last forty-eight hours he has been to his constituents and told them that the Unionist Government takes every opportunity of utilising the funds of the Exchequer in order to bribe and corrupt its supporters. That is only consistent with what the hon. Member said in this House. But during the last eighteen months three elections have taken place—there may have been more—in which the supporters of the Liberal candidates have issued pamphlets and leaflets soliciting votes on the ground that this Bill is a good Bill, and required by the clergy.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Not this Bill.
  MR. SETON-KARR: No; something more than this Bill. Voters were asked to support the Liberal candidate on the ground that the clergy could not trust the Unionist Government. The Leader of the House quoted one of those leaflets on the Second Reading of the Bill, and if the statement therein contained is not a suggestion that if the clergy wanted the rates on their tithes reduced they must vote for the Liberal candidate, I do not know what it is. One thing is said in this House, but another thing in the constituencies. We have all heard of the advice of the unscrupulous City man to his son, "Get money, honestly if you can, but get it." I should like to paraphrase that, and say that hon. Members opposite seem to go on the principle, "Get votes, honestly if you can, but get them." I am glad for another reason that Her Majesty's Government have brought in this Bill. I am glad that they are doing something for some of their friends and supporters. The Unionist Government have promoted legislation in the past which has had a chastening effect upon some of their supporters. There are Irish landlords and English employers of labour on this side of the House who can bear testimony to that fact. Chastisement and contradiction is, indeed, good for us all; but the old Adam will sometimes prevail, and I do most heartily congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing in a Bill which I look upon as a simple act of justice, and which also will do something to help some of their supporters.
  MR. PERKS: I think we probably have the real reason
  1422
  for the support of this Bill at the conclusion of my hon. friend's speech. We listened not an hour ago to the somewhat plaintive thanks which were tendered by the hon. Member for Oxford University on behalf of his clerical friends for this small contribution towards their relief, and he went on to point out that the Government are worthy of praise because they have introduced a measure which he stated was most unpopular in the country. While it is perfectly true that twenty speeches have been delivered from the opposite benches in support of this measure, very few of those speeches have been by a Member for a large democratic urban constituency. Substantially it is true that the support of this measure has come from the rural and not from the urban districts. I admit at once that the Church of England is at the present moment devoting large sums of money, raised by voluntary contribution, towards the purposes of the National Church. Our only complaint is that she will not carry that process just a little further, and provide by voluntary contributions this comparatively small sum for which she proposes to dip her hands into the public purse. The Church of England has about 1,950,000 communicants connected with the Establishment, out of a population in England of 29,000,000. If on the next occasion when those communicants attend church they could be persuaded to give 1s. each towards the necessities of their clergy, it would be wholly unnecessary for the Government to trouble Parliament to provide this miserable dole. May I point out to the House that the only plea which has been put with any force before the country in support of this measure is the destitute condition of a number of worthy clergymen?
  Several HON. MEMBERS: No!
  MR. PERKS: I say, put with force. I know some Members take a different view in this House, but that is not the ground on which the Bill is defended in the country. I read the clerical journals and the speeches of hon. Members who venture to defend the Bill in the country—and they are very few—and those speeches have been based on the fact that the clergy are miserably off, that their rates have risen, that their tithes have fallen, and therefore, it is alleged, they

  1423
  are entitled to this relief. What I want to point out is that there are vast masses of the clergy, and probably the most deserving, who do not come within the purview of this Bill at all. There are in this country about 13,000 incumbents in the various livings, large and small, but there are upwards of 6,000 clergy who are completely out of occupation, who have no livings or clerical charges whatever. That vast body of men, who certainly are not the least necessitous, are not brought within the confines of this Bill at all, and receive no relief whatever. Pass to the great number of curates in this country. Does anybody imagine that one of the effects of the Bill will be to add to the salary or to improve the condition of curates, or lead to the employment of more curates? He must be a very sanguine man indeed who thinks so. Take again the clergy in the towns—probably the most hard-working of the clergy, the men with the largest congregations, who do the most effective social and moral work. How are those men supported? They are supported not by tithes, but mainly by the contributions of their Congregation, the offertories and pew-rents. These men will derive no benefit, or very little in very exceptional cases, from this Bill. The main relief will go to the clergy in the rural districts and in the small towns of the country; it will be given to the rich and poor alike. The man who is receiving £1,000 a year will get it equally with the man who is receiving only £200 a year, simply because the House refused to adopt the sliding scale which was proposed. It would be a great convenience if the Government, when introducing a Bill which it is intended shall not be altered, world state so in plain language; that would be a far more honest course than for us to be invited to put upon the Notice-Paper Amendments when the Government from the outset have decided that they will not allow a single alteration in the Bill. I cannot help thinking that one of the effects of this Bill on the Anglican Church will be the same as was produced by the gift to voluntary schools. The subscriptions to voluntary schools have fallen away. That is the complaint made in all directions by the diocesan authorities and by the administrators of the funds of the Anglican Church in reference to voluntary schools. Is it likely if £87,000 a year is
  1424
  voted by Parliament out of the public purse for the assistance of the clergy that the voluntary contributions of the Anglican Church will be maintained at the present level? No such result can be expected. The Church of England will probably lose much more in the falling away of her voluntary contributions than she will derive from this small but most offensive grant from the State. Since this Bill was in Committee I have had the Opportunity of seeing a number of my constituents in Lincolnshire on one of those festive occasions, a great agricultural show, and I was surrounded by robust representatives of agricultural depression—farmers of Lincolnshire, who wanted to know how this Bill would affect them. I told them they ought to be thankful, being supporters of Her Majesty's Government, to be permitted in some small degree to contribute still more to the maintenance of the clergy of their various parishes. But, said one farmer to me, "the clergyman in our parish will get very small relief. He is spending much more than he will get in keeping candles lighted all day long in the parish church of our parish, and I do not think that that is the sort of man I should be disposed to assist out of public funds." I agreed with him, and I trust that this Bill may have some effect upon his vote at the next election. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that the Church of England clergy are not an influential class in the country. I rather agree with the late Mr. Bright, who said they were the registration agents of the Tory Party, and the most powerful electioneering supporters of that party. Looking at the question from that point of view, I am not at all surprised that the Member for St. Helens stated plainly, frankly—rather brutally, I thought—that he thanks the Government because they are looking after their friends. That was not quite an original remark, because it was made a few months ago by a noble Lord who took occasion to sever himself from the Tory Party, speaking to a very large Tory constituency in the West End of London, where he plainly stated that he thought it was the duty of the Tory Party when in office to look after their friends. The clergy have made their bargain; they took these livings knowing precisely the conditions under which they took them

  1425
  and it is totally unjust that they should now be assisted in the manner proposed in this Bill. What should we think if we were told that the Legislatures of either the German Empire or the French Republic were engaged in subsidising the clerical parties of those great countries? Yet that is precisely the work in which we, in this country, at this period of the century, have been engaged for the last few weeks. I was reading the other day a very powerful speech by the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Plunkett, in which, speaking of the Disestablishment Of the Irish Church and the wonderful effect it had upon the evangelistic power and religions force in the country, he congratulated himself that they were not dependent at the time he was speaking upon tithes in Ireland and upon charges arising from the land. He said that if the Irish Church had had to be disestablished at a later epoch in its history it would have met with far more opposition and obloquy, and would have been compelled to endure the most cruel straits, from which they were relieved by having severed the connection with the State. I cannot but feel that this measure will increase enormously the unpopularity of the clergy in the rural districts. I do not profess to belong to the Church of England—I belong to a voluntary church; I have not the smallest antipathy to the Church of England a religious institution. At the same time I feel that the influence of the clergy, who can have it thrown in their teeth by their parishioners that by availing them selves of this Act they have come upon the rates, will be materially reduced. I trust there are in the Church of England to-day many clergy, honourable, godly, intelligent men, who are anxious to increase their influence, who, notwithstanding the offer which is here made to them by Her Majesty's Government, will courage the courage and the manliness to refuse to become pensioners of the State through the medium of this Bill.
  MR. WANKLYN: I accept at once the challenge of the hon. Member that the Representative of a great democratic constituency should rise and state his reasons for supporting the Bill. Before giving those reasons I should like to say a word with regard to the point that the clergymen in receipt of the largest incomes would receive the
  1426
  greatest benefit. The hon. Member for South Molton cited the case of Hatfield. It is common knowledge that the rector of Hatfield, the son of the Prime Minister, has working with him five, if not six, curates, and he expends about double the annual value of his living on his parish. That is no isolated case. It might he stated as a general proposition that where there is a large stipend the duties and the calls are large in proportion. The hon. Member opposite has cited a friendly agriculturist who was opposed to this Bill. I can pit against his agriculturist a friend of mine, who received a letter a few days ago in which the argument was thus summed up by a small fanner:
  "I be a Congregationalist myself, but f don't hold with this raking up of bitter feeling. You has a grievance; why shouldn't we help you out of it?"
  I think we shall find that feeling Very general amongst Congregationalists, certainly in the North of England where they love justice and fairplay. As to my reasons as a North of England borough Member for supporting this Bill, I can say that I enter upon this Debate without prejudice. I am not only a Member for an industrial community, I am also a Liberal Unionist Member. I am not a member of the Church Party, as I do not believe in government by groups, and I am no blind partisan of any Ministry. I have ventured, more than once to vote against my own Government, and upon one occasion I positively went so far as to issue a whip against them. I can therefore speak without prejudice. Why are we supporting this Bill? Because it is a measure of obvious justice. I confess for myself I knew little about the question Of title rent-charge before the introduction of this measure, but I felt it my duty to study the Report of the Royal Commissioners—a body of experts. I have read and studied that Report carefully, and have come to the same conclusion, as an unprejudiced person, that the unprejudiced persons on the Commission came to. Sir John Hibbert, Sir Edward Hamilton, Sir G. H. Murray, the Town Clerk of Liverpool, and the Town Clerk of Birmingham are certainly unprejudiced persons, and what do they say? That the burden of local taxation on the rural clergy is unduly onerous. I submit to the unpreju-

  1427
  diced persons of this country that they will do well to be advised by such experts as these. The objection is raised that the measure has been rushed through the House. Particular objection is taken to its introduction under the Ten-minutes' rule. I understand that only non-controversial measures are introduced under that rule. I claim, in all honesty, that this is a non-controversial Bill. At the close of the Second Reading Debate on this Bill the First Lord of the Treasury read to the House a circular officially issued by the Radical Party at the time of the East Herts bye-election last year. A facsimile of the circular had also been issued at the East Berks election, and a similar circular had been issued by the very much-respected Member for Mid-Norfolk at the time of the South Norfolk election. I have inquired into the origin of these circulars, and I find that the cases which I have mentioned are not isolated, but that similar circulars have been issued from an office not very far from this House to Radical agents in the rural districts throughout the country. I maintain that these circulars were part of a settled policy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced us last year for neglecting this grievance. How can they come forward this year and denounce us for remedying it? With those circulars within their knowledge the Government were entitled to consider that this would be a non-party question. When such distinguished lawyers as my hon. and learned friend below me and the hon. and learned Member for West Fife differ on the subject it is not for me to enter into the very abstruse question of rating. But the plain man in the country will be bewildered when he reads these circulars. He will say, "Here is Her Majesty's Opposition one year setting out that this is a very real grievance, and describing its remedy as an obvious measure of justice, and now they obstruct the remedy." I can suggest to the plain man that Her Majesty's Opposition think they see an opportunity of dealing a blow at the Church, which at the moment is suffering in popular esteem by the extravagance of a few foolish persons. In no other way can the large attendance of Members during these debates, or the all-night sitting, be accounted for. The question before us has not been the remedy of this grievance, which is admitted by both sides. The real issue
  1428
  is the disendowment and disestablishment of the Church of England as a plank in the platform of the party opposite for the next general election. We thank them for the warning they have given us, and we will very gladly join issue with them on the subject. Before I sit down I must express as a humble Member of the Liberal Unionist Party my regret that the right hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Bodmin, of whom all of us must speak with respect, threw in his lot with the party of disendowment and disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the period previous to 1886. Was disendowment and disestablishment a plank of the Liberal party then? I have the honour to represent the constituency of the late Mr. W. E. Forster, and to his dying day he stated publicly and privately that he would never be a party to any measure of attack on the Church of England, direct or indirect. I refer, of course, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin with all respect, but I do ask what right has he to speak for the Liberal Unionist Party? Who set him up as a ruler over us? I have attended many Liberal Unionist meetings since I had the honour of being enrolled in this party, and I never met the right hon. Gentleman at any one of them. So far as I know he has no official connection with the party and no official right to speak for it. As I understand matters it was not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, on the question of the union between England and Ireland only that the Liberal Unionist Party was formed. There were many of us who foresaw the attack on the Church, which is being commenced now. We came together, most of us I believe, not only on the question of the union between England and Ireland, but also on the question of the union between Church and State, the union between Great Britain and her Colonies, and on that greatest question of all the union between class and class. The right hon. Gentleman may, I think, be described with all respect as a one-man party. I suppose there is not room on this side of the House for two one-man parties, and therefore another hon. Gentleman who objected to this Bill took himself elsewhere. I can only describe the hon. Gentlemen for Stockport as a man with one idea, because the whole burden of his speech on the Second Reading was that this party came into

  1429
  office on the question of the social alleviation of the poor. At this moment we have under discussion the Food and Drugs Bill and the Small Houses Bill. Do they not mean anything to Stockport?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the question before the House.
  MR. WANKLYN: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will only say that I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's own argument, because at this moment these two other measures are being carried through. He has taken himself to the other side, and as an advocate of child labour I hope he will be welcome. On the Third Reading of this Bill Members on this as well as on the other side of the House are at the bar of public opinion. If hon. Members take this Blue Book back to their constituents and will expound it to them, they will find that all plain and unprejudiced persons will be inclined to support the views of the town clerks of Liverpool and Birmingham. Englishmen love justice and fair play, and will support us in any action we take in this matter. If hon. Gentlemen opposite take down to their constituents the three circulars to which I have referred they will find it exceedingly difficult to explain why last year this very proposal was a measure of obvious justice, while this year it is denounced in every term within the Parliamentary dictionary, and is obstructed to the end. I think hon. Gentlemen will find it very difficult to explain their position, and their constituents will conclude that if they are not to be trusted to take a straight forward course in such a small matter as the removal of this grievance they cannot be trusted with larger measures affecting the welfare of the Empire and the great institutions of this country.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member who has just sat down has deprecated what he called government by groups in this country, but most of his speech was taken up with frequent declarations that he was a member of the Liberal Unionist Party, and he proceeded to expound, until stopped by you, Sir, the principles of that Party. Among those principles was the union of class and class, but it is a peculiar kind of
  1430
  union which robs one class for the benefit of another. The hon. Gentleman, who repudiated the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, and preferred to follow the lead of the town clerks of Birmingham and Liverpool, has got some exceedingly peculiar views. One of them is that this measure is non-controversial. Here is a measure opposed by the whole Opposition led by their official leader, and yet the hon. Gentleman persists in calling it non-controversial, and he bases that inference on the ground that the agents of two or three Liberal candidates here and there issued some circulars in the course of bye-elections which stated that the clergy had a grievance in the matter of local assessment which ought to be redressed. In the first place, I would point out that this is not the measure recommended in those circulars at all. This is simply a dole to the clergy. In any event, I would point out that the views of one or two candidates cannot commit any party. In the course of the last election there were some Unionist candidates who advocated a shilling duty on corn. Surely that does not commit the whole of the Unionist party to that policy. In Wales the Conservative candidate in a lead mining constituency recommended a duty on foreign lead. Surely the Unionist party were not committed by such silly circulars, and it is quite as absurd to say that the whole Opposition is committed to a policy of clergy doles because a few circulars were issued, probably without the knowledge of the candidate at all. In the course of these Debates one most important argument in favour of this Bill has been absolutely abandoned. As has already been pointed out, it is the only argument which would recommend the Bill to the country, and that is the argument of distress among the rural clergy. That is now repudiated most emphatically. I may point out that the measure was advocated in this House in the first instance, not on the ground of rating reform, but purely on grounds of relief for the distressed clergy. A resolution was moved by the hon. Member for Harwich on behalf of the Church Party, of which he is a distinguished member, on the 23rd March, 1897, which stated that in view of the distressed condition of many of the clergy whose remuneration was principally derived from tithe rent-

  1431
  charge the House was of opinion that the burden of local taxation was inequitable and excessive, and called for substantial relief. The ground for relief was based entirely on the distressed condition of many of the clergy, and nothing was said about rating reform. I would also point out that the hon. Member who is secretary of the Church Party in this House sent a number of circulars to the clergy stating that special pains were taken to include all those whose incomes were returnable at £160 per annum and under. It was, therefore, altogether a matter of relief for the distressed clergy. What did the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say in Committee? An Amendment was moved which would have the effect of confining the operation of the Bill to clergymen with small incomes, and to that extent would relieve clergymen who were in a really distressed condition, but the right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was directed against the whole principle of the Bill, and that this measure had nothing whatever to do with the relief of distress. Yet the motion adopted in the House of Commons was based entirely on the distressed condition of the clergy. I am very glad, however, we have now got rid of the question of distress. As a matter of fact this Bill will not relieve distressed clergy; the relief goes to the clergy who are least in need of it. I will cite two cases given by the Church Party in the appendix to this Report. One is the case of a clergyman in receipt of £1,400 a year. Out of that there are several deductions, with the result that his net income is £684, and his total poor rate £148. Under this Bill he would receive £74. The other case is that of a clergyman with £116, but he with that small income would only receive under the Bill £2 16s.; and this is a Bill for the relief of the distressed clergy! At any rate that was the object for which it was originally brought in. It is really a dole to the clergy, and it has all the characteristics of a dole. There is no principle of rating underlying it. I defy any hon. Gentleman to point out a single underlying principle. If there were a question of rating or deductions, then there might be some principle involved, but the only result of this measure in the form in which it stands is, that gentlemen who pay large sums of money for curates will get very little. Here is a case in point.
  1432
  A clergyman in receipt of £257 a year keeps two curates, and his net income is £51. He would receive only £13 3s. under the Bill. Take a similar case as far as income is concerned. A clergyman is in receipt of a net income of £244; he has not got to pay curates, there are no deductions, but he gets £23 under the Bill. If there were any principle of rating or any proper deductions to be made in respect of services or the employment of curates, the first man would get four times as much as the second. But of course there is no principle of rating involved. The Bill is simply a dole given to a number of clergymen. There is really no ground on which this Bill can be defended except on the ground of emergency. It is said that the clergy are suffering very considerably in the matter of rating, but so are other classes, and the whole question is: why should clergymen have their grievances remedied now, instead of waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission, like any other section of the community who are suffering exactly the same grievances? Why should not the grievances of the urban tradesman and manufacturer be redressed? No case of emergency has been made out. The only case of emergency would be the case of distress, but that has been abandoned. The real emergency exists in the case of the urban tradesman and manufacturer. What is the state of the case? Before the Tithe Commutation Act, land in this country bore two-thirds of the whole burden of local taxation, and houses, factories, mills, and mines only bore a third. What is the case at the present moment? Owing to the energy and industry of the people, rateable property has been created throughout the country, and the rates upon land have gone down from an average of about 4s. in the £1 to something like 2s., and so far from land bearing two-thirds of the burden it now only pays an eighth of the whole taxation. Something has been said about the new rates which advancing civilisation has cast upon the land, but they amount to only 4d. in the £1 in the case of land, though they are 3s. 8d. in the £1 on dwelling-houses and factories.
  MR. SETON-KARR: May I ask what authority the hon. Member has for his figures?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Report of the Local Taxation Commission, issued in 1893 by the House of Commons. The owner of property whose burden has been lightened from two-thirds to one-eighth now comes to the owner of property whose burden has been increased from one-third to seven-eighths, and says, "You must relieve me again to the extent of one-half." It is said that the tithe-owner is rated upon his income, but the urban tradesman is very often rated on more than his income. Take the ease of the tradesman who paid £600 a year rent, £160 a year in taxes, and it was stated in evidence that he barely made a living. Yet he is rated on his income. The case of the urban ratepayer is much worse. The case of the parson is that of a gentleman who has got his income assured. That income is a first charge upon the whole land of the parish. His work is not too hard; he lives in very healthy surroundings, and under very pleasant conditions. But the tradesman works from eight o'clock in the morning till eight, ten, and twelve o'clock at night, the whole of his family assisting him. He is troubled with bad seasons and bad debts, and he sometimes does not make any income at all, and yet he is rated twice as much, or even more, than the rural clergyman. Anyone who scans the bankruptcy returns can see what a difference there is between the urban ratepayer and tradesman and the parson. Last year there were just sixteen clergymen against whom receiving orders were made, while there were 3,500 receiving orders against tradesmen. What does that mean? It means that in many cases the urban tradesman pays rates not only upon the whole of his income, but pays rates when he makes no income at all, and yet he is called upon to bear half the burden of these clergymen, whose average income is £450 throughout the kingdom. I do not think any case has been made out for this Bill. Quite the reverse. It is one of the worst Bills ever introduced into this House. It is a clear case of class legislation. It is what is known in bankruptcy as a "fraudulent preference," a preference of one class of creditor against another, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons, even at this last moment, ought to reconsider their decision and throw out the Bill.
  MAJOR RASCH: I must congratulate the Government upon having reached this stage of the Bill, but I am bound to say that neither my constituents nor myself have any enthusiastic admiration for the tactics which have chosen the present time for the introduction of the measure. I have the honour to hold a rather precarious seat for my Party, and I fail to understand why the Government should have introduced this Bill within what has been called "the zone of a general election." I am surprised that the Government did not deal with the question three years ago when the Agricultural Rating Bill was before the House. As they let that opportunity pass, I cannot understand why the Government should not have waited until the full Report of the Royal Commission had been presented. Right hon. Gentlemen the Members of the Government know their own business best, I suppose; but I doubt whether the game is worth the candle or whether the result will be equal to the expenditure. But as things are, from my knowledge of public feeling with regard to the Bill, I would say that if an election were contested on the subject in my part of the country, a good many of my friends and myself would be "food for powder." I have often heard of throwing a sprat to catch a whale, but I do not think that a committee of experts would ever have recommended the throwing of a whale to catch a sprat. Probably the Government know best. I do not set myself down as an expert in political meteorology. I am only an agricultural Member, whose ideas are not supposed to soar above prices of wheat or the statistics of swine fever, and therefore I hope the Government may be right and that I may be wrong. All I can do is to say that as far as I am concerned I have done my duty. I have followed them loyally into the Lobby in nearly every Division, because I believe in the principle of the measure, whatever I may think of its timeliness. I congratulate them on their courage, and I have only to hope that upon this point the Government will prove to be right and meet with the reward they deserve.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I imagine it will be the general wish of the House, assisted by the state of the thermometer, that the Debate should not be continued to

  1435
  any unreasonable length. I am conscious of the fact that I have already more than once had the opportunity of speaking to the House on this subject. But there are a few words I may say still. We have now arrived at the last stage in the career of this Bill. My hon. and gallant friend who has just sat down has given it what I suppose he would consider his parting blessing. I rise for a similar purpose. I do not know that there will be very much difference in the end, in the effect of my blessing and that of my hon. and gallant friend. But the first thing I feel compelled to do by the impression that has been made upon me by the discussions on this Bill is to acknowledge the great ability, dexterity, and adroitness with which the Minister for Agriculture has conducted the proceedings in regard to the measure. He has had a difficult task to perform. The case for the Bill was not an altogether easy one to sustain, and the right hon. Gentleman was, to our great surprise, left almost alone in the execution of his task. Until the Leader of the House came in just now he was sitting between the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, like Aaron and Hur in the case of Moses, should have been always ready to uphold his hands. But, although the Solicitor-General, than whom there is no one better qualified for making a doubtful case appear a good one, and whose name is on the back of this Bill, has sat a good deal in the House during our discussions, yet on no principal occasion, and only on some subordinate points, has he offered any assistance to the Minister for Agriculture. And this is a Bill which, the House will bear in mind, deals with taxation, with finance, and with money, and where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer until this evening during the whole of these proceedings? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not always been so reticent on the subject of this Bill, or, at any rate, on the proposal which the Bill embodies. He has spoken with great clearness and emphasis upon it on more than one occasion, and he was put forward on those occasions as the fit and proper mouthpiece of the Government. But the entire conduct of this Bill has been left to the Minister for Agriculture, and I am bound to say he has done all that any man could do single-handed to justify the position in which he found himself. The most obvious and, in fact,
  1436
  the only serious reason for this measure. is, of course, the hardship which has come upon certain of the clergy owing to the great fall in the value of the tithe and to the consequent comparative pressure of the local rates upon them. In the dawn of this Parliament the first thing that Her Majesty's Government made the House to do was to attempt to mitigate a genuine hardship of precisely the same character and arising from precisely the same cause, which was bearing upon the occupiers of agricultural land. On that occasion the remedy was found in relieving them of half the local rates, and this relief was given blindly, without any distinction, without any recognition of local circumstances, or of those great varieties which we know exist in what is known as agricultural distress. I will not inquire whether the relief went to the farmer or to the landlord. I am afraid we shall always differ on that point. But that was not a point of much importance in the eyes of the Government, because they are accustomed to regard both those classes as equally their acknowledged and. constant friends, and now they have been anxious, apparently before the shades of the Parliamentary evening fall upon us, to confer a corresponding boon upon another equally active and equally important class of their supporters—namely, the country clergymen. Accordingly, their rates are also to be relieved by one-half, equally at the cost of the public taxpayer. That is a plain statement of what has occurred. That is the policy. It is not a casual or accidental policy. It is a policy which is deliberate and of set purpose; a policy, namely, of giving pecuniary relief to certain favoured classes politically useful to the party in power, who receive the subsidy and are expected to be grateful for it, while the funds to enable this to be done are provided in such a manner as to ensure that those out of whose pockets they come should be as little as possible conscious of the contribution they are making. But that fact does not make the contribution in the least degree less real or substantial. Now, that is the policy; and I must say of it that within our recollection we have never seen it adopted by any Administration in this country until the present Government came into office. If we dive into remote history, perhaps, we should find cases of it, but few, if any, in which it has been done in so unblushing a

  1437
  manner as here; and the worst of it is we have no security that the chapter is yet closed. The special friends of the Government are not yet exhausted. There may be more to come. They have no more solid supporters than the licensed vendors of intoxicating liquor. Well, these gentlemen also could make a terrible case against the rates they have to pay. They are, most of them, in towns where nothing has been done to modify or to relieve the burden of rates in any degree. And then, before you come to the rates, they groan under the necessity of paying for licences, which of itself ought to appeal for sympathy to so soft-hearted a Government as this. But, leaving these speculations as to the future, let us consider what has happened with regard to these two cases which I have named. I leave out of consideration the question of the Church Schools Act, which gave a subvention to the denominational schools, because that was mixed up with other matters and is not precisely similar. But I note this fact, that when the farmers' grievance was in question, when the farmer was the principal person on the stage, with the landlord executing a sort of shadow dance behind him, in those days there was no attempt to blink the fact that the appeal was made to us on the pure ground of the distressful nature of his condition, owing to the fall in prices, to bad seasons, and keen competition, and it was On those grounds that he received relief. But alien we come to the clergy, although the ground of the claim is, as I have said, precisely similar, and arises from precisely the same cause, yet I do not think anybody can seriously deny that the appeal to our kindlier feelings is altogether repudiated, and what is put forward is the grievance, the injustice, of the present law of rating. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could hardly contain his indignation when we implied that mercy was the keynote of his measure. He went on stern and simple justice alone. But the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman saw, what has been pointed out by more than one speaker to-day, how unworthy and humiliating a thing it would be for a great and rich and wealthy church like the Church of England to come to this House of Parliament or to the taxpayer in formâ pauperis. And, accordingly, this question of injustice was put forward. But where is the injustice? It
  1438
  has been proved over and over again that all the parson is entitled to by law, by prescription, by theory, by immemorial usage and practice is that which remains of the tithe after the claim of the poor has been satisfied, and the rates are not charged, as is alleged, upon his income, but are charged upon the tithes before they have assumed the character of income. And as to the rates, the figures quoted by my hon. friend the Member for Carnarvon show conclusively that since the settlement of 1836, at which time the rates were amply allowed for, there has been no increase in the rates, but, on the contrary, an almost universal and considerable decrease. It is not the rates that have increased; it is the tithes that have decreased, and that is the foundation of the whole grievance. That is the real hardship, but it is a hardship which is shared by the landowner equally with the tithe-owner. It is shared by all men who have realised property, by the fund holder, and even, in a large number of cases, by members of the community engaged in business. The Government, however, hold that the law of rating is unjust. Holding that opinion, do they amend the law? No, Sir, they do not amend the law; they leave the law as it stands. And why? For this very simple reason. If they were to proceed to amend the law, the alteration in the law of rating must be made to apply to all tithes whether in clerical, collegiate, or in lay hands. The Government have no desire to confer a benefit upon the lay tithe-owner. He has done nothing for them. There has been and there will be no value received, and, therefore, they confine themselves to the simple bestowal of a gift upon their friends the clergy—a gift of half their rates, which is recouped out of the money of the general taxpayer. I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stratford-on-Avon maintain at considerable length and with great force awl evident conviction the extraordinary doctrine, with which we have been so troubled of late, that because a certain source of revenue is ear-marked for certain purposes, therefore all the people in this country who do not contribute to that revenue contribute nothing to that particular purpose. The hon. Member said it was nonsense to talk of small householders having anything to pay on this account, because it came out of the death duties. But, obviously, you cannot follow up

  1439
  money that has come from the estate duty and confine it to that particular origin. All taxes are paid into a general fund, and if this money which comes from the estate duty is diverted to the relief of the clergy, then, you may depend upon it, other money coming from other sources will be required in order to take the place of the money that is so diverted. Well, Sir, here is the triumph of these friends of the Church, the apostles of justice who sit on the Treasury Bench. The poor vicar or curate labouring, with altogether insufficient means, with unquenchable zeal and self sacrifice, and with very little praise given, in the slums of our great cities, gets nothing. We hear so much nowadays of the great strides that have been made by the Church of England, of the spirit she has shown, of the extension she has given to her good work. She has taken up a place far beyond that which she occupied forty or fifty years ago, and to her eternal credit it will be remembered of her. But where has that been? It has been in the large cities, in the centres of population, and in these crowded places. And the clergymen who labour there, and to whose zeal she owes her new position in the country receive, nothing. The poor country parson, hardly able to maintain his social position, and if he has a wife and children perhaps barely able to keep body and soul together, receives a miserable mouthful. But the rich donation and the full relief is reserved for the wealthy country clergyman, and it so happens that the wealthy country clergyman is also the most important in his political influence. I confess that a more disheartening endeavour—disheartening, I mean, to those who wish to see the tone of public life maintained in this country—to do kind things at other people's expense, to those who are the political supporters of the Government, I have never seen. I do not wish to repeat the detailed arguments that we have listened to in the course of this Debate; I content myself with this general survey. But we on this side of the House may reflect with satisfaction that we warned the Government against this Bill, that we raised our voices against it on its first introduction, that we have exposed again and again its inconsistencies, its inequalities, its meannesses, in Committee and at other stages, and we have protested by our vote against it. But now it will pass. Let it go. Let
  1440
  it pass. We can but denounce the measure as one of gross injustice, injustice as between class and class in the community; injustice as between man and man among the clergy themselves, and I would add that I make bold to say that it will deal—nay, it has already dealt—a heavy blow to the dignity, the interests, and the spiritual influence of the great Church in whose name it has been promoted.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I agree with one observation, and, so far as I am aware, with but one observation, of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and that is that the period has perhaps now arrived when the Debates on this Bill may fitly be brought to a termination. And I can assure the House that I, at all events, shall not separate it long from the final stage of this Bill. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman, as might have been expected from his previous utterances and the previous utterances of others upon his side of the House, regards this Bill as one of immense electoral advantage to his party. They are never tired of explaining what an excellent effect it has already had upon bye-elections in the past and what an excellent effect it may be expected to have upon general elections to come. But, Sir, a Bill which is thus advertised as a Bill of great electoral efficiency, I have observed, usually means a Bill which can be very easily and satisfactorily misrepresented upon public platforms by those who desire to turn it to political account. Certainly, if the speech which we have just listened to is a specimen of the speeches which are to be delivered in the future, upon occasions to which the right hon. Gentleman looks forward with so much satisfaction, misrepresentation, I imagine, can hardly reach a higher level. The whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks may be summed up in a few words. It is that this is a Bill nominally and professedly brought forward in the interests of justice, but really and truly and according to the inward verity of the situation brought forward as a bribe to certain persons who are in the habit of giving political support to Her Majesty's Government. That is his statement. It was not merely a single statement, it was the thread of the argument, or rather, I should say, the thread of the insinuation

  1441
  which ran through every phase and every sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He gave us a plain statement of what he called the set policy of the Government when he described this proposal as a simple political bonus given in return for favours received and in the hope of favours to come from the clergy. Now, Sir, I think that that is not only a very unjust view, but I think it is a view which has so little foundation that a person in the right hon. Gentleman's high position and with his high character ought not to have indulged in it even in the heat of the controversy which this Bill has aroused. He must know perfectly well that men have set their hand and seal to the doctrine which we maintain—namely, that this is an injustice which ought to be relieved—men who are wholly outside and beyond the degrading suspicion which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to throw against every man on this side. I do not quote again the honoured names of persons who do not agree with me in politics, who certainly have no favours to receive in the future from the country clergymen as they have received none in the past, and who have set their names to the Report on which this Bill is founded. And if we go back to names still further in the past, are we to be told that a doctrine which has been advocated by such men as Mr. Gladstone and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, cannot be advocated by gentlemen on this side of the House without throwing those gentlemen open to the suspicion that they are occupied in some great scheme of public and Parliamentary corruption? The right hon. Gentleman repudiates the doctrine we have put forward, when we say that this Bill is not founded upon the amount of tithe rent-charge, but is founded upon the inherent injustice of the whole system of rating of the tithe rent-charge, whether tithe rent-charge be high or whether it be low. He says we should never have heard of this grievance if tithe rent-charge had remained high. When Mr. Gladstone dealt with this matter, in words that have already been quoted, tithe rent-charge was not at 60 or 70, as it is now; it was at 103, and the arguments which satisfied him that this was a case of injustice when the tithe rent-charge was at 103 surely do not lose their weight now that tithe rent-charge has fallen to 60 or 70. The right hon. Gentleman, pursuing his line of
  1442
  attack, told us that in dealing with the clergy we had committed, as it were, a double crime—that we had, in the first place, selected the country clergy who do not require assistance, or at all events who do not carry on the great work of the Church, instead of the town clergy, and that among the country clergy we had chiefly chosen as the subjects of our ill-timed and almost corrupt benevolence, not the poor, but the rich. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that about 11,000 clergy will receive relief under this Bill, and of those 11,000 clergy 8,000 have less than £160 a year. And when he talked of rich clergy who are to be benefited by it, I would remind him that 255 persons, and 255 persons alone, among the clergy who are to be relieved under this Bill have a gross income exceeding £500 a year. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to tell us that it is in order to bribe these 255 clergy who have more than £500 a year—that it is because we are so impressed by their electoral capacity and their electoral influence—that it is to please them alone, this handful of 255 individuals in the whole length and breadth of England, that we are bringing in this Bill. That contention is so preposterous that that mere statement of figures is enough to dispose of it. As to the town clergy, I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in all that he has said with regard to the inadequate means on which many of the town clergy are carrying on their great work in the centres of population, and I wish, not only that the stipends of those clergy could be increased, but that their number could be augmented. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I wish that more funds could be devoted to that great object, though I do not suggest that a Church which has raised for such purposes seven or eight million pounds in the course of one year is a Church which deserves to be stigmatised as lacking in public spirit or niggardly in action. But we grant that, much as the clergy in the towns demand our sympathy and our assistance, it is to the members of the Church of England and not to the House of Commons, or the taxpayer or the ratepayer, that they must appeal, and I doubt not the Church will respond to that appeal. If we come to the House of Commons, it is

  1443
  not to relieve the poverty of the clergy of the Church, it is not to give them increased means of subsistence, however desirable those increased means of subsistence may be; we come to the House of Commons, and we come to Parliament because they, and they alone, are the people who have it in their power to remedy a great injustice which they have consciously or unconsciously done, and I rejoice to think that in spite of the attacks
  made upon this Bill this House at all events, I believe with the support of the country behind it, has not shown itself unequal to the task which justice has imposed on it.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 182; Noes, 117. (Division List, No. 285.)

  AYES.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Leighton, Stanley

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doughty, George

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Finch, George H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bartley, George C. T.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Gibbs, Hon A G H (City of Lond.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bethell, Commander

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Bigwood, James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Bill, Charles

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gretton, John

  Penn, John

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brassey, Albert

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Butcher, John George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carlile, William Walter

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstd.)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thomas M.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Howard, Joseph

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Charrington, Spencer

  Howell, William Tudor

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrw

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Keswick, William

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Usborne, Thomas

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Wylie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.

  Wyndham, George

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  NOES

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Evershed, Sydney

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Asher, Alexander

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Perks, Robert William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Billson, Alfred

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Birrell, Augustine

  Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Randell, David

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harwood, George

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burns, John

  Hazell, Walter

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burt, Thomas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Spicer, Albert

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Strachey, Edward

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kilbride, Denis

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)

  Colville, John

  Lambert, George

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Wallace, Robert

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lough, Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n

  MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Dewar, Arthur

  M'Ewan, William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Dillon, John

  M'Leod, John

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Woods, Samuel

  Duckworth, James

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Edwards, Owen Morgan

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Main Question put, and agreed to.—Bill read the third time, and passed.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Clause 8, as the House will remember, prohibits any persons having in their possession, or selling, or exposing for sale, margarine which which has been enriched with more than 8½ per cent. of butter. As I pointed out yesterday, the Governors of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and several poorhouse authorities, in accordance with their desire to give the poor inmates something which they consider more palatable and better than the
1446
highest grade of margarine, have issued tenders for large quantities of margarine mixture, in which they stipulate the mixture shall contain at least 20 per cent. of butter. A good many hundreds of tons are distributed annually in this way among the inmates of the various unions. There can be in this case no doubt as to adulteration. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that you could make as palatable margarine containing not more than 5 per cent. of butter fats, but the authorities I have named would hardly go to the cost of 10s. a hundredweight extra for this mixture if they could get as good and palatable an article in the shape of a cheaper and poorer grade of margarine, and the result of this clause will

1447
be to deprive these poor people of 15 of their 20 per cent. of butter. The object of the Amendment, which I move on behalf of my hon. friend the Member for Dundee, is to raise the limit of the butter fats to the same standard as is now allowed—namely, 30 per cent. The fact that boards of guardians and the county councils are inviting by tender mixtures containing 20 per cent. of butter fats, shows that they at least regard such an article as being more perfect than that which contains only 10 per cent. It is not conceivable that we have arrived at the end of the age of invention in this matter, and it is quite possible that in some half dozen years a more wholesome food may be invented, consisting of a mixture of a greater amount of butter with margarine than I now propose; but such a thing will be prevented if this Clause 8 is not amended. Some chemists have already discovered a method of propagating the microbe which gives off the butter acids in a particular emulsion, and there is no reason why those chemists should not succeed in making butter by a purely scientific profess.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 17, to leave oat the word 'ten,' and insert the word 'thirty'—(Sir Charles Cameron)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Bill."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I hope the House will not accept the Amendment, for reasons very much the same as I gave yesterday dealing with the justification of the clause as a whole. Beyond those reasons which were directed to the merits of the question itself may I say that the figure in the Bill of 10 per cent. is justified as a reasonable compromise between the demand on the one hand to limit the mixture to 5 per cent. and the proposal now made. It is a compromise based on the advice and opinion of expert know-ledge. I set up no opinion of my own. There is undoubtedly a very large demand for genuine margarine, and this article of the best quality can be produced with 3 or 4 per cent. of butter fat; therefore this proposed extension is not required to secure margarine of good quality. There is also a
1448
demand for genuine butter, and it is against the illegal mixture of the two with the intention of deceiving purchasers that Clause 8 is directed. The supply of margarine at margarine price will not be interfered with. If the condition is to be a fair one, which can be easily worked so that manufacturers may keep within the law, there must be a reasonable margin and then the law will not be oppressive. The limitation proposed will prevent fraudulent sale and make it not only possible but easy in every way for the manufacturer to produce the best article he can and put it on the market at the price it ought to command.
MR. KILBRIDEsupported the limit of 10 per cent., and expressed surprise that the right hon. Member for Bridgeton, having regard to the views he expressed, had not attempted to repeal the Margarine Act altogether. After a Parliamentary experience of twelve years it was only now that the right hon. Member for Bridgeton was struck by the fact that it was a proper thing to allow mixtures of margarine and butter to be sold as a mixture. He advocated that principle now in the interest of the paupers. He did not agree with the right hon. Member, and if the Government would not make the limit of butter fats allowed in margarine less than 10 per cent. he would have to accept that limit.
MR. LOUGH: The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to have misunderstood the point of the clause. All that the Act of 1887 did was to say that whatever proportion of butter was put into margarine the margarine must be sold as margarine. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has been so unyielding with regard to this matter, and perhaps even now he would make some compromise. The Amendment asks for 30 per cent.; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept that percentage which the county councils, require when they invite tenders—namely, 20 per cent. In my opinion the Amendment is a reasonable one, and having regard to the fact that contracts are now running for the supply of margarine with 30 per cent. of butter, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to accept it.
MR. JEFFREYS: We on this side of the House hope that if the Government do anything at all it will lower the limit to less than 10 per cent. The effect of giving a higher limit would entirely frustrate the object of the Bill. That the London County Council adopted a mixture of 20 per cent. of butter was, I suppose, due to their ignorance, because in countries where margarine is made to the greatest extent, in many cases the admixture of butter is prohibited altogether, and not allowed to be sold at all.
MR. BRYCEsaid he was not much moved by the practice in other countries, where the economic conditions might not be analogous to those of this country. It appeared to him that the only question to be dealt with was whether there should be a little more or a little less butter in the margarine, and the best way to settle that matter would be to have a few samples in the Tea Room, when they might be able to decide which was the better article of food.
DR. CLARKsaid he should support the Amendment, for the
reason that the clause as it stood would interfere with the contracts which were running.
MR. PICKERSGILL: Before you put the question, Sir, I think we are entitled to an answer from the Law Officer of the Crown as to the manner in which the contracts will be affected if this Amendment is not carried.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I should like to associate myself with the remark of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I think we ought to have sonic answer from the Solicitor-General as to this.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): No single case has been stated of a contract which will extend over January 1st, 1900, and this Bill is not to come into force until that date.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 48. (Division List, No. 286.)

AYES.

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hogan, James Francis

Bailey, James (Walworth.)

Curzon, Viscount

Howard, Joseph

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Howell, William Tudor

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Dillon, John

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Hen. Cecil

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Donelan, Captain A.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Doogan, P. C.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Johnstone, Heywood (Susex)

Bethell, Commander

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Keswick, William

Biddulph, Michael

Finch, George H.

Kilbride, Denis

Bigwood, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Knowles, Lees

Bill, Charles

Fisher, William Hayes

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Bousfield, William Robert

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

Burns, John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macaleese, Daniel

Butcher, John George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Carlisle, William Walter

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Macdona, John Cumming

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo"s

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Maclure, Sir John William

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Charrington, Spencer

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milward, Colonel Victor

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harwood, George

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Henderson, Alexander

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur, H. A. (Deptford

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Nicholson, William Graham

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L)

Pierpoint, Robert

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

Purvis, Robert

Sidebottom,William (Derbysh.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Randell, David

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Rankin, Sir James

Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Wylie, Alexander

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wyndham, George

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Strachey, Edward

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Thornton, Percy M.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Valentia, Viscount

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

NOES.

Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

Fenwick, Charles

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Bartley, George C. T.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Souttar, Robinson

Billson, Alfred

Hazell, Walter

Spicer, Albert

Bond, Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Stanhope, Hon. P. J.

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Brunner, Sir John T.

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Burt, Thomas

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Ure, Alexander

Caldwell, James

Lough, Thomas

Wallace, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

M'Killop, James

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Maddison, Fred.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Clough, Walter Owen

Maden, John Henry

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Yoxall, James Henry

Dalziel, James Henry

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Davitt, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Colville.

Dewar, Arthur

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. BARTLEY: The Amendment which I propose is a protection to really honest tradesmen. The clause now makes it a crime to sell this material as margarine if it contains more than 10 per cent. of butter. I cannot see why people should not have margarine in any way they like, provided they know they are buying it. If the small dealer buys this material honestly believing that it contains 10 per cent. or less of butter, and if by any accident it turns out to contain more than 10 per cent. of butter, he is liable to be punished in a very severe manner. The Amendment I propose is that if he buys this article as bonâ fide margarine containing more than the prescribed quantity of butter, if he can prove that he bought it believing it to be what it professed to be, he shall not be liable. The words I propose are taken from the Margarine Act, and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government should refuse to accept these words. We are making drastic laws by which we hope to prevent fraud, but surely it is a new departure altogether that a man honestly carrying on his business and taking every conceivable precaution should be punished, when he is not the real offender, and when he can prove
1452
conclusively that he is not in any way to blame. That seems an extraordinary state of things for a new law to create, and it is contrary to the spirit of justice in every sense. The only alternative would be that every small trader would have to have this material analysed himself, for although the invoice may state that the material comes within the law, if it is proved outside the law, the man who has taken all these precautions will be liable to punishment. I was given to understand that the Government would accept this as a reasonable Amendment, but now it appears that they think this is not right, although I cannot for the life of me see why we should have this drastic law, and not be satisfied with the punishment of the real criminal, but go on punishing a man who is carrying on a legitimate business in the best possible way he can. I am as strong as anyone in my desire to put a stop to fraud, but by this proposal of the Government we are harassing the small tradesmen in a most unreasonable manner. The large tradesman can look after himself, and it would pay him to have this material analysed; but to suppose that a man in a small way of business could bear the expense of having everything

1453
analysed seems to me to be a most unreasonable thing. I urge that these words should be inserted to protect tradesmen who are honestly carrying on their business, for my proposal does not protect any man who cannot show that he has taken every reasonable precaution. If a tradesman can prove to the satisfaction of the court that he has taken every reasonable precaution, and that his offence is entirely due to the misstatements of those persons from whom he buys the goods, it seems to me that he should not be liable. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 21, to leave out from '1887' to end of clause, and insert the words 'unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court before whom he is charged that he purchased the article in question as margarine, containing not more than 10 per cent. of butter fat, and with a written warranty or invoice to that effect; that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the article was other than margarine containing not more than ten per cent. of butter fat; and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it; and in such case he shall be discharged from the prosecution, but shall be liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecutor unless he shall have given due notice to him that he will rely upon the above defence.'"—(Mr. Bartley.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the
Bill."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member that this Bill, as drawn, meets all the ordinary cases which he is anxious to provide for, and that the Amendment will not provide for the ordinary cases, but only for cases which very rarely indeed occur, and would exclude what my hon. friend desires to be done in the ordinary cases. The section provides that it is no longer possible to sell margarine under a certain standard, but it also includes Section 7 of the Margarine Act. My hon. friend proposes to strike that out altogether, and proposes to provide only for the case of the tradesman who has bought the article as margarine. I would point out to my hon. friend that that is almost an impossible case. The case we have to deal with is one where the wholesale dealer has fraudulently sent to the tradesman as butter an article which is really a mixture
1454
of margarine and butter. My hon. friend has really left out the case that will frequently occur, and has provided for an almost impossible case. If my hon. friend can show me that there is any reasonable probability that such cases may occur, we will consider the advisability of dealing with the matter in another place.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I agree with the Solicitor-General as to the general effect of this Amendment and the non-necessity for it. The clause provides that any offence under Section 7 of the Margarine Act will be an offence under this Act. I desire to point out that you cannot regulate exactly this percentage, for it must of necessity depend upon the richness of the milk and the season at which the margarine is made. I have no doubt it will not be in the interests of margarine manufacturers to sell a higher mixture of butter than is stipulated for, for it is nearly always the person who invites tenders who stipulates that the margarine shall contain a certain percentage of butter. Then, again, analysts are not infallible; and organic analysis, especially as to fat, is not a science of mathematical precision. Everything has to be estimated, and unless you allow some margin you may have cases of very great injustice. In regard to the adulteration of coffee and chicory, I remember that a mixture of ten per cent. of coffee and chicory was subjected to analysis by several analysts, and not one of them gave the correct proportions. In analysing margarine, it is a matter of estimation as to the amount of fat, and this varies at different seasons, and unless you have some proviso to protect the innocent seller against a vicious prosecution through faulty analyses I think a very grave injustice will be done.
MR. WARNER: There seems to me to be a grievance in this matter, and I think we ought to allow a little margin. I hope the Solicitor-General will consult the right hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, and make some proposition in another place which will meet this case, because it may prove a very serious thing for the small trader who cannot afford to have all his goods analysed, and who may get into trouble through no fault of his own.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: It is already provided that the word "margarine" must be placed on the article when it is being sold, and the wrappers in which it is sold also have to have the word "margarine" printed on them. Therefore, if the terms of the old Margarine Act are applied there is no possibility of fraud being practised. I desire to prevent the provisions of this Act being put aside so far as they are a protection to the seller. It is a well known fact that poor people have their pride as well as the rich. A poor woman will not go into a shop and ask for a pound of margarine, but she will generally ask for "a pound of sixpenny," or a pound of "that," and will point to the article she requires. If an inspector comes into the shop anxious to secure a conviction he will ask for a pound of sixpenny butter, and the sixpenny is handed out to him in the paper labelled "margarine." It is proposed to make the third conviction punishable by imprisonment, but if the prosecutions are under the Margarine Act there might be no third conviction of an employer, for in every one of the three cases the offence might be brought home to the offending individual; while if the same cases were taken under the Food and Drugs Acts they would count up against the employer, who might know nothing whatever about the transaction, and he would be liable to treatment as a criminal, subject to three months' imprisonment. I was told in Committee that the Margarine Act is not an adulteration Act, but now it is proposed to prevent an article being sold for what it is not. It appears to me that when all the requirements of the Margarine Act have been complied with there can be no pretence of any fraud, because even if an illiterate sees those large letters, all he or she has to do is to say, "I asked for butter and you have given me margarine." If the intention of this Act is to inflict punishment in the case of technical quibbles where there can be no intention to defraud, and where the nature of the article sold is openly declared, I think it is a gross injustice against which tradesmen have a right to protest. I beg to move:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 24, after the word 'accordingly,' to insert the words, 'Provided always,
1456
that in any prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act for the fraudulent or illegal sale of margarine, or any compound thereof, it shall be a good defence to prove that the requirements of the Margarine Act, 1887, as amended by this Act, had been complied with.'"—Sir C. Cameron.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: This section which the hon. Baronet proposes to add is a section dealing only with the case of the manufacture and sale of margarine containing more than 10 per cent. of butter fat, and should have been proposed as an Amendment to a previous clause.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I put it down as a separate new clause, but Mr. Speaker ruled it out of order.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: My hon. friend has got it down as a proviso dealing with a limited class of cases. Under his proposal the fraudulent seller could get off by showing that he had fixed a label or used a wrapper such as is mentioned in the Margarine Act. Suppose a poor person comes in and asks for butter, and is supplied with margarine at the price of butter, according to this proposal that shopkeeper will get off if he can show there is a wrapper upon it complying with the Margarine Act. Surely if it is established that the article sold is different from that for which the purchaser asks, and if the purchaser did not know that he was getting something totally different, the shopkeeper should not be able to get off by showing that the word "margarine" was printed upon the label.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Another Amendment made.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: The object of the Amendment which I have on the Paper is, as the House is well aware, to deal with a great quantity of condensed milk which finds its way into the market, and which is a very valuable and useful product, and is

1457
heavily bought by the poorer portions of the community, who are strongly desirous of bringing up their children on milk. It contains all the essential properties of good milk, and is very popular from the very convenient form in which it is sold. I know from experience that it is a very useful and palatable food on which to bring up children. This has led to imitations of the commonest form, from which all the essential parts are taken away which are most necessary and most valuable for the health of the children. Instead of containing at least 3 per cent. of fatty matter, as good and proper milk should contain, this contains something less than 1 per cent. Putting it in another way, to get the same quantity of fat contained in good, sound fresh milk, you would have to put in sixteen pints of water. Imagine the result of that—the unhappy town infant getting this separated milk under the impression that it is sound and fresh, and then having to take not a double magnum, but sixteen pints. From experience of skimmed milk as well as fresh milk, I say that no sensible person would dream of bringing up the offspring of animals on it. They would not give separated milk to calves or young pigs without something else to help them along. It is a cruel thing that this should be thrown broadcast upon children, especially in our large towns, without a single word of warning to the poorest to prevent them knowing that this is not a food fit for young children. The very words which the section proposes to have put in the Bill, "separated milk or skimmed milk," are somewhat attractive and likely to deceive ignorant people. The words "separated milk" indicate to the minds of the purchaser that it is something particularly good and worth having, and when besides that it is sold at a cheaper rate than condensed milk the real danger comes in, and the real risk of innutritious and unwholesome food being given to the child and the consequent danger to the child's health. This is no imaginary case. The matter has been under the consideration of public authorities, and a large number of urban district councils are in favour of some such words as the Amendment suggests being inserted. The Report of a Committee of the House which has considered the matter suggests that all tins containing such milk should be required to bear
1458
labels, on which the words "skimmed milk" are printed in large legible type. This has been adopted in the Bill, but it does not go far enough. The Report goes on to say that an additional notification should be printed that such milk is not suitable for purposes of feeding young children. I entirely agree with this recommendation for I believe that the President of the Board of Agriculture is thoroughly aware of the mischief which arises from the sale of this product unchecked, and without its being brought to the notice of the purchaser what the real risk is. He has gone so far as to say the label must be printed on every one of the tins, showing the words "separated or skimmed milk." I ask him to go a little further in the interests of humanity, and make this a better Bill, and bring to the mind of the purchaser what I think is necessary, that these poor, ignorant people should be reminded that this condensed skimmed and separated milk is not fit for the food of infants.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 39, to insert the words after 'type,' with a statement that such milk is not suited for the food of infant children."—(Mr. J. H. Johnstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LONG: I do hope that my hon. friend will not think it necessory to press this Amendment for reasons which I will very shortly give. He has stated quite accurately that I am aware of the fact that a great deal of mischief is done by giving food of tins kind to young children. I should be very glad indeed if I could see my way in a Bill of this kind to check a system of that sort, but I would point out to my hon. friend, in the first place, that his Amendment world not have the effect he desires, while it would have a disadvantageous effect with regard to the use of these labels. What we want is that there should be a proper descriptive name upon certain articles when they are sold, and if the label which carries that description is to be of any real value, that description must be of the briefest possible kind, in order that

1459
it may be perfectly clear. Many of the tins in which these articles are sold are very small, and there is very little room upon them to put anything in the way of a caution or explanation such as that suggested which will be easily seen But if you add to the actual description of the article certain precautionary words of advice, it will only tend to obscure the other description without gaining the result which you seek. After all, what would be the result of putting words like this on the labels? I am very much afraid from such inquiries as I have been able to make that the knowledge which my hon. friends seek to impart is already in possession of most of the people who use this particular article. I am afraid also that it would not in any way deter the use of this article by simply putting those words on the label. How far it may be desirable to interfere with the right of individuals to buy what they think best for their purpose, and which they demand is another matter, but I am sure in a case like this it would be undesirable to do what my hon. friend has proposed. I do not think that the House of Commons ought to make itself responsible for words of this kind unless the House is absolutely sure that a declaration of that kind can be made and relied upon. I am informed that while by itself this kind of milk is an undesirable form of food, if the deficiencies are made up, as they can be, then it is not an undesirable form of food. I think what we have proposed carries us as far as we ought to go, and I submit that even if the words suggested were adopted they would not achieve the object in view. Under the circumstances I hope my hon. friend will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a division.
In reply to Mr. TOMLINSON (Preston),
SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid: I think the expression "separated" or "skimmed milk" will very soon get to be thoroughly understood by everyone, and I do think human ingenuity can invent any one word which will adequately convey this information.
MR. WARNER: Separated, or skim milk, may be very wholesome and nourishing, but it is not a right food for
1460
infants, because it lacks the butter fat. This is an Amendment that ought to be considered. A double name is put on a medicine bottle when there is poison in it—the word "poison," as well as the name of the medicine. Now, this substance is practically a poison to infants, and the House of Commons ought to protect them from being poisoned. Hon. Gentlemen who look upon this matter from the farmer point of view do not see its importance. I consider this one of the most important Amendments on the Bill yet submitted. I can understand that there are objections to the size of the label put on a tin, but nobody would say that the word "poison" should be left out because the tin is small. Milk is generally understood to be a proper food for children, and people buy this stuff because they think it is milk. It is not real milk, since it does not contain butter fat.
MR. MADDISON: I have supported this Bill so far as I have thought it protected the public health, but I am surprised to find that when an Amendment is made which is directed to prevent the suffering and death of infants, the right hon. Gentleman should tell us that if these words are put on the label this milk would he bought more largely than it is. If that means anything it means that the wives of working men, who principally use this milk, intend to kill their children by administering to them this milk. That is a severe indictment.
MR. LONG: I never suggested anything of the kind; that is a gross misinterpretation of my words. What I said was, that the words suggested by my hon. friend would not have the effect he desired; and I said that I believed the people who buy this milk know perfectly well that it is not the best food for infants, and if they could afford a better food for their children they would not buy this milk.
MR. MADDISON: Of course I do not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but his explanation amounts to the same thing. ("No, no.") What is the object of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment? He made it perfectly

1461
clear that it was to stop the sale of this milk for infants, and to warn parents against its use. The right hon. Gentleman says it will not have this effect, and that if persons buy milk bearing the label, "This milk is not for infants," they must buy it with very doubtful motives for their children. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to protect the health of the people? The very serious and appalling effects which follow the use of this milk have been pointed out, and all that the right hon. Gentleman says is that the true description of the article would take up too much room on the label. The Amendment is a rational one; it will not interfere with ordinary trading, and is directed to save infantile life; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will press it to a Division. I wish to ask the Solicitor-General, on behalf of the Health Committee of the Sheffield Town Council, whether the phrase "Condensed milk" would legally apply to preserved milk.
MR. BARTLEY: We have just settled to make it a criminal offence to put more butter into margarine, thereby making it better margarine than before. The hon. Gentleman asks that the label should really describe what is contained in the tin, and the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept that Amendment. Surely it would be much more logical to say that this separated milk should not be sold for children than that margarine should not be sold because it was improved by the addition of butter. I am anxious that this Bill should be passed in the interest of justice and fairplay, but it seems to me, if we are going into these extraordinary anomalies, it would be better not to have the Bill at all.
MR. STRACHEY: The effect of this Amendment of the hon. Member for Sussex will be that people who buy this milk will do so with their eyes open. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman says it will not have the slightest effect at all. We know that these things are bought by the poor, who think they are all right. When they buy a tin marked "Condensed Milk," they are not aware that it is only skim milk. This is not a purely agricultural question. Medical evidence has proved that large numbers of children
1462
have been poisoned owing to the fact that they were fed on this stuff, which is not milk at all, but merely chalk and water. I most ardently support the Amendment.
MR. HOBHOUSE: Many of us do not altogether agree with the terms of the Amendment, but I would ask my right hon. friend whether he would repeat the undertaking now which he gave on a former occasion, that he would consider this question.
MR. LONG: I did say I would do my best to find words which would convey the warning we all desire to convey. I will do my best to find such words. Some of my hon. friends tell me that they do not despair of finding words which would convey the necessary information. If they can assist me, nothing would give me more pleasure than to insert such words between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So long as the House was dealing with the clauses relating to margarine and butter I did not feel myself called upon to take any part in the discussion, because I believe that both margarine and butter are excellent things, and if a man got one instead of the other he might be swindled, but he would not be ruined in health. But now we are dealing with a matter which means ruin to the health of the most helpless part of the community; this milk, bad milk, would certainly have most dangerous effects if given to children. I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman not to proceed in the way he appears to be going, for the sake of being too pedantic about the words which should be used. All the galaxy of talent he has around him has apparently been brought into play in order to find words which would express the desired warning. My hon. friend below the gangway has some words on the Paper, but they are supposed to be objectionable.
MR. LONG: The reason is that the labels are very small, and if, in addition to the words describing the article, we, were to add a sentence of this kind, the label would become obscured and practically worthless.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot believe that there are any practical difficulties in the way of putting words on the label, however small, which would tell the people who buy this article for the purpose of giving it to children what they are buying. If they buy skim milk, let them know by written words on the tin, or vessel, that it is skim milk. I only press on the right hon. Gentleman not to be too fastidious. Even if the label is small it would hold words enough to express all that we desire to express.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR; My hon. friend would be satisfied if the label contained the words, "Not suitable for infant children." All that this Amendment commits the House to is the principle that the label should contain a warning that this food is unfit for infant children. The right hon. Gentleman I am very glad to say has accepted the principle of the Amendment, and I would ask him that he should accept the Amendment as it stands.
MR. KEARLEY: The whole point is that poor people buy this skim milk without knowing that it has been skimmed, and they use it to feed their infants. Now I have an Amendment on the Paper which I think would meet the case, that on each label there should be these words, "This milk should not be used as food for infants." Could anything be simpler than that?
MR. BARTLEY: May I suggest "Bad for babies"?
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: All that we want is a statement that the milk is not fit for the food of infant children.
MR. HEMPHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the word "Infanticide"? That would consort with brevity, which we are told always commends itself to this House. Poor people who buy this milk do not understand what is meant by "separated milk."
MR. LOUGH: I want to say a word in assistance of the Government. I really think that having got an assurance from
1464
the right hon. Gentleman, with the approbation of the Leader of the Opposition, he would consider this matter; we are wasting our time in trying to devise the exact form of a label. I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw this particular Amendment.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: After the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
MR. DAVITT: I have some hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my Amendment. I think I am right in saying that he undertook when the Bill was upstairs to consider whether some modification of the extreme penalty enacted in Sub-section 2 should not be considered between that period and the Report stage of the Bill. I contend that this sub-section imposes a punishment which is an outrage upon the most elementary ideas of justice. The clause says:
"Where, under any provision of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine which may extend to £20, he shall be liable for a second offence under the same provisions to a fine not exceeding £50, and for any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £100."
Now a fine of £100 is surely a most deterrent punishment in itself, but we have to consider also the disgrace of a conviction in open court along with the infliction of this fine. Then there is the injury done to the business and credit of the offender in being condemned before the public and before his own customers, and surely these are matters that ought to be considered when we are contemplating punishment under this clause. This consequential penalty is not considered in the clause at all, but it must enter into the element of justice in our consideration of the clause and its effect. For a third offence a person may be sent to prison for negligence for a period of three months. I maintain that that is a very outrageous punishment. Surely it is as unreasonable as it is unjust to send a man to undergo the terrible disgrace of imprisonment for

1465
an act of negligence. I contend that no person is made honest by being sent to prison; on the contrary, it very often happens that the opposite result is the effect, and I feel so strongly on this point that I shall divide the House upon it unless I receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he will accept my Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 36, to leave nut sub-section 2 of Clause 16."—(Mr. Davitt.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'negligence,' in line 39, stand part of the Bill."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: The hon. Member must be aware that this clause was not in the Bill as it originally stood, but was introduced in Committee in consequence of the strong feeling that was evinced that in the case of a third offence, due to the personal act, default, or negligence of the person charged, there should be some power given to the court beyond that of inflicting a fine. The House will observe that the sub-section is carefully guarded. Not only is it subject to the limitation I have pointed out, but the punishment of imprisonment does not necessarily follow. All that is given is power to inflict imprisonment if the court is of opinion that a fine will not meet the case.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I find myself bound to support my hon. friend the Member for South Mayo in proposing the omission of this sub-section. I have two reasons for doing so. In the first place, I do not think the Solicitor-General has attached sufficient importance to the main point of my hon. friend—namely, that in addition to the fine which is imposed upon a firm for a breach of the provisions of this Act there is added the enormous additional sentence of public disrepute. If you were to go to one of these large firms and ask them to choose between a fine of £1,000 and exposure in all the papers of the country for an offence under this Act, it would be found that there is not one large firm which would not willingly
1466
prefer to pay £2,000, or even £3,000. That is my first reason for supporting the Amendment. I now come to my second reason. These large firms have a very large number of employees under their control, and a very large number of places of business. Take a firm like Lipton's, for instance. This is a firm, I suppose, which can count its shops by the hundred, and its employees by the thousand. We know that in a large business like this there are men of all kinds of character. I am glad to think that the majority of them are men of good character, desirous of doing their duty by their employers; but in a large body like this there must necessarily be men who are not honest, who are extremely malignant, and who, for good reasons or bad, bear a great deal of animosity against their employers, animosity which only wants an opportunity to be brought out. We know that in the great firm of Whiteley there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst some section of the employees, with the result that several times in quick succession a portion of the premises was burnt down, and I believe I am correct in saying that no insurance office in the country could be persuaded to insure the premises of this firm, because it had been discovered that there was so much ill-feeling against the firm that the premises were always liable to incendiarism on the part of some of the employees. Anybody who has been in the position of having a large number of servants in his employ must know that he is constantly made responsible for acts for which he has no responsibility except of a purely technical character. I have frequently had to pay many hundreds and sometimes many thousands of pounds in consequence of the publication in newspapers with winch I was associated of paragraphs or articles of which I not only did not approve but most strongly disapproved, but which were inserted in my absence. After all, however, the number of persons employed in newspaper offices is small compared with the number of persons employed in large businesses all over the country. I am quite sure that, with all the safeguards in the sub-section, it would open the way to malignant vindictiveness on the part of some sections of employees towards the large firms of which I have spoken. I think the imposition of these cumulative penalties, with the far greater and more

1467
damaging penalty of exposure in the newspapers, is quite sufficiently vindictive without adding imprisonment to the sentence.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I rise to support the Amendment, and I do so not merely for the reasons mentioned by previous speakers, but because the sub-section would put to prison one man for the offence of another. The right hon. Gentleman said that the offence is for the personal act, default, or negligence of the individual charged. Well, it is rather a large order to give a man three months' imprisonment for personal negligence unless it is culpable negligence. Adulteration injurious to health is already punishable by imprisonment under the Adulteration Act of 1875, and I submit that it is not necessary to have any new penalties for that offence. Where a man is not personally responsible he should not be made criminally liable for the acts of others.
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I must express my astonishment at the hopelessly undemocratic nature of the sentiments of the hon. Member for South Mayo, who, in moving his Amendment, showed such a great desire to protect the great distributors. There can be no question of negligence whereby the conditions suppose that a man for the third time commits the same offence. Everybody who has had experience of the administration of the law knows that in a great number of cases there is the greatest difficulty in getting the court to impose a maximum fine. There is only one way of dealing with a case such as this, and that is to place on the Statute Book some clear indication that there are cases in which the court of summary jurisdiction call do something beyond imposing a fine, and deal with the rich tradesman who would rather pay £1,000 than go to prison.
MR. LOUGHthought the House ought not to go to the extreme length suggested in Section 2. Too severe penalties defeated their own object. Some of the crimes, moreover, were very slight. For instance, they actually proposed to make it possible to commit a man to prison for improving
1468
the quality of food. To leave it to the discretion of a judge or magistrate to put people into prison for the offences specified in the Act was, he thought, a very strong order indeed, and one which they should hesitate before adopting. It was all very well to say that these "crimes" could not be committed without personal knowledge, but a dozen could be committed without the person directly responsible knowing anything about it. He therefore hoped hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side would try to induce the Government to reconsider this matter.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsupported the sub-section, as he was very anxious that the public should be protected. The clause already protected the honest trader as much as any clause possibly could. The magistrate ought to ask himself: "What is the use of inflicting a fine? The defendant simply snaps his fingers at it."
MR. ROBSON: This Amendment is certainly one of the most important proposals laid before the House in connection with this Bill. There is a well-defined principle in criminal jurisprudence which relegates all questions of negligence to the civil courts and all questions of criminal intent to the criminal courts. This clause proposes to obscure that distinction and to make questions of negligence strictly and entirely criminal offences. I know it is said "But it is not for the first offence that the negligent person is to be made liable for imprisonment; three acts of negligence must be recorded against him before he is made liable for hard labour." Three acts of negligence in a business in which there may be hundreds of transactions a day or hour! There are very few traders indeed who are not in some measure careless.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!
MR. ROBSON: An hon. Member says "Oh." All I can say is, that anyone who is suprised at the carelessness of the trader knows but little of trading. There is nothing more simple and easy than carelessness both in manufacturing and trading operations. Increase the amount

1469
of the fine if you like, and make the penalty large enough to absorb the whole of the profit which the adulterating trader is said to make, but do not make carelessness criminal. To make criminal the carelessness of the trader is, I venture to say, an outrageous proposal. I have been accustomed to many constitutional innovations in the sphere of criminal jurisprudence, but none more startling than this. The probability is, however, that the clause wilt defeat its own purpose. You will not get magistrates, when a fellow-creature is threatened with loss of character and life-long disgrace, to inflict this extreme and altogether inappropriate penalty. It is a disgrace to put such a clause upon the Statute Book. It is not usual, either in this country or any other, to make negligence a crime. I should like to know from what law the hon. and learned Member borrows the proposition that three acts of negligence should be equal to one crime. What a remarkable legal equation this is! I fail to see that any number of acts of negligence however great, however serious, and however properly punished by extreme penalties, can be made equal to the smallest crime. I might reasonably have expected to see the Solicitor-General defending criminal jurisprudence instead of becoming a party with the Minister for Agriculture to such a remarkable observation of the law. It is not, moreover, easy to see on the face of the clause what are the precise offences to be punished. I have looked into the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875. That Act makes punishable certain offences with fines, and provides that the offenders shall be punished by imprisonment, but it makes one very important exception which is lacking in this Act. By Section 6 of the Act of 1875 it is provided that the penal section—i.e., the section inflicting criminal punishment—shall not apply if it be shown that there is an absence of knowledge on the part of the person accused. In that Act you have the very safeguard for which we are contending in this Act. It would have been much simpler if in looking to the Act of 1875 in order to strengthen the existing penalties the draughtsman had picked out from that Act the precise offences to which this new penalty is intended to apply. That, however, is a matter of detail. I have risen more especially to draw the atten-
1470
tion of the House to Sub-section 2 of Clause 16, which is far more important than the questions of margarine and condensed milk, and I hope the Conservative instinct of hon. Members on the opposite side will be aroused against the alteration of the law as proposed in this sub-section.
MR. GRANT LAWSON: I think my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down cannot practise very much in the criminal courts, otherwise he would have known that negligence is already a crime. Let a father or mother neglect their child, and see whether they do not fall under the Acts for the Protection of Children. I think my hon. and learned friend has not read the sub-section with great care. He said that a man might be sent to prison if on three occasions he allowed one of his employees to be guilty of negligence. That penalty, however, is only to be imposed if, in the opinion of the court, a fine does not meet the necessities of the case. I have great confidence in the way in which the law is administered in this country, and I do not think that a man would be sent to prison for some trifling neglect on the part of his employee. In some cases men make such profits by the sale of margarine and butter that they do not care for fines.
MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield attributed to my hon. friend the Member for South Mayo a desire to shield the great distributors. For my part I have no desire, in supporting the Amendment, to protect the great distributors. The great distributors are very well able to take care of themselves. They always have the best legal advice, and it is not with any desire to stand between them and the law that I am supporting this Amendment. I am looking at the matter from the point of view of the small trader, in comparison with whom the large distributor will be in a position of great advantage. In the first place, may I point out that it will always be possible for the great distributor, the man who has an abundance of funds at his back, to appeal from the conviction of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to Quarter Sessions, whereas a poor man, although technically having the same right, will practically be excluded from

1471
taking full advantage of the law? It is difficult to ascertain, upon the spur of the moment, what will be the precise effect of this very drastic provision, but I believe that any man who sold for the third time margarine containing more than 10 per cent. of butter would be liable to imprisonment for three months. It is said, of course, on the other side, that we must rely upon the discretion of the court. We have been told that the section is carefully guarded, and it is perfectly true that the section says that imprisonment must only be awarded if the court is of opinion that a fine will not meet the necessities of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman who preceded me said that we have confidence in the administration of justice. Admitting, and admitting as I do most cordially, that the public have confidence, as a rule, in the way in which justice is administered in this country, can we feel confidence in this particular case? I hope I am not saying anything which may give reasonable offence to the House, but a great deal of very strong feeling has been exhibited in relation to the offences with which this Bill will deal, and the justices who, in their discretion, will have to award imprisonment are drawn precisely from that class of society from which gentlemen are drawn who sit on that side of the House. Admitting, therefore, in general that we may fairly rely on the just administration of the law, I must say there is some reason to fear that prejudice may enter into the administration of this Act. I should like to ask a question which might change my attitude towards this portion of the Bill. Would the Government be willing to accept the Amendment, which stands later on the Paper, giving to the offender who, if convicted, would be liable to imprisonment, the right to demand trial by jury? If that concession were made by the Government it would certainly alter my attitude towards this clause, and I think before we vote upon it we have a right to know at what decision the Government have arrived in regard to it.
MR. LONG: The Government cannot accept the Amendment to which the hon. Member refers, because it would alter the general law. It is not the case that these proposals represent a new departure in legislation. There is more than one
1472
precedent for it. Even the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member could not draw a distinction between the section of an Act which gives the court the right to impose six months' imprisonment without the option of a fine, where the offence is one for exposing and offering for sale articles unfit for food, or fruit unfit for consumption. It not only gives the court power, without the option of a fine, to impose imprisonment for six months for the sale of unsound meat or unsound fruit, but the London Public Health Act of 1891 says that punishment may be inflicted for the first offence.
MR. ROBSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is no distinction between the case of exposing meat unfit for human consumption where the person charged knows it is to be such, and the offences under this Bill?
MR. LONG: I am astonished at the hon. and learned Member's question. Even in the course of the past week there has been a notorious case mentioned in the newspapers, in which a defendant was charged with this offence, and in which he pleaded that he was not only not a party to the transaction, but that one of his own servants brought the matter under the notice of the officer of health. In the phraseology of the clause there is every protection for the honest trader or for the unfortunate man charged without being personally negligent or guilty. The clause was inserted in the Grand Committee in consequence of the almost unanimous opinion expressed during the debate on the Second Reading.
MR. SEELY: I think the question of sending a man to prison is much too serious a question to be discussed with any feeling on either side of the House. I should be glad if Her Majesty's Government could see their way to take out this clause, which they did not themselves think wise to insert, but which was inserted by the Grand Committee, a body which I cannot acknowledge thoroughly represented the views of the House of Commons. I have no wish to defend in any way the big trader, who has 500 or 600 shops—he is a man who is perfectly able to take care

1473
of himself—but I think we ought to consider the question of the small trader, who often cannot obtain good legal advice, and is a somewhat ignorant person. He is, however, very valuable in the country. He does a great part of our local work, and we ought to protect him from any injustice. I consider we are running the risk of inflicting upon this class of the community, against whom there is a considerable amount of vague prejudice, which, I am certain, is far from being justified, a very serious and grave injury. I would, therefore, ask Her Majesty's Government to consider carefully whether they cannot strike out of the Act the words which they themselves did not wish to see inserted.
MR. J. A. PEASE: It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government have made out no case for the insertion of this provision. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that they had abundant evidence upstairs to justify the course which they are now pursuing. I have listened carefully to this Debate, and I have heard no evidence whatever to justify such a clause as is now proposed being carried into law. I have had sonic little experience in administering the Food and Drugs Act for the last eleven years, having served upon a committee in one of the most populous counties of the country, and I do not call to mind a single case where any individual has ever been found guilty of an offence on two or three occasions. There are, however, occasionally cases where a repeated offence occurs of a publican watering spirits. But to send a man to gaol for three months, as is proposed in this sub-section, is a penalty altogether inappropriate to the offence. If a case did occur in which an individual adulterated an article on three different occasions, I feel quite sure that public opinion would resent such adulteration, and that the offender would suffer in addition to the fine which might be imposed upon him. On these grounds I propose to vote against the clause.
MR. MADDISON: As I intend to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Mayo, I feel it is necessary for me to explain my position, especially after the remark of the right hon. Gentleman
1474
who represents another division of Sheffield. He twitted my hon. friend with being undemocratic. Well, I hardly think that charge will have much weight in this House, for he does not often err in that direction. But if my right hon. friend has suddenly turned Democrat, I want to know whether he is prepared to extend this sort of legislation to the railway director, who, year after year, in spite of reports of Board of Trade inspectors, keeps the shunting-yard dark and kills men yearly. Is he prepared to commit to prison the slum landlord, who, generation after generation, has slowly but surely murdered people, and made a fortune in doing it? I approach an Amendment of this sort with all my natural prejudices in favour of the Bill. I have been engaged for some portion of my life in opposing—and, as I think, rightly—the unjust exactions of employers largely brought under this sub-section. But it is not a question of democracy at all; it is a question of justice. I agree with my hon. friend that this is a vindictive proposal, and I will oppose vindictive legislation whether it is directed against men struggling to be free in Ireland, or strikers, or any other class of the community. I certainly did think that there was a difference between the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman and many of the offences which will be brought under this Bill. To expose meat, obviously bad, or fruit, is a very different thing from some of the offences specified in this Bill. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green that this is not a question of the big trader at all. Does any hon. Member think that if a firm of reputation happened to be implicated in some offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, that Sir Thomas Lipton, for instance, for the third offence would be given three mouths' "hard"? There is a pretence of democracy in this Bill which is a sham from beginning to end. If it confined itself to such atrocious offences as that of killing innocent babies with skimmed milk I would support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for imprisonment if it were three years instead

1475
of three months. But the offences under this Bill are of a technical kind. I hope people will break the law. I hope, for instance, they will not confine their margarine to 10 per cent. of butter fat; I want the poor of this country to have the very best bargains. I think that a sub-section like this ought not to be passed, because the Bill is not a measure containing grave offences only, but offences which are purely technical offences, and which I do not regard, and a great many other Members do not regard, as offences at all, unless it has become an offence under a Conservative Government to make an article better. I shall vote for my hon. friend's Amendment because the Bill as it stands brings within the meshes of the law people who, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, are not criminals at all.
MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I hope the Government will stand by the clause, because I wish to see the same law for the rich as for the poor. If a rich man is fined £50 he can pay it, and it represents no punishment, but if a poor man is fined 5s. for neglecting to send his child to school he very frequently has to go to prison.
MR. DUCKWORTH: I am sorry this Debate has gone away from the main purpose of the Bill. This is not a party measure at all, and I think it is a mistake to introduce into it party motives and feelings. The first object of this Bill is to protect the public against adulteration, the second is not to interfere in any way with legitimate business, and the third is not to harass or annoy the honest trader. I have no party feeling in this matter, and the Votes which I have given in Committee were not given for party motives but to carry out what I conceived to be the object of right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill, which was if not entirely to do away with adulteration to make it next to impossible in the future for it to be perpetrated
1476
in connection with margarine or butter. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool brought before us the wrong that would be done to a person, so far as his character is concerned, if he were brought before a magistrate and sent to prison. But what about the man who has no character? I am most strongly convinced that if you do not retain this clause in the Bill the worst possible criminals will escape, because fines will have no effect on them whatever, and they will not cease to carry on fraud. Let me give a case which is very well known in the trade. A firm has been hunted from two places where they were fined repeatedly. They remained in one locality and sold margarine for butter until the place got too hot for them, and then they moved to the second place and remained there until it got too hot also, and now they are in the third place, and since this Bill went into Committee they have been fined again. That is the kind of fraud we want to stop, and those are the kind of criminals we want to get hold of. What is the use of discussing this Bill, if you allow the worst criminals to escape? The right hon. Gentleman made up his mind, earnestly and sincerely, that he would stop this fraud, but it can only be done in this way. I know that I am going against some of my friends and against some associations in supporting the clause, and I am told if this Bill passed I might be brought before the magistrates in less than a fortnight. It would be cowardly on my part to allow such a fraud to go on without stating my view upon it, and speaking in defence of the Bill.
MR. CAWLEY: It appears to me that the penalty under this clause will only be inflicted on the small shopkeeper. I think it would be almost impossible to bring home a case of adulteration to the proprietor of a large number of shops, or to the directors of a limited liability company. Who are you going to imprison when you summon

1477
a board of directors? Is it to be only the chairman, or would the entire board be imprisoned? This clause will only apply to the small shopkeeper who conducts his own business in one shop, and I think it is extremely hard that small retailers should be subject to imprisonment when their competitors, with enormous capital at their command, cannot possibly be
brought under this law. I think it is not fair to pass a measure by which the small shopkeeper will be placed in a worse position than his wealthy rival.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 71. (Division List, No. 287.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Maclure, Sir John William

Asher, Alexander

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Fisher, William Hayes

Manners, Lord Edward Wm. J.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bird, John George Alexander

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balcarres, Lord

Garfit, William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r)

Gedge, Sydney

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Milward, Colonel Victor

Banbury, Frederick George

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bill, Charles

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Myers, William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

Nicholson, William Graham

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Brassey, Albert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gretton, John

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gull, Sir Cameron

Parkes. Ebenezer

Bullard, Sir Harry

Gunter, Colonel

Paulton, James Mellor

Burns, John

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Butcher, John George

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pierpoint, Robert

Carlile, William Walter

Hardy, Laurence

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Henderson, Alexander

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol)

Priestley, Sir W Overend (Edin.

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hobhouse, Henry

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Houston, R. P.

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r

Howell, William Tudor

Rentoul, James Alexander

Channing, Francis Allston

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Rickett, J. Compton

Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

Charrington, Spencer

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Round, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley)

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Keswick, William

Seton-Karr, Henry

Cranborne, Viscount

Kilbride, Denis

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lambert, George

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Curzon, Viscount

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Dalziel, James Henry

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Strauss, Arthur

Doughty, George

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Duckworth, James

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Macaleese, Daniel

Thornton, Percy M.

Evershed, Sydney

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Williams, Jos. Powell- (Birm.)

Wyndham, George

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Welby, Lieut-Col. A. C. E.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Oldroyd, Mark

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Balfour, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Clackm.

Harwood, George

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Randell, David

Billson, Alfred

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bond, Edward

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

Robson, William Snowdon

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Seely, Charles Hilton

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Burn, Thomas

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Spicer, Albert

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Langley, Batty

Strachey, Edward

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land

Tennant, Harold John

Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

Ure, Alexander

Colville, John

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Wallace, Robert

Crilly, Daniel

Lough, Thomas

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Crombie, John William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

M'Crae, George

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Denny, Colonel

M'Ewan, William

Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

Dewar, Arthur

M'Ghee, Richard

Woods, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Mr. Davitt and Mr. Maddison.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The Amendment which I now move is proposed to mitigate somewhat the clause by inserting the word "culpable" before "negligence."
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 16, page 6, line 39, after 'or' to insert 'culpable.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Amendment agreed to.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: The Amendment that I propose is that where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act within twelve months of a previous conviction, the Court may order that a notice of the facts be affixed to the premises of the occupier. This provision is taken verbatim from the Food and Drugs Act, 1887. I can only add that this course has been recommended by the Select Committee on the Adulteration of Food and Drugs, which thought that the effect of the proposal would be useful.
Amendment proposed in page 6, line 42, after the word "months," to insert the words—
"(3)Where a person convicted of an offence under the Sale of Food and
1480
Drugs Acts has been within twelve months previously convicted of another offence under those Acts the Court may, if it thinks fit and finds that he knowingly and wilfully committed both those offences, order that a notice of the facts be affixed in such form and manner and for such period, not exceeding twenty-one days, as the Court may order, to any premises occupied by that person, and that he do pay the costs of such affixing; and if any person obstructs the affixing of any such notice or removes, defaces, or conceals the notice while affixed during that period, he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope that the House will come to the conclusion which has already been arrived at by the Grand Committee, that it is not desirable that this additional penalty should be imposed. It is perfectly true that the Select Committee recommended that it would be desirable that the offender should be pilloried, but it is obvious that that cannot be done without special power. Our

1481
courts of law, however, are open, and any interesting items of local news are well known. The Press advertise the fact of a conviction, and there is no necessity for entrusting the power to the courts to affix a notice of the conviction to the house or shop of the culprit—as, according to the hon. Member, is done in some foreign countries.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I made no reference to foreign countries. What I said was, that a similar protection already exists on our own Statute Book.
MR. T.P. O'CONNOR: I have listened to the Solicitor-General with the greatest surprise, seeing that that hon. and learned Gentleman only two minutes ago insisted that an offender against this Act should be sent to prison. He says that it would be un-English to have the fact of a conviction against a dealer exhibited in his shop. This law has been in force for forty or fifty years in France, and the public have a right to demand that they should be warned by a notice in his shop that a fraudulent dealer has been convicted of fraudulent dealing. The only solid argument that the Solicitor-General used was that people have the opportunity of reading of the conviction in the newspapers. How many people read the newspapers? Not as many as I would desire. But, as a matter of fact, the people who read the newspapers from day to day are in a very small minority of the population, and even they scarcely ever read the convictions under an Act like this. But the Solicitor-General insists that a poor individual who rarely reads a newspaper except on a Sunday morning, when he has a couple of hours' leisure, is supposed to trace out and to know all the convictions under this Act. If the Amendment is accepted, all that he has got to do is to go to the shop and look at the window. If the dealer is a fraudulent dealer his customers are entitled to know that he is a fraudulent dealer, and he ought not to be protected from the consequences of his own fraud.
Question put and negatived.
Other Amendments made.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he had been asked by the County Council of Durham to move the Amendment standing in his
1482
name. The object was two-fold—first, that the period should be inserted in the Bill within which the prosecution should take place, and second, that proceedings should date from the date when the proceedings commenced and not from the date of the warrant. It may be said that there should on the one hand be sufficient time for tests to be made, in order that the prosecution may secure evidence for their case; but if on the other hand the period is too long it is almost impossible to secure a conviction. Many grocers, traders, and druggists buy articles and keep them for many months in stock, and it is important that the proceedings should date from the time of the warranty and not from the time of the receipt of the articles in stock. He moved:
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 11, after the words last inserted, to insert the words '(2) Any prosecution under section twenty-seven of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, may be instituted within twelve months from the time when the matter of such proceedings arose.'"—(Mr. Joseph. A. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAYhoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment. The period of limitation under the present law was six months, and he could not see any sufficient reason for extending the period to twelve months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE moved the Amendment standing in his name. The words which he proposed to omit were inserted in Grand Committee in the teeth of the opposition of the Government, and were carried by a somewhat narrow majority. It must be the opinion of all those who have had to do with the administration of the Adulteration Acts that the addition of these words would be most mischievous.
Amendment proposed:
"In page 7, line 20, to leave out the words from the beginning of Clause 19, to the words 'a warranty,' in line 23."—(Mr. J. H. Johnstone.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. LONG: The question raised by the Amendment of my hon. friend is one of the not least difficult questions dealt with during the progress of this measure. The effect of my hon. friend's proposal would be to bring back the Bill to the condition in which it was when it passed the Second Reading and was sent up to the Grand Committee. The suggestion is that an invoice should be put in the same position as a warranty. As the House knows, the retail dealer who produces a warranty can plead the warranty as a sufficient answer to a charge of adulteration, and he is entitled to an acquittal. Under the Margarine Act an invoice is put in the same position as a warranty. But the Margarine Act is not an Adulteration Act at all. But, none the less, it has been used as a justification of this change. When we introduced the Bill into the House we believed that we were going to give to the invoice the same advantages as that of the warranty, and that that would be a warning to the distributors who would be affected under this clause. In the Committee upstairs, however, an Amendment moved by Mr. Webster, who was then a Member of the House, was carried by a majority of four, and that altered in this respect the character of the Bill. During the course of the Debate upstairs I said I would not myself take action to alter the Bill down here, and that I would not myself move an Amendment but should leave it to the House of Commons to decide whether or no this change should be made in the Bill. Since that date I have had, of course, a great many communications from various people on this subject. In fact, no part of the Bill seems to have received so much attention from the outside as this clause. Certainly all the evidence which reaches me goes to show that this change introduced into the Bill in Grand Committee, by Which an invoice is given the legal force of a warranty, will be attended with very great danger from the point of view of the successful detection and prosecution of the defendant. I have received communications from many local authorities, who all allege that the efficiency of the Act would be seriously imperilled in this respect. Therefore the demand of the wholesale dealer for protection of that kind seems to me to be fair. We have, from independent authorities, the same direction. I have communicated with the Home Office
1484
on the subject, and the Home Office state that the opinions they have obtained show that the result of retaining these words will be to render the administration of the existing law more difficult. The opinion of several of the London magistrates was that it would be a great misfortune if they were retained. One of the strongest expressions of opinion comes from the Journal of the Medical Officers of Health, which states that it hopes that Clause 19 as it now stands will be either amended or struck out. There is a very great concensus of opinion all pointing in one direction. These invoices are issued, I am informed, frequently by young apprentices, but if the clause is passed as it now stands that work will have to be performed in a very different way. It is asserted on behalf of retailers that it is difficult and almost impossible to obtain a warranty at present, because the retailers are under certain financial obligations to the wholesale houses. We all would regret to add any additional burden to men who conduct their business under such difficult circumstances, but that is not an argument with which to appeal to the House of Commons. Under all the circumstances I believe the Amendment of my hon. friend is in the right direction, and that it will be wiser and safer for us to return to the position in which the Bill originally stood, rather than adopt a provision which, however it be amended, exposes us to very great risk. Under these circumstances, while leaving this matter entirely to the decision of the House, I shall myself without doubt or hesitation support my hon. friend's Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I would not have taken part in this Debate at this hour were it not that from communications Which I have received I am convinced there is a great body of opinion in favour of making some kind of invoice, if not every invoice, a warranty. The way in which the matter has been put by the right hon. Gentleman is, I admit, extremely plausible, but let me put the contrary arguments used in the Grand Committee. Under the Act of 1875 it was thought right to make a provision to deal with tint case where man honestly bought articles of food or drugs which were afterwards found to be injurious, and with which he obtained an

1485
express warranty from the seller. I would ask the Solicitor-General how we are going to make a distinction between the case of an express warranty and the case of an invoice describing the goods. By the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, the description contained in the contract of sale was made for all purposes equivalent to an express warranty. Let me take a concrete case which may arise. Supposing I buy from a wholesale butter merchant one cask of best Danish butter; I write for the goods; he writes back stating that he has consigned to me one cask of best Danish butter, and he encloses the invoice. The invoice is a document which contains the words "one cask of Danish butter at so-and-so," with some discount allowance for cash, and below is the total amount it I have to pay. If, when I receive the consignment, the butter is not the best Danish butter, or if it be not butter at all, I have, under the Act of 1893, a right to reject the cask, and if I break the cask and proceed to sell its contents, and if an analyst discovers it is not batter at all but margarine, I have a right of action against the person who consigned it. There is no suggestion that I have been negligent in entering into that civil contract. That is the way in which most of our contracts are made, for the simple reason that in business the general conclusion is that a man is honest. That has been the great principle of our law. If I have a right against the seller of this butter under that Act, why should I be placed in a worse position now? That is the question which is exercising the minds of retail dealers in this country. From communications I have received from associations of traders in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, this matter is rightly or wrongly regarded as vital to their business. I do not see anything in the argument against a proper invoice being recognised as an express warranty. Why should a grocer in Swansea, dealing for years with a particular firm, be put to the trouble of writing for an express warranty? The firm might say, "We give you very good terms, but if you impertinently ask us for a warranty, we must make our methods of business very different." These are new offences, and in dealing with these matters we should not go on the presumption that men are dishonest, but go on the time-honoured principle of business that men
1486
are willing to speak the truth and to behave honestly. I respectfully protest against the action of the Government on this occasion. One qualification I must, however, make. I do not think an invoice standing alone is sufficient. Even if the principle were granted, the wording of the invoice would not be sufficient. With that qualification, and dealing with the matter on principle, and not from a party point of view, I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.
SIR. CHARLES CAMERON: I also urge the same view as that expressed by my hon. and learned friend. The principle of invoices is not confined in the Sale of Goods Act or to the Margarine Act. The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act of 1893 constituted an invoice a warranty, because that was the only possible way to prevent the adulteration of feeding stuffs. The doctrine of warranty in that Act is so far extended that even any circular describing goods is held to have the effect of a warranty. That is the way the Board of Agriculture protected the purity of feeding stuffs and fertilisers, and it appears to me that every argument which led to the adoption of that procedure in that Act applies also to the present Bill, with of course any needed modifications. The right hon. Gentleman said that retailers have a right to ask for a warranty, but my hon. and learned friend has pointed out how very injurious and inconvenient that would be in many cases. These hucksters buy in very small quantities, and it would be very difficult to obtain a formal written warranty in every case. They should be entitled to buy with an implied warranty, and I am sure the provision in the Feeding Stuffs and Fertilisers Act would work equally well in this Act.
MR. BRYCE: It seems to me that this is mainly a question which is within the knowledge of those who are engaged in trade and of those who administer the law as magistrates, and who come into contact with the difficulties which arise. One thing is quite clear, and that is that the clause ought not to stand exactly in its present form. The word "invoice" is a very vague and might be a very misleading term. The question might also arise as to whether particular documents are or are not invoices, and it would be easy to evade the matter by sending a statement

1487
of goods in some other form. I think it would be inadvisable to let the substance of the matter turn on the word "invoice." We should have some words conveying a description of quality, whether in the form of an invoice or in some other form. In that respect the clause clearly requires amendment. On the substance of the point—namely, whether or not a description stating the quality of the goods should carry an implied warranty with it we are abreast of an extremely difficult question. One would like to know what the experience of the working of the somewhat similar provision in the Margarine Act has been, and whether it facilitated the discovery of fraud. We are all agreed on putting down fraud, and the question is to discover it whether in the retailer or the wholesaler. I should have thought that one of the greatest difficulties in administering these Acts and the one which led to the introduction of the present Bill is the reluctance of local authorities to prosecute and magistrates to convict. That largely arises from the fact that they feel that the retailer is not really the guilty party, and that he must take whatever goods he gets, and therefore the local authorities and the magistrates administer the law less vigilantly and stringently. The question is whether we will not meet that difficulty if we get to the fountainhead and source of the evil—the wholesale dealer. I should have thought that, by the use of proper words, the wholesale dealer could be got at, and when once he is got at you effect more than by striking at a thousand retailers. I am rather inclined to think we had better leave the Bill as it stands.
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I confess I feel that there is a great deal of force in the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite; but since the matter was before the Grand Committee, we have had a great deal of evidence which I admit has produced a great effect on my mind. If the general opinion of those who are interested in the working of the Act, that its adoption would strike a very serious blow at the efficiency of the Act be correct, then I think we ought to pause before we make ourselves a party to any such enactment.
MR. J. A. PEASE: My county council have gone very fully into this matter, and
1488
they approve of the Amendment. They would prefer that an invoice should not be regarded as a warranty, but if the word "invoice" is to be used at all as a warranty it ought to be guarded, and if the House approves of the suggestion, I will move to insert, after the word "invoice" the following words, taken from the Act of 1875, "stating the nature, substance, and quality."
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I agree with my hon. and learned friend opposite that it would be very difficult for retailers dealing with wholesale houses to demand an express warranty. It is extremely probable that an invoice does not amount to a warranty, but there is sufficient authority to demand from the wholesale dealer a detailed invoice sufficiently descriptive of what he sells. To adopt the words of the hon. Member below me would be practically to exempt the wholesale dealer from the consequences of his fraudulent act.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. The last man who sold an article to the consumer is the one who ought to be held responsible, and under no circumstances should that responsibility be held to be evaded. The decision of the Committee upstairs was more or less of a snatch vote, and I am very glad to see that the House of Commons is in a mood to reverse it.
GENERAL LAURIE: I trust the Amendment will be carried. Again and again it has been said that the local authorities will not do their duty, but if this clause is carried as it stands it will make it more difficult for them to do their duty. What is the use of us spending our time in trying to make this Bill workable as an Act if we are unable to enforce it?
MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: If I am not very much mistaken, the invoices under the Feeding Stuffs Act are no protection whatever, and if any reliance is to be placed upon an invoice, it would be found that that reliance is entirely misplaced.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I think that the information given by the hon. Member who spoke last is scarcely accurate. I must say, from my experience, the Feeding Stuffs Act has worked extremely well. What the

1489
Government ought to do is to follow up the giver of the invoice, and pursue to conviction the wholesale dealer.
MR. SPICER: I have no connection with the trade in food, but I do know something of the wholesale trade, and it seems to me that the Bill as it stands now is in favour of a retailer, and gives him proper protection, as against the wholesale dealer. On the other hand, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sussex seems to me to take away the
responsibility from the wholesale dealer, and to put undue responsibility on the retailer. I venture to say there will be no difficulty if the wholesale dealer knows that the invoice carries a warranty. The wholesale dealer ought to bear the responsibility, and he is able to look after himself. Believing that the Amendment would be unfair to the retailer, I shall vote against it.
The House divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 119. (Division List, No. 288.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Davitt, Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Doughty, George

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Balfour, Rt Hn J. Blair (Clackm.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thompson

Bond, Edward

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

Caldwell, James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Strachey, Edward

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

M'Crae, George

Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

Colville, John

Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Spicer.

Cooke, C. W. R (Hereford)

Oldroyd, Mark

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Parkes, Ebenezer

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dillon, John

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Anstruther, H. T.

Doogan, P. C.

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duckworth, James

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Baird, John George Alexander

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Macaleese, Daniel

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Balfour, Rt Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Evershed, Sydney

Macdona, John Cumming

Banbury, Frederick George

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Maclure, Sir John William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James

Bathurst, Hon Allen B.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Bethell, Commander

Fisher, William Hayes

Melville, Beresford V.

Bill, Charles

Garfit, William

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gedge, Sydney

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Brassey, Albert

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G J (St George's

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Carlile, William Walter

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicholson, William Graham

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pierpoint, Robert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Channing, Francis Allston

Hardy, Laurence

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hobhouse, Henry

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Charrington, Spencer

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Cochrane, Hn. T. H. A. E.

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Colston, C. E. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cranborne, Viscount

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Keswick, William

Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Knowles, Lees

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Curzon, Viscount

Lambert, George

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Laurie, Lieut-General

Stirling-Maxwell. Sir John M.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Dalziel, James Henry

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.

Thornton, Percy M.

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Wyndham, George

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Ure, Alexander

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Valentia, Viscount

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Mr. Heywood Johnstone and Mr. John Burns.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Wylie, Alexander

MR. BRYCE: I appeal to the Government to let us go home now. We have made very considerable progress with the discussion of the Bill, and the Government did not expect that they would get the Bill through to-night. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House got the additional time, he implied that he would not ask the House to sit very late.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am quite aware that the Government could not in the present circumstances long resist the appeal that has just been made. I, however, appeal to hon. Members in their own interests to finish the Bill. There is nothing left of it of any importance whatever, and it might be finished in a short time.
MR. J. A. PEASE: I have an Amendment which is of considerable importance, and I believe the Government are prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 30, after the word 'person,' to insert the words, 'Where the defendant in a prosecution under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts has been discharged under the provisions of Section 25 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, or of Section 7 of the Margarine Act, 1887, as respectively amended by this Act, any proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts for giving the warranty
or invoice relied on by the defendant in such prosecution may be taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the article of food or drug to which the warranty or invoice relates was purchased for analysis as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the warranty or invoice was given.'"—(Mr. Joseph A. Pease.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: This is a most important Amendment. I rather think I sympathise with it, but it is not on the Paper.
MR. LONG: The hon. Member for Glasgow is technically right when he says this Amendment is not on the Paper. A similar Amendment is, however, on the Paper, and there is only an alteration in the phraseology.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The phraseology is everything. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect us to discuss the wisdom of the phraseology? That is not the proper way to conduct business. I move that the Debate be now adjourned.
Motion made and Question put—"That the Debate be now adjourned."—Sir Charles Cameron.
The House divided: Ayes, 28; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 289.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Ure, Alexander

Colville, John

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.)

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Lambert, George

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Davitt, Michael

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb.)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Doogan, P. C.

Macaleese, Daniel

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Crae, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Duckworth, James

Oldroyd, Mark

Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Caldwell.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.)

Bethell, Commander

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Bill, Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Bond, Edward

Baird, John George Alexander

Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H.- (Bristol)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Brassey, Albert

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

Nicholson, William Graham

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Burns, John

Gull, Sir Cameron

Parkes, Ebenezer

Carlile, William Walter

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Pierpoint, Robert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hardy, Laurence

Purvis, Robert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hobhouse, Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ritchie, Rt Hon Chas. Thomson

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Charrington, Spencer

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Keswick, William

Seely, Charles Hilton

Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

Knowles, Lees

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Talbot, Rt Hn. J G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Thornton, Percy M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Valentia, Viscount

Doughty, George

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Maclure, Sir John William

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Killop, James

Wodehouse, Rt Hon E. R (Bath)

Evershed, Sydney

Malcolm, Ian

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

Wylie, Alexander

Finch, George H.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wyndham, George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Fisher, William Hayes

More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

Gedge, Sydney

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Question put and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: This is a long Amendment which I did not understand as the hon. Member read it. It may be a very good Amendment, but at this hour of the morning we ought not to be asked to discuss an Amendment to such an important clause.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: In moving this Amendment I will only say that there have been many cases in which grocers have been fined for the technical offence of selling, for instance, a tin of syrup adulterated with glucose. It is utterly impossible for a grocer to know anything about the adulteration, and in one case in Scotland, although the grocer was fined, the Sheriff expressed the opinion that he was not morally guilty. It is a very important question.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 34, after the word 'so,' to insert the words: '(3) Where any article of food is sold in tins or bottles in which it has been packed by the manufacturer, a label affixed by the manufacturer or wholesale dealer to such tins or bottles setting forth the nature
1494
of their contents, or a circular or advertisement setting forth the nature of the contents of such tins or bottles, and distributed along with them by the manufacturer or wholesale dealer, shall, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, be held to constitute a warranty.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. We have already decided by a large majority that the words constituting an invoice a warranty should be struck out. This proposal is even more sweeping, because it proposes that even a circular or an advertisement may constitute a warranty.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept the Amendment without the words "circular or advertisement"?
SIR R. B. FINLAY: Even without these words I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 30; Noes, 107. (Division List, No. 290.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Duckworth, James

M'Crae, George

Bethell, Commander

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

Oldroyd, Mark

Bond, Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Paulton, James Mellor

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Colville, John

Lambert, George

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

Davitt, Michael

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Doogan, P. C.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Sir Charles Cameron and Mr. Provand

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Macaleese, Daniel

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Evershed, Sydney

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edwd.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Baird, J. George Alexander

Finch, George H.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Nicholson, William Graham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Fisher, William Hayes

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gedge, Sydney

Pierpoint, Robert

Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Purvis, Robert

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir H. M. (Bristol

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bill, Charles

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St Geo's.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gull, Sir Cameron

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Brassey, Albert

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Burns, John

Hardy, Laurence

Seely, Charles Hilton

Carlile, William Walter

Hobhouse, Henry

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r

Keswick, William

Thornton, Percy M.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Knowles, Lees

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw Murray

Charrington, Spencer

Laurie, Lieut-General

Ure, Alexander

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Valentia, Viscount

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-L.)

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Lung, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Macartney, W G. Ellison

Wylie, Alexander

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Wyndham, George

Curzon, Viscount

Maclure, Sir John William

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Dalkeith, Earl of

M'Killop, James

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Malcolm, Ian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Doughty, George

Manners, Lord Edward W. J.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Melville, Beresford Valentine

MR. BRYCE: I think the Government will find that they will finish the Bill quicker in the long run if they allow us to go home now.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit that if hon. Gentlemen desire it, they can occupy perhaps another half an hour, and under the circumstances I have no objection to the adjournment.
Further consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
Resolved, That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year 1899–1900 be approved.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned accordingly at ten minutes before Two of the clock.