Commons Sitting of 17 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILES [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the

  355
  case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First! Heading thereof, the Standing Orders I not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [Lords]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of I Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second | time upon Monday next.
  Brixham Gas Bill; Little stone-on-Sea and District Water Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Barnard Castle Gas Bill [Lords]. As: amended, considered; a clause added;. Bill to be read the third time.
  St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  Mr. TENNANTreported from the Committee on Group of Private Bills, That the parties opposing the Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [Lords] had stated that the evidence of Mr. Aubrey Strachan, of the Royal Geological Museum, Jermyn Street, S.W., was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Mr. Aubrey Strachan do attend the said Committee on this day, at Two of the clock.
  Ordered, That Mr. Aubrey Strachan do attend the Committee on Group of Private Bills this day, at Two of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Midland Railway Bill, with Amendments; Amendments to Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the falsification of Seamen's and Soldiers' Certificates of Service or Discharge, and to false statements made, used, or given in connection with entry or enlistment into His Majesty's Naval, Military, or Marine Forces." [Seamen's and Soldiers' False Characters Bill [Lords.]
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, That the Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
  City of London (Central Criminal Court House) Bill. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.
  Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [Lords]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports toile upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from General Assembly of the United Free Church of Scotland, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Bothwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Southwark, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from South Shields, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aberystwith (two); Abingdon; Ackworth; Ancoats; Armley (two); Ashton in Makerfield; Bakewell; Barton upon Humber; Berld-gelert; Biggleswade; Binchester; Birkenhead (two); Birmingham; Bishop Auckland; Blackness; Bollington; Bolton (seven); Bothwell; Bow Brickhill; Bramley (two); Bristol (two); Calde-cote; Catforth; Charleton Horethorne; Chard; Cheetham Hill; Clapham; Cly-dach; Coundon; Cowbeach; Crayford; Crumpsall (three); Eastbourne (eleven); East Tilbury; Eceles; Edinburgh; Ferrybridge; Fobbing; Forest Gate Freckleton; Fulham; Gainsborough; Glasbury: Grays; Greasbro; Green-haugh; Gregson Lane; Hailsham (five); Halifax (two); Hartlepool; Hastings; Hay; Heaplram; Heathfield; Heaton Mersey; Hermon Llannon; Hindley; Horfield; Horndon on the Hill; Horse-bridge; Hurstmonceux (two); Ingham Knottingley; Laughton; Leeds; Lin-ford; Little Thurroek; Lower Crump-sail; Macclesfield (two); Manchester; Micklefield; Newcastle on Tyne; Newport; Nettleham; Newton Heath; Nin-iield; Northamptonshire; North Feather-stono; Northill; North Kelsey; Old Shildon; Pembrcy; easedown; Pole-gate; Pontefract; Purston; Pylle; Bod-ley; Hogerstone; Booden Lane; Bun-corn; St. Anne's on the Sea (two); St. Helen's: St. Leonard's; Scotton; Shank-lin: Sheffield (two); Shefford; South Carnarvonshire; South Elmsall; South Kirkby; Southlands; South Nutfield; South Shields; South Wigston; Stafford; Stalbridge; Stanford le Hope; Stockdale-wath; Strathpeff'er; Tain; Thorpe Aud-lin; Todmorden; Upton (two); Usk; West Bromwich; West Coker; Willing-don; Wilmington; Winsford (two); Workington; Worfcley; and Wragby; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Macclesfield; Pontefract; and Willesden; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Rotherham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions against; from Bolton; and Warrington; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Bucking ham; Godston; Potterspury and Reigate; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS RKCULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
  Copy presented, of Fortieth Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the Chief Inspector, being for 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Increase of Canadian Duties on British Woollen Goods and Cordage.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the increases about to be made in the Canadian duties on British woollen goods and on British cordage; and whether he proposes to make any protest against these increases, similar to the protest which was made by Australia when the wine duty in this country was last increased, and to the protests made by India and Ceylon when the tea duty was increased.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) My attention has been called to the proposal of the Canadian Government to diminish the existing preferences on British cloths, tweeds, etc., and British twine and cordage. His Majesty's Government do not intend to protest against this proposal; first, because it forms only part of scheme

  359
  of tariff revision which appears to have been framed in a spirit of consideration for British industries and which includes increased preferences in certain other directions; and, secondly, because, in the absence of any reciprocal arrangement, the precise nature and amount of the preference to be given to British imports are matters which must be left entirely to the discretion of the Canadian Government.

  County Court Jurisdiction Extension Act.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General, with reference to a statement made on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the time of the passing of the County Court Jurisdiction Extension Act, with regard to the coming into operation of that Act, whether there could be given as a Parliamentary Paper any memorials received by the Lord Chancellor from the County Court Judges, or any committee of their body, on the subject; and what steps His Majesty's I Government intend to take in reference to the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I understand that it would not be in accordance with usage that such communications between the Lord Chancellor and the County Court Judges should be treated as public documents. I am not yet in a position to state what steps His I Majesty's Government intend to take in reference to the subject of the Question, but the matter is now under consideration.

  Street Accidents—Motor-cars and Horse drawn Carriages.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if he grants the Return asked for by the hon. Member for East Cork as to the number of motor-car accidents from 1st June. 1903, to 31st May, 1904, he will place beside the figures given, for purposes of comparison, a Return of the number of accidents caused by horses and horse-drawn vehicles in the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I will consider whether the figures asked for by my hon. friend can be
  360
  given at the same time as any figures as to motor-car accidents which it may le possible to compile. But it must be remembered that the total number of horses and horse-drawn vehicles in use cannot be given; and that, without such a basis for comparison, no trustworthy deductions can be drawn from the figures.

  Unstripped Tobacco—Weight of Stalk.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion on the average of the whole weight of the imported unstripped tobacco leaf is estimated to be due to the stalk.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)The proportion of the weight of the stalk I to the whole leaf in imported tobacco leaf ranges from about 18 per cent, to 34 percent, according to the kind of tobacco. Sufficient data do not, however, exist to I enable an estimate to be formed of the average proportion.

  Rise and Fall of Agricultural Rents in Devon
  MR. SOARES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a Return showing the rise and fall of agricultural rents in the county of Devon during the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The values of lands and houses are revised only once in every five years. Revisions were made in 1893, 1898, and 1903, but the detailed figures of the revision of 1903 will not be available for some time, as appeals are still under consideration. However, if the hon. Member wishes it, and will communicate with me, I will give the aggregate valuation of all lands in the county of Devon as made in 1893 and 1898.

  Income Tax on Foreign and Colonial Investments.
  MR. SOARES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give an approximate estimate of the amount of income-tax paid on foreign and colonial investments respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is not possible for me to give any trust worthy estimate of the kind asked for in the question.

  Publication of Correspondence regarding British Guiana Ordinance on Indian Coolie Immigration.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for India when the correspondence with reference to the British Guiana Ordinance on Indian Coolie Immigration will be circulated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am informed that the Paper will be ready for issue this afternoon.

  Payment of Teachers' Salaries for Evening Classes at Carrowcannon.
  MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when payment of teachers' salaries will be made in respect of the four months course of evening schools held at Carrowcannon, county Donegal, which terminated on the 29th February, the examination being held on the 2nd March.
  (Answered by Air. Wyndham.) I am informed that payment of the capitation grant has been made to the managers of these schools.

  Pensions of Crown Agents
  MR. HERBERI SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the amount of the pension payable to each of the Crown Agents.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The amounts will be determined on their retirement, based on the number of years service they may then have had and the salary they may have reached, in accordance with such rules as the Secretary of State may from time to time prescribe.

  NEW WRIT.
  Now Writ for the County of York, West Riding (Sowerby Division) in the room of the right hon. John William Mellor (Manor of Northstead).—Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had dis-
  362
  charged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Henry Hob-house, and Mr. George Faber; and hid appointed in substitution: Mr. Peel, Mr. Claude Hay, and Mr. Moon.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that in order to I explain the reason for the new clause which stood in his name, it was necessary to state shortly what occurred before the Bill was introduced. Three or four years ago a certain decision in the Law Courts gave a new interpretation to the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,: and the Railway Act of 1854, and that I interpretation was taken to mean that a trader could not make a private siding unless he was himself prepared to run the trucks over the railway. The result of the decision was that traders thought it would be necessary to bring in a Bill to re-enact the provision which had always been supposed to be in force under the two Acts. The railway companies made no objection to that as they had no wish to take advantage of the unexpected legal decision. He was now proposing this clause, because the railway companies did not think that under this Bill the actual position prior to the decision of the Court was being re-enacted. The Act of 1845 provided that sidings might be constructed in any place where communications could be made with safety to the public, without injury to the railway, and without inconvenience to the traffic thereof. The clause in the Bill only provided for "reasonable facilities" being given for the making of sidings, and everyone knew what varied interpretations might be put on the word "reasonable." The object of the railway companies was to avoid possible litigation both in their own interests and the interests of the traders, and he believed that the latter only wished to get the law back into its original condition. This clause had been drafted

363
in order to place both the companies and the traders in the same position. It was submitted to the Board of Trade and met with the approval of that body, but when the matter was before the Committee the Secretary of the Board of Trade, while intimating that he would vote for it, stated that he did not think it necessary as the lawyers of the Department held that there would be no difficulty about the interpretation of the word 'reasonable." The result of the attitude taken up by the Board of Trade was that the clause was thrown out for the traders complained that they had not had time to consider it and feared there might be something in it which gave the railway companies some unexplained advantage. Since the Committee stage the railway companies had taken a legal opinion and had been told by an eminent lawyer who sat on the Front Bench opposite that they were perfectly right in their contention that the clause was absolutely necessary. With that opinion he believed the hon. and learned Member for Stretford agreed. He hoped hon. Members who might not be directly interested in railway companies or in any branch of trade would give this clause their support, for unless something of the kind was put into the Bill great inconvenience might be caused to the public at large.
One object of the] clause was to secure that railway companies should not be obliged to make sidings at big junctions, and everyone could understand how the placing of a siding at a junction where there was a great amount of traffic might cause serious inconvenience to the public. Nothing more annoyed a traveller on a long journey than to be subjected to continual waits, which often led to broken business engagements. He could not see any possible objection to his proposed new clause, the first part of which practically re-enacted the 76th Section of the Act of 1845, while as to the latter part it simply provided that where signalling was necessary in the interests of the public the trader should pay for it. Probably the chief objection to the clause was to the provision with regard to appeals to the Commissioners to vary Orders, etc. The complaint was that that would stop finality, but he ventured to suggest that the provision was in the public in-
364
terest as sidings might be put in places where a subsequent great increase of traffic might make their continued working unsafe. No one could suggest that excessive profits were earned by railway companies in the present day and the House should not do anything calculated to put a stop to railway enterprise and to induce people to refrain from investing their money in railway shares. People would not put their cash into undertakings returning only 3 or 4 per cent, unless they were assured that there was no risk of legislation which would render their money unprofitable. Hence he hoped the clause would be agreed to.
A clause (Provisions as to Orders under the Act).

(1) "Before making any Order under this Act, the Railway and Canal Commission shall satisfy themselves that adequate sidings have been or will be provided by the applicant for the accommodation of traffic from time to time passing over the junction so as to avoid causing obstruction or delay upon the railway.

(2) "Any signalling or other work necessary to enable the Company to afford facilities under any Order made under this Act with due regard to' the traffic using the Company's railway shall be deemed to be services rendered to the applicant at his request at or in connection with the siding.

(3) "Any party to an Order made under this Act by the Railway and Canal Commission may apply to the Commissioners at any time to Vary, rescind, or alter any Order made by them under this Act."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)

Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSOK (Presten)asked the House to confirm the action of the Standing Committee and reject the clause. The traders contended that the rights they enjoyed under Section 76 had been destroyed by recent decisions in the Courts of Law. Directly the decisions were given the traders found that the railway companies began to put difficulties in the way of working existing railway sidings and constructing new ones. They therefore framed a Bill with, the express object of restoring parties to the position they were in before the decisions were given. They would have liked an express re-enactment of Clause 76,

365
but after consultation with the Board of Trade the Bill was framed as it now stood. The traders were prepared to accept the view of the Board of Trade and to take the Bill as it stood, but in order, as lie considered, to make the Bill more complete, and to carry out a promise which he gave after the rejection of this clause by the Committee, to frame a clause which would free the railway companies from any apprehension that they might not, under the Bill, have full protection given them by the Railway Clauses Act, he was willing to move his clause in lieu of the present one. If that were accepted it would restore the traders and the companies their rights as they existed under Section 76, whereas the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham's new clause did not re-enact the whole of that section. It furthermore placed the railway companies in a stronger position than they would have occupied if the decisions of the Court of Appeal had not been given.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: In a stronger position than under the 1845 Act?
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: Yes. Sub-section 3 of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham's new clause, did not, as he understood it, re-enact the provisions of the Railway Clauses Act. It was a subsection taken from a provision in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, but by the rules and regulations framed under that Act, its operation was very much restricted. Of course it was possible that these rules and regulations might be altered if necessary, and that was the proper way of effecting the object of the companies of extending the scope of that provision, and not by inserting a clause which would subject traders to perpetually having their arrangements brought for revision before the Railway Commissioners. He reminded the House that traders did not like being brought before the Railway Commissioners because they considered that Court was a costly tribunal. The clause moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham in Sub-section 3 provided that—
"Any party to an Order made under this Act by the Railway and Canal Commission
366
may apply to the Commissioners at any time to vary, rescind, or alter any Order made by them under this Act."
If that was enacted, they might, at any moment, be called upon to spend hundreds of pounds in defending their rights before that tribunal.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: If we accept the next clause on the Paper will the hon. Baronet withdraw the clause which is now in the Bill? We should be prepared to do that.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid no, they could not do that. The clause in the Bill had been formed by the Board of Trade and they were fully conscious of the reasons for it. It was really a clause to cover Cowan's case—whilst his clause bore more directly on the Lancashire Brick and Tile case—decided on the question of the validity of Clause 76, and he was not prepared to withdraw it under the circumstances.
MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S. W.)said the railway companies had nothing to complain of in the speech of his hon. friend. It appeared to him, however, that the House was trying to settle a legal question which ought to be settled by lawyers. They were all quite willing that the law should be brought into accordance with recent decisions, for that was what they all desired, and it did seem unfortunate that they could not find words to carry out that which they all desired to enact. Directly the decision was come to by the Court of Appeal it was alleged that the railway companies resolved to put impediments in the way of trade. He was a large trader himself and had dealings with several railway companies, and he found it very convenient sometimes to play one railway off against another, but he had never yet found that they placed any difficulties in the way of getting whatever trade he had got. On the contrary he found that they vied with one another to give as many facilities as possible. It was obvious that there must be a common sense way of dealing with a railway company just as there was with any other business concern, and it was not the desire or wish of railway companies to put any difficulties in the way of trade. Railway companies

367
did not make their profit passenger traffic alone, but out of out of goods traffic as well, and no railway could be conducted successfully if it did not endeavour to meet its traders so far as it reasonably could. He was anxious that they should come to some arrangement to avoid the House going to the trouble of a division, because this was really a legal difficulty. He did not see anything in the clause under consideration to which any trader could reasonably object. The three provisions in the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham were not unreasonable, and they were necessary if the railway companies were to conduct their business with that due regard to the safety of the public which the House of Commons had a right to demand. He wished to state quite frankly that they were ready to make any compromise which would reasonably carry out the intentions of the mover of this Bill, that the law should merely be put back into the position it was in before without any advantage on the one side or the other. He could not see why it was impossible to come to such an arrangement.
MR. BLACKsaid the whole object of the Bill was to reverse a decision of the Scotch Courts some two years ago in the Cowan case. He happened to know something about that case. The firm in question was not in a position to bring any other line into competition with the North British Railway Company, and the railway company in raising the question was really endeavouring to make a change in the law as it had hitherto been recognised for the purpose of bringing indirect pressure to bear upon the trader concerned. They were ultimately successful in having it established that reasonable facilities did not include the right to connect private sidings with the ordinary lines. The object of the Bill was to put the law back where it was before Cowan's case was decided; and not in any other way to affect the law as it stood prior to that decision. The onus was on the representatives of the railway companies to show that that decision altered the law in the direction suggested by the proposed clause. He submitted that so far they had entirely
368
failed to advance any argument establishing' such a contention. There was no case for altering the law in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Peckham. He therefore hoped the House would pass the Bill as it stood and refuse to accept the Amendment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid common sense and history told them that things were not the same now as they were in 1845 when the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act was passed. That Act was passed on the assumption that the railway companies were mere toll takers and not providers of motive power as they were now; and if the provision of that Act was to be reinstated some regard must be had to modern conditions. The right to demand facilities could not be granted as if railways were now what they were contemplated to be under the Act of 1845—namely, mere providers of the road which other persons providing their own motive power were allowed to use. It was not an unreasonable thing for the railway companies to say that, if they consented to the reinstatement of the law of 1845, it should be subject to conditions which were really required in the interests of the public. He submitted that the circumstances justified the modifications in the clause of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham.
MR. WEIRsaid he was always suspicious when railway companies came to the House of Commons asking for fresh powers. They possessed already very great powers, and they used those powers very harshly in many cases. The clause of the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston was of a very much more moderate character, and would satisfy the wants of traders. They should not lose sight of the importance of doing all they could to encourage trade. The case of Cowan had been quoted. That case was carried to the Scottish Court of Appeal, and the decision went against the trader, who was not in a position to bring his case before the House of Lords. It would prove to be a serious tax on industry if traders were to be pestered with litigation in this way, and driven from Court to Court. They

369
should do their utmost to help traders to develop their industries without all these restrictions. The Board of Trade had a voice in these matters, and they would see that traffic was conducted in the public interest. These matters were of vital importance to the small traders, and great railway companies, with their large dividends, were in a totally different position. He was surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had raised a point of this sort, the meaning of which must be apparent to everybody who knew anything about Stock Exchange business. If a man wished to start a manufacturing concern on the banks of a river he would build his works there and perhaps spend many thousands of pounds to found a great industry, and possibly build a large number of cottages for his workmen; and after doing all that he was never sure whether a railway company might not pounce down upon him, and drag him before the Commissioners, thus 'involving him in costly litigation with a chance of his rights being taken from him. For these reasons he much prefered I the proposal of the hon. Baronet the 'Member for Preston. He was in favour of justice being done to both the railway companies and traders, but railway companies should not stand in the position of having power to crush out industries and squeeze traders to their heart's content. He sincerely trusted that the House would realise the importance of voting against the clause which had been moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, and he hoped they would stand by the clause of the hon. Baronet the Member in Preston. He opposed this clause, not with a desire to hinder the business of the House, but in order to protect traders, and in order that the railway companies should not have absolute power to hamper industries.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said the Board of Trade were interested in this Bill from one point of view, viz., they wished to give traders the right they had up to the time that a certain decision was arrived at in the Scottish Courts. The Bill, as it was introduced, was framed by the Depart-
370
ment, and they thought it carried out that object. The railway companies considered that certain Amendments were necessary to put them in the position in which they were before that decision, and this Bill had been the result of a compromise. The Board of Trade had tried to get both sides to take a reasonable view, and to pass a Bill to which nobody seriously objected. He had been in communication with his hon. friend who introduced the Bill and the I representatives of the railway companies, and he was glad to say that they had agreed to a compromise which he thought effected everything the House desired. According to the law as it stood at present, once a siding was granted the arrangement was final, and it could not be altered except by Act of Parliament. Circumstances might alter, and a place which was once suitable for a siding might not always be so. What was now proposed was that a railway company should be able to deal with a question of that kind without the necessity of a special Act of Parliament. His hon. friend did not like the words in the Bill-He wished that before the Railway and Canal Commission made any Order under this Act the railway companies should show a prima facie case for the alteration they proposed to make. The railway interests had agreed to accept that, and he hoped the House would accept an Amendment in that sense.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYstated that after the Second Reading of the clause he would move the omission of Subsections 1 and 2, and the insertion of words in the third sub-section which would meet the view expressed by his hon. friend.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid that as the representative of important trade interests in Scotland,he had much satisfaction in expressing concurrence in the proposal now made. Hs appreciated the spirit in which the railway companies had met them in this matter. He thought the compromise would prove a workable one. His hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade had with perfect accuracy pointed out that circumstances might alter, and that the conditions which existed when a

371
siding was originally granted might no longer obtain.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"To leave out Sub-sections 1 and 2."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the clause—
"In line 2, Sub-section 3, after the word ' may' to insert the words, 'on specifying to the Commissioners that they have a primâ facie case.' "—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added.
MR. WEIRhad given notice of a new clause with respect to the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade for the protection of the public at level crossings in the following terms—
"All private sidings or private branch railways, whether authorised by virtue of this or any other Act, and whether authorised before or after the passing of this Act, shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade who are hereby empowered to make such rules and regulations, and to attach such penalties as they may think fit, for the protection of the public at those points or places where such private sidings or private branch railways cross public highways, roads, footpaths, or thoroughfares by means of level crossings, or where such private sidings or private branch railways abut or adjoin such public highways, roads, footpaths, or thoroughfares."
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid the clause was not in order.
MR. CALDWELL, on the point of order, said the object of the Bill was to give increased facilities for sidings. [Cries of "No."] It was so. The Bill was to amend the law in relation to private sidings. The object of the Bill was to enable private parties to have sidings which they were precluded from having now. These sidings, therefore, would increase in virtue of this Act, and the public interest should be protected by provisions in regard to level crossings where these crossed public roads. The Bill obviously would create new sidings, in fact it would be of no use if it did not. He submitted that the clause was in order.
MR. SPEAKERsaid the Bill now before the House dealt only with the question of connecting private sidings or private branch railways with railways. The proposed new clause was not in order.
A clause (Extension of private sidings or private branch railways)—
"Where a private siding or private branch railway is connected with a railway under the provisions of Section 76 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as amended or explained by this or any other Act, the owners or occupiers of lands adjoining to such private siding or private branch railway shall be entitled to the same reasonable facilities for constructing and connecting a private siding or private branch railway with such private siding or private branch railway, and by means of such private siding or private branch railway with the railway belonging to the railway company, as under said Acts, are possessed by the owners or occupiers of lands adjoining to the railway belonging to the railway company."—(Mr. Weir.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
MR. WEIR,in moving the Second Reading of the clause, said he was anxious that the industries of the country should be encouraged and that proper railway facilities should be provided wherever factories were set up. The object of the clause which he now proposed was to prevent railway companies from being able to say that they would not allow the connections which were required in different localities. If they objected to the proposal on the ground that it might lead to congestion of traffic he thought that difficulty could be got over by having several lines to meet the requirements of the traffic. In view of the foreign competition, to which many of our industries were subjected at the present time, it was of the utmost importance that facilities should be provided for working people being removed to places where house accommodation could be obtained at moderate rents and where living was less costly than in the cities and towns. He hoped the promoters of the Bill would accept the clause in the interest of British industries. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid this was a most reasonable clause in the interest of the general public, and also of those who wanted to connect with the railways. Whatever arrangements might be made between the railway companies on the one hand and private individuals on the other, it was obviously the duty of Parliament in these matters to see that the terms of the Act did not prejudice the public interest. The section now proposed to be incorporated in this Bill was Section 76 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, which gave power to those whose lands adjoined a railway to make a connection between a private siding and the railway. They came forward asking that their right in this matter, which had been disputed by the Law Courts, should be restored, or rather that they should get the privilege, which I under the law as presently interpreted they had not got, to connect their branch I railways and sidings with the main railway. There were obviously other parties who were entitled in equity to have a connection with the main railway besides those who were nearly adjoining I the railway. A proprietor of extensive works a little bit off a branch railway might wish to get a connection with the main railway, but at present it was impossible for him to get that connection if the proprietor adjacent to the main railway refused to give his consent. What objection could any man have to giving powers of the kind provided for in the new clause?; He should say that it was in the interest of the railway companies that such I powers should be granted. The owners of private branch railways were asking "by this Bill that they should have access to the main railway, and why should they object to another person whose works did not lie alongside the railway, but a little way off, from gaining access to the main line? It stood to reason that if one man got a privilege from Parliament he, in turn, should give facilities to someone else—who had probably a different kind of traffic altogether—for having running powers over his branch siding or railway in order to reach the main line. A large landed proprietor might have the whole land alongside the railway and no person but himself would be entitled to have a
374
branch siding; while a little further down there might be very large and valuable works which were technically outside the boundary of the main railway. The owner of these works might consequently find himself cut off from railway communication on account of the limited nature of the powers given in this Bill. It was in the interests of the trade and commerce of the country that access to the main lines of railway should be made as wide as possible; and nothing could be more reasonable than to say that if a man got a privilege from Parliament to connect his siding or branch railway with the main line, he should, in return, allow somebody else who had works which adjoined that branch line or siding to have a connection through that branch line or siding with the main line—more especially as the prosperity and industry of a whole village or town might depend on these works so cut off by this Bill from all communication with the main line. It was not for the general convenience of trade that the promoters of this Bill should enjoy all the advantages of access to the main line of railway and refuse it to others who happened to have large and valuable works outside the radius or technical border of the main line. He heartily supported the proposed new clause.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid he gathered now that the Bill had passed so far as the main clause was concerned. He also gathered that the effect of the second clause was to re-enact Section 76 of the Act of 1845. Now the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty proposed a new clause which was to extend the Act of 1845. Ho had looked to see if the Amendment were, necessary, and he thought that that Act fully and better covered what the hon. Gentleman wanted than did his new clause.
MR. WEIRsaid he begged leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

HALL-MARKING OF FOREIGN PLATE BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he wished to move the following new clause—
"In the application of this Act to Scotland, all jurisdiction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts is hereby conferred on sheriffs."
Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new clause is properly an Amendment to Clause 2.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that in that case he would move his next Amendment, which was to omit Clause 1.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that Clause 1 was practically the entire Bill; and he submitted that an Amendment which was inconsistent with or contradictory to a Bill as agreed to by a Committee was not in order.
MR. SPEAKER: That rule does not often apply, bat it may apply in this particular case. Clause 1 is the entire Bill with the exception of a few sections which refer to the application of other Acts.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that the inconvenience arose solely from the operation of putting the whole Bill into one clause. It was always convenient to move the omission of the clause in order to discuss it generally before proceeding with the Amendments. If he were not permitted to move the omission of the clause, he would only have to move the omission of each sub-section separately; but that would be inconvenient, as the sub-sections depended on each other, and it would not be possible to have a general discussion as to the merits of the Amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: I will not take the course I am invited to take, and rule this Amendment out of order, so the hon. Member may proceed with his Amendment.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was very much more convenient to deal with the
376
clause as a whole, as they would be able, in that way, to compare the existing law with the change proposed in the Bill. By the Customs Act of 1842, Section 59, it was declared that all gold and silver-plate which was not battered, and which was imported from foreign ports, and which was sold, exchanged, or exposed for sale within the United Kingdom, should be of the respective standards, as regarded quality, as was required for any ware, vessel, or merchandise of gold or silver, wrought or made in the United Kingdom. That was to say, that the plate should be imported for commercial purposes, and I not for the importer's own private use. It was also provided that no gold or silver-plate not battered, which was imported, should be sold or exchanged or exposed for sale within the United Kingdom until it had been assayed, stamped, and marked, either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, in the same manner as any ware, vessel, or merchandise of gold or silver, wrought or made in the United Kingdom. It was further provided that any person who offended against the Act should be liable to penalties and forfeitures in all respects to be coverable in the same manner as if they had been imposed on a goldsmith or silversmith who sold ware or merchandise wrought or made in these countries which was not assayed, stamped, and marked, as required by law. Then followed an important proviso which showed that equal treatment was given by Parliament to foreign and home plate. The 1842 Act treated foreign plate imported into this country precisely in the same way as home-made plate, and then it said "provided that no article or ware of gold or silver to be imported shall be liable to be assayed, stamped, or marked, which would not be liable if it had been wrought in Ireland." In every respect under that Act foreign gold and silver-plate was treated as home-made plate, and in order to entitle foreign plate to the benefit of the hall-mark, it had to be of exactly the same standard, and to be assayed in the Assay offices either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, and in regard to this obligation was under the same penalty as home-made plate. Section 60 provided that in order that such imported gold or silver may be

377
assayed, stamped, or marked, it is allowable for any person to send to any Assay Office in the United Kingdom gold and silver to be assayed, stamped, or marked, and when foreign plate was brought to this country there was an obligation on the part of every Assay Office to stamp the foreign plate, which was to be submitted to the same charge, with the same hall-mark. The object of the Act of 1842 was to protect the public, who were entitled to know if the plate imported from abroad was of the same standard of quality as the home-made plate. Here the hall-mark was a great convenience. It was necessary for the stamp used for foreign plate to be the same, because, after all, that was the stamp the public knew, and one that told them that the material on which the stamp was placed was of the same standard of quality as the material represented by the ordinary hall-mark. All the hall-mark did was to protect the public and to certify the quality. People were not deceived as to the difference in workmanship. It did not matter to them where it was made. They took the design as a whole and there could not be any possibility of fraud so far as that was concerned. That was the position of affairs under the Act of 1842.
Then, in 1876, under the Customs Act, there was a change. Up to then both kinds of plate were treated exactly alike, and the only change that was made by the Act of 1876 was that imported plate should bear the impress of the letter "F" on an oval escutcheon, in order that it might be identified as imported plate, and it provided that that additional mark was to be impressed before it was delivered by the Assay Office. Could anybody conceive that anything more could be done in order to prevent even the possibility of any one who knew the hall-mark from knowing whether it was made abroad or whether it was made in this country? He did not see that any possible change could be made, although they proposed to make a change in this Bill, which would make the matter clearer. The great public convenience of this method of hall-marking would be noticed. He did not object to their catering for the home trade in this respect by using the letter "F" to
378
distinguish between home-made and imported goods, but, as he had pointed out, there could be no fraud in regard to hall-marking. The object of hallmarking was to determine the quality of the material. But what was the proposal of the Bill. It was that foreign-made plate should not bear the same hall-marks as home-made, and the reason for that was given in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, in which it was alleged that the letter "F" was often taken to be the manufacturer's initial, and did not afford a sufficiently ready means for distinguishing foreign plate; therefore legislation was necessary to provide such means. But surely any one who had any knowledge of hall-marks knew well enough that imported plate was distinguished by the letter "F." Where was there any evidence of anyone having been misled on that point. No inquiry had been made into the matter and no evidence taken since 1842—a period of over sixty years—this hall-mark had been used for all plate, and there had never been any Select Committee appointed to inquire into this grievance. In 1876 a Conservative Government, in its desire to protect the home market, provided for the use of the letter "F" for imported plate, but kept the other hallmarks unchanged. It was only people who were interested in Birmingham plate who wanted to throw this matter into confusion.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Bill is promoted by the manufacturers and workpeople of Sheffield, Birmingham, and London.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was always useful to put in the workpeople, but it was well known who was at the back of this movement. The Bill would put the whole thing into confusion and cause a serious revolution with regard to the hall-marking of foreign plate. It would do injury to the trade and commerce of the country. What was the necessity for knowing whether the workmanship was done in this country or abroad, in Scotland, England, or Ireland, in Birmingham, Sheffield, or the East End of London. So far as the workmanship or pattern was concerned there could be no fraud. Fraud could only arise in connection with

379
the material. The sole purport of the Assay Office was to prevent fraud in regard to material. They did not assay furniture; they only assayed that in which a standard quality was demanded. The Bill could only introduce confusion into the public mind. He did not object to helping our manufacturers in their competition with the foreigner, but it was not fair to do it by confusing the public. He wanted to point out another hardship the Bill would cause. At present any person could take gold and silver plate imported from abroad to the Assay Office without any restriction, or having to make any declaration, but this Bill provided that he should state in writing where the article was made, and he would be liable to a penalty for any error in his statement. Was it possible to conceive anything more harmful or hurtful to a trade than an impediment of that character. It was not the foreigner who would suffer the inconvenience, it was the importer, one of our own people, and he thought it most unreasonable. He must point out too that, under the Merchandise Marks Act, a person making a misstatement as to imported watch-cases rendered himself liable to a prosecution for perjury; in this Bill the penalty was a pecuniary one. He had so far only dealt with the general argument against the clause. When they came to the Amendments he would deal more with details.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"To leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 1, to the word 'in,' in page 1, line 11, stand part of the Bill."
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had no desire to enter into the various arguments which the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark had brought forward in what was really a Second Reading speech. He could answer every point the hon. Member had used against the Bill. Very great stress had been laid upon the fact that no evidence had been adduced in favour of the change. But it so happened that the workpeople of Sheffield had met and passed certain resolutions which had been sent to every
380
Labour Member of the House calling attention to the very great abuses in regard to the present law on hall - marking and urging them, as Labour Members, to support the Bill. He noticed that not a single Labour Member was present to oppose the Bill. He claimed, therefore that he had their support. The President of the Silver Trade Affiliation Society of Sheffield wrote a letter in which he said—
"Only those in the trade have any idea of the extent to which foreign countries are trading with the reputation of Great Britain by the use of our hall-mark and our corporate marks. Tons of foreign-made silver-plate are imported into this country with but one condition, that is that it is marked with the letter 'F' This finds its way to the London, Birmingham, or Sheffield Assay Office, and receives the ensign indicating that it is of sterling quality and has been marked in England and in a particular year. After that because of the fragility of the mark supposed to indicate its foreign origin, it is contorted and otherwise used or misused until it is impossible for the most sagacious expert to detect the fraud. As a result of this, tons of foreign-manufactured silver goods are being sold in this and other countries, bearing the British hall-mark, as of British manufacture without the faintest trace of the letter 'F' which the goods originally bore."
Trade unionists knew very well of these abuses, and they claimed that they should be rectified by Parliament. The object of the Bill simply was that instead of the letter "F" the Privy Council should be authorised, as they were in the case of watch-cases, to stamp a distinctive and separate mark different to that placed on English goods. They were asking the House to follow the precedent of Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which left it entirely to the discretion of the Privy Council to say what mark should be placed upon watch-cases, and they asked that the same discretion should be extended to all plate. He did not propose to detain the House any longer because they were anxious to get on with this Bill.
MR. WEIRthought the promoters of this Bill ought to have given a much better reason for passing it into law. The hon. Member opposite had told them that the workpeople of Sheffield were in favour of the Bill, but that only applied to some particular firm, and they did not know that that was the unanimous voice

381
of the workpeople of Sheffield. Under the law as it stood at present all foreign goods were marked distinctly with the letter "F" The promoter of this measure said that frequently this letter was obliterated, but he failed to see how they were going to prevent the obliteration of any other letter which might be placed upon foreign goods after the passing of this Act. If a person was such a rogue as to obliterate the letter how were they going to stop him doing it? He had gone most carefully into all these proposals, and he could not for the life of him see the use of this Bill. He was as anxious as anyone to see that British trade was protected, and that all materials from abroad should be stamped, but there could not be any large amount of deception practised under the law as it stood at present. This Bill gave power to the Privy Council to alter the marks as often as they liked. At the present moment everybody understood that the letter "F" indicated foreign manufacture, but if this Bill became law they might in future have half-a-dozen different marks, and where would the public be then? They would indeed be in a fog. The public might reasonably conclude that these new marks were the marks of English manufacturers, and not those for foreign articles. For the last sixty-two years the letter "F" had been stamped on foreign articles, and everyone knew what that mark meant. There was actually very little fraud under the present system, but the danger of fraud would be considerably increased under this Bill. He did not know whether the hon. Member in charge of this Bill knew anything about the manufacture of these goods or not, but he would remind him that a very considerable quantity of articles supposed to be made in this country had parts of them made abroad, and were really only made up in this country. A good many small parts of articles were imported from France, Germany, Belgium, and America. In America, in particular, they produced most delicate work by machinery, and every manufacturer here could rely upon every part being precisely alike. The House should remember that a large quantity of gold and silver articles were produced in India, and they came to this country as foreign goods, and yet they had not heard one word as to how
382
these articles were to be treated. There was precious little plate produced in London, it was mostly produced in Sheffield and Birmingham, the home of protection. This was purely a protectionist Bill. If this Bill passed, the public would be more confused than ever. They had at present a good genuine mark for foreign goods, and he hoped the House would refuse to allow any chopping and changing about merely to please a small clique in Sheffield and Birmingham.
The promoter of this Bill had referred 'to watch-cases, but they were only one of many articles the parts of which were manufactured abroad. What about the interior parts of watches? He could mention at least 500 articles the parts of which came from foreign lands, and were not manufactured in this country at all. The hon. Member opposite said the letter "F" was being obliterated and fraud was being perpetrated, but, if frauds were now going on amongst unscrupulous traders, that fraud would be magnified one hundred times by the plan proposed in this clause. He had no desire to take up the time of the House because there was a great deal more business to follow, but he fell in with the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark upon this question. This clause was a bad clause, and the promoters of the Bill had failed to give satisfactory reasons to show how either the public or traders would be benefited or protected. This clause, in his opinion, was absolutely worthless and unworkable and would have the effect of allowing the people of this country to be defrauded more than ever they had been in the past.
SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid that on the Second Reading of the Bill he believed he took the only logical view of the matter possible, which was that this measure was absolutely unnecessary and would do no good whatever. Now that the Bill had emerged from the Grand Committee, he found that the view he then expressed was rather strengthened, because the measure only made confusion worst confounded. Parliament in its wisdom had already legislated for a distinguishing mark—the letter "F"—which' told a purchaser what he was buying. If

383
that mark was obliterated on any article of foreign manufacture it was a fraud under the Act and the offence was punishable as a fraud. He was surprised that this Bill, which had no ground whatever for its existence, should have been introduced. Under these circumstances, if a division was taken he should certainly vote against this clause.
MR. BRIGGsaid he thought this Bill would have just the contrary effect to that which was intended. The great probability was that it would make a market for foreign articles which did not exist at the present moment. They were asked to institute a new system of marking without being given any definition of what the new mark was to be, but they were simply told that it must indicate the place of origin. The stamp would give a value to these articles in the market which they would not otherwise possess. This Bill would give a real value to that which before had a very uncertain value. He should have been better satisfied if some definition as to intrinsic value had been proposed to be indicated by the stamp, for then they would have known what they were doing. He saw no reason whatever for the introduction of this Bill, and he did not see any good that was likely to accrue from passing it into law.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid this Bill was a measure to amend the law with reference to the marking of foreign plate, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark proposed to leave out Clause 1. It had been stated that the trade of Birmingham and Sheffield was very much affected by the present system, which permitted fraud. He was going to suggest that instead of amending the law in the interests of the manufacturers of Birmingham and Sheffield, the proper course to adopt was to abolish the absurd method of hall-marking altogether, and get rid of these antiquated methods. What would happen if they omitted this clause altogether? They would then have the same procedure in regard to silver-plate as in regard to any other article. He thought manufacturers ought
384
to put their good name behind their productions, and that would be a guarantee to the public that they were getting what they paid for. Look at the proceedings which would go on under this Act? A manufacturer would have to take every little bit of silver to some Assay Office to be treated by a chemical process at enormous cost, and this would impose a serious restriction upon manufacturers and hinder them from freely carrying on their trade. In regard to his own business, it had been laid down that every bag should be branded in the presence of an inspector. He regarded such regulations as that as monstrous, and they undoubtedly had the effect of increasing the cost of production. They ought to get rid altogether of all these hall-marks. They might let inspectors go about taking samples and testing them, and that would be far more effective. This was a Bill which, in the interests of those who brought it forward, ought not to be passed. There ought to be a clause inserted in this Bill which would get rid of hall-marking altogether, for it did not serve any useful purpose. They had had some experience of the Merchandise Marks Act under which articles had to be marked "Made in Germany" or "Made in France, "with the result that the manufacturers who first sought this protection were now heartily sick of it, because it had had the effect of increasing the number of those articles manufactured and had increased their sale. It was ridiculous to talk about protecting home industries at the expense of the foreigner, and this was a sort of protection which ought not to be passed by Parliament. He recommended the House to postpone this Bill, and when they decided to protect home industries in another way then they might also consider what would be the best means by which foreign silver might be kept out and home silver more largely used. He thought this Bill proceeded along the wrong lines altogether.
MR. SOARESthought they ought to have some answer from one of the promoters of the Bill to the speech which the hon. Member for Accrington had made. The hon. Member had made a strong attack upon this

385
clause and had said that it was no use, and no reply whatever had been given to that accusation. He was in favour of the principle of the Bill, for they all wanted to prevent fraud in this matter; but his hon. and learned friend said that, so far from closing the door by this Bill, they were opening it to fraud. He hoped that one of the promoters would explain for the benefit of those who did not
understand this question, exactly what the effect of this clause would be. If they did not do so he for one, although he was favourably disposed to the principles of the Bill, would be obliged to vote for the proposal of his hon. friend.
Question put—
The House divided:—Ayes, 95; Noes, 68 (Division List No. 156.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex. F.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Agnew, Sit Andrew Noel

Forster, Henry William

Plummer, Walter R.

Allen, Charles P.

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Pym, C. Guy

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Galloway, William Johnson

Reid, James (Greenock)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gardner, Ernest

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Balcarres, Lord

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Robinson, Brooke

Baldwin, Alfred

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Balfour, Rt. Hon G. W. (Leeds

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gunter, Sir Robert

Russell, T. W.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bousfield, William Robert

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Knowles, Sir Lees

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Butcher, John George

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stroyan, John

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Macdona, John Gumming

Tennant, Harold John

Chapman, Edward

Malcolm, Ian

Tomkinson, James

Charrington, Spencer

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Tuff, Charles

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mount, William Arthur

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Dickson, Charles Scott

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Myers, William Henry

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Emmott, Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Yoxall, James Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Pemberton, John S. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Samuel Roberts and Sir

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Pirie, Duncan V.

William Holland.

NOES.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Harwood, George

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Black, Alexander William

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Boland, John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Brigg, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Causton, Richard Knight

Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

O'Shee, James John

Combie, John William

Kilbride, Denis

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Cullinan, J.

Leamy, Edmund

Power, Patrick Joseph

Delany, William

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Priestley, Arthur

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Leng, Sir John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lundon, W.

Rigg, Richard

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Doogan, P. C.

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mooney, John J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

Murphy, John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Slack, John Bamford

Hammond, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Soares, Ernest J.

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr.

Sullivan, Donal

Weir, James Galloway

Caldwell and Mr. Alexander

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Cross.

Wallace, Robert

Young, Samuel

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Clause 1.
MR. CALDWELLmoved to amend Subsection 2 of Clause 1, which provided that any person who brought plate to be assayed and marked at an Assay Office should state in writing whether it was imported from foreign parts, by providing that it should not be necessary to make a statement in writing when the plate was brought to the office in charge of an officer of Customs under the Revenue Act, 1883. He pointed out that under that Act, when gold or silver—plate was brought from abroad it was at once warehoused with the Customs and could not be moved without the assent of the Assay officers. When that consent was obtained, it was taken to the Assay Office in charge of an officer of the Customs, and it could not be taken out of the Customs House until it was marked. He thought this Amendment was absolutely necessary in order to prevent annoyance which might otherwise be caused in connection with the importation of foreign goods into this country. He was sure there was no wish on the part of anyone to create what would be absolutely unnecessary annoyance in this matter, and, therefore, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 21, at end, to add the words 'but it shall not be necessary to make such statement in writing where any plate or other article is brought to an Assay Office by au officer of Customs under the provisions of the Revenue Act, 1883, for the purpose of being assayed, stamped, or marked as having been imported from foreign parts.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he had pleasure in accepting the Amendment. He explained that the promoters of the Bill had followed the precedent of the 1887 Act by which when foreign watch—cases were taken out of the Customs warehouse a declaration had to be made before a magistrate before they were
388
assayed. The Amendment would relieve importers of the necessity of making a declaration or statement.
MR. WEIRsaid he was glad the Amendment had been accepted. No importer would be so insane as to import an article not up to standard.
MR. CALDWELLmoved an Amendment in Clause 1 with the object of making the meaning clear in regard to its application to Scotland and Ireland. There was a rather peculiar state of the law in regard to summary jurisdiction in the three countries. In the case of England it was provided in the Summary Procedure Act, 1876, that wherever the words "summary conviction" were put in they were understood to imply the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, but in Scotland and Ireland there was no such proviso. The consequence was that, unless these words were inserted, this clause would not apply to Scotland and Ireland. This was a technicality, but he supposed there would be no objection to the Amendment. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 5, after the word 'conviction' insert the words 'under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4.
MR. CALDWELLmoved to omit that part of Clause 4 which repealed Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.This was a very instructive Amendment from the fact that those on the other side had found it necessary to repeal the section referred to. He thought it was a very awkward thing from the point of view of order to introduce in the Bill now before the House a proposal to repeal a section of the Merchandise Marks Act which related to other matters. If

389
that section of the Act were to be repealed at all he would personally prefer that it should be repealed by an amending Act of its own instead of by a clause in such a Bill as this where they would never think of looking for it. The supporters of the Merchandise Marks Act were very anxious to put in as many penalties as they could in connection with the, importation of foreign-made articles. What was now proposed to be repealed had reference to the marking of watch-cases, and the clause was of a much more stringent nature than that they were now introducing. He supposed that the promoters of the Bill of 1887, after about eighteen years experience, had come to the conclusion that the clause had done more harm than good, and were most anxious to have it repealed. He predicted a similar fate for this Bill. When watch—cases were in question the man had to make a declaration before an officer of the Assay Office, or before a Commissioner with power to administer an oath in England, Ireland, or Scotland. That was a solemn and serious statutory declaration fenced about in every possible way. And then followed the penalties. Every person who made a false declaration was liable on conviction on indictment to the penalties of perjury, and on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. Why were the promoters of this Bill asking that that protection in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 should be removed? Were they anxious to protect the foreigner in these matters; for the section only applied to the foreigner. Was that the way to protect British trade and commerce? In 1887 those interested in the watch-making industry in this country could not get a clause severe enough against the foreigner; and, if it was necessary then, why was it not necessary now? Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 ought not to be repealed by a species of side wind in a Bill of this sort, where nobody was likely to look for its repeal. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would cut the matter short by agreeing to the Amendment, and if it was necessary to repeal that section of the Merchandise Marks Act it should be done by a separate Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 18, to leave out from '1876' to the word 'hereby' in line 19, and insert the word 'is.'"—(Mr. Ceddwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he quite agreed with the hon. Member that it would have been more convenient if the repeal of Section 8 of the Merchandise Marks Act had been introduced in a different way; but the clause now objected to was put in at the request of the Birmingham Assay Office in order to make the practice uniform.
MR. WEIRsaid that the attitude of the Government towards this Bill seemed to him unaccountable. If a man were guilty of fraud, let him bear the punishment. He was astonished that the promoters of this Bill should ask that these fraudulent persons should escape from any penalty whatever. If they were guilty of fraud, let them be fined in £200 or £2,000, in order to protect honest British traders and British workmen. This Bill dealt with plate, and not with watch-cases at all. Watch—cases had been introduced into the discussion almost within the last quarter of an hour. The hon. Member for Ecclesall said that the clause had been introduced at the request of the Birmingham Assay Office; but had he consulted the authorities at the Assay Offices in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin? Were these Asssy Offices of the same opinion as the Birmingham Assay Office? For his part, he declined to be led by the nose by Birmingham, and he supported the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark in his objection to the repeal of the eighth section of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 in this manner.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he must say that the situation exposed by the hon. Member for Mid.-Lanark required some explanation. Hon. Members on the Treasury Bench were the custodians of the commercial law of this country, and was the Board of Trade going to permit the repeal of one of the most important sections of the Merchandise Marks Act

391
by the terminal clause of a Bill for another purpose? He did not argue whether it was wise or unwise to repeal that section; but he insisted that it should not be repealed in the manner proposed. He strongly urged the President of the Board of Trade to carefully consider this matter, and find some means to rescue the House from the anomalous position in which it was placed. They were asked to repeal this section of the Merchandise Marks Act at the behest of the Assay Office of Birmingham. What had that Assay Office to do with the matter? The Assay officer in Birmingham was a public officer, and it was not for him to say whether it was convenient, or inconvenient, to make a statement in writing when plate was brought to the office in charge of an officer of Customs under the Kevenue Act of 1883.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said that this did not appear to him to be a matter of great importance one way or another. He understood that the Grand Committee had carefully considered the subject and had inserted the words objected to by a large majority. He did not believe that there would be any practical inconvenience in repealing the 8th section of the Merchandise Marks Act which, as he understood, ought never to have been in that Act at all, but ought to have been originally treated as an Amendment to the Customs Act. The hon. Member for Mid-Lanark had given a practical illustration of the difficulty of passing special amending Acts.
MR. CALDWELLasked how many he had helped to pass? He had given more help than obstruction to pass such Acts.
MR. DALZIELsaid he had listened with some interest to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, but the right hon. Gentleman had not convinced him that he was justified in supporting this clause in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it did not matter whether this clause was taken out of the Bill, and he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not be well advised to agree to the deletion of this clause which
392
raised so many controversial matters. This clause was not originally in the Bill, but certain intelligent and far-seeing gentlemen from Birmingham seized the opportunity of introducing this repealing provision in the Grand Committee, although it was absolutely foreign to the character of the Bill; and the division to take away a very important section of the Merchandise Marks Act was of a closely Party character. In dealing with a Bill for one purpose, they ought not to introduce a matter which dealt with a question altogether foreign to the character of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that this section ought never to have been in the Merchandise Marks Act at all. But who was responsible for that? The hon. Member for Sheffield was one of the enthusiastic supporters of that Act, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman was not going to sit silent under the condemnation of the President of the Board of Trade, who said that that Act was badly drawn, and contained a clause which ought not to have been in it. He understood that the hon. Gentleman himself was anxious to repeal other clauses in the Merchandise Marks Act; and he believed that the hon. Gentleman had got a Bill before the House which was to do away with his grand idea of the mark "made in Germany," which, instead of helping British trade, had been the best advertisement in the world to assist German trade. He submitted that the Merchandise Marks Act ought not to be amended on a side issue like this.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that as there seemed to be a general feeling in the House that the eighth section of the Merchandise Marks Act ought not to be repealed by this Bill, he was willing to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and negatived.
Word "is" inserted.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that he hoped the House would now allow him to> take the Third Reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be read a third time."
MR. CALDWELLsaid he acknowledged the handsome way in which the hon. Member had given way on his Amendment, and he was not going to interpose any objection to the Third Reading. He, for one, was quite in favour of protecting British made goods by every legitimate means; but they had had experience before that these measures of protection, which interfered with foreign goods coming into this country, put needless impediments in the way of interchange of commerce between this country and other countries, and really did far more harm than good to this country. That had been shown in various ways. He contended that to introduce a different mark for foreign plate would lead to great confusion in the public mind. Foreigners coming into this country had access to our Assay Office. He did not know whether there were Assay Offices abroad, but he presumed that, if there were, by the reciprocity of nations, British manufacturers would have access to these foreign Assay Offices. If restrictions of this kind were to be introduced on foreign-made plate, it I would soon be spread all over the Continent that Britain was afraid of foreign competition; and no greater stimulus could be given to foreign competition with the home trade than the passing of an Act of this kind. Who were the parties to suffer owing to the necessity of a statement in writing that plate was imported from foreign parts? It would not affect the foreigner; because he brought goods into this country in bond. It was the home manufacturer alone who would suffer. The home manufacturer would now have to make a declaration on every piece of plate which he took to the Assay Office, and that would interpose an obstacle to the home trade, and in its effect it would be as disappointing to the promoters of this Bill as the Merchandise Marks Act had been. Watchmakers and jewellers sold foreign-made as well as home manufactures; but if they found themselves annoyed by the home trade insisting on these new regulations, the effect would be that they would avoid the home trade as much as possible, and go in for the foreign trade. In one sense he did not object to this Bill being passed, and for this reason, that if the
394
Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 had not been passed, the hon. Member for Sheffield, and others of his way of thinking, would always have felt that they had a grievance, and they would have alleged that their trade was being ruined. After that Act was passed, it was found that instead of benefiting trade, it had wrecked business. In the same way he believed that this Bill, when it became an Act, instead of benefiting business, would be a positive hindrance, and, moreover, would create a prejudice against British-made goods.

SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
MR. WEIRsaid he had put down a clause in order to show a way of increasing the Post Office revenue by at least £25,000 a year. The Post Office Savings Bank had been established for the purpose of encouraging thrifty and frugal habits amongst the working classes. No charge had hitherto been made on withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank, and he thought that a small charge of this kind would tend to encourage thrift, as it would be a slight deterrent against hasty withdrawals; and considering that there were six million withdrawals in the course of the year there would be a contribution to the Exchequer of £25,000. It would mean very little to the withdrawers, but would mean a great deal to the Treasury and would have a tendency to keep deposits in the Savings Bank.
A clause (Charge on Withdrawals).
"The Postmaster General shall be entitled to make a charge of one penny on payment of each withdrawal from the Post Office Savings Bank, and such charge shall be collected by means of a penny stamp affixed to the withdrawal order at the time of payment."—(Mr. Weir.")
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)said he appreciated the desire of the hon. Member to find additional public revenue, but doubted if the clause would assist the object of encouraging thrift. What did give that encouragement was the knowledge a depositor had that at short notice and without charge he could withdraw his savings. A provision such as was proposed would cause irritation to depositors, and its effect would rather be to deter people from depositing in Post Office banks if their savings would be penalised in a manner from which depositors in other savings banks would be exempt. He was sure the hon. Gentleman did not wish to penalise depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; and he hoped he would withdraw the clause.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he quite recognised the force of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had practically the same object in view—namely, to stimulate thrift among the people. The hon. Gentleman thought that that could best be done by putting a little impediment on withdrawals; and he argued that if a man wanted to take out a shilling, and found he had to pay a penny in doing it, that that would act as a deterrent. There was a great deal of force in that. But there was also a great deal of force in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. As the clause would act one way with one class of the community, and another way with another class, perhaps it would be better to leave the matter where it was.
MR. WEIRsaid he had no desire to press the clause, and would withdraw it.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. WEIRsaid that the clause he now desired to move embodied a scheme
396
which would be an undoubted advantage to depositors. He had no doubt that the officials of the Department would oppose it. They always opposed new schemes. At the present time, if a man wished to withdraw I £10 from the Post Office Savings Bank he often had to wait three or four days for it; and if he happened to live in the Highlands or in remote parts of I Ireland he would probably have to wait a week or even longer. He wanted to get rid of that delay. At present if a man wanted to withdraw money at once he had to telegraph for it, and prepay a reply, at the average cost of fifteen pence. That information was given him by the right hon. Gentleman when he represented the Postmaster-General in this House. Under the proposed scheme every depositor, could, if he wished, obtain eight withdrawal orders, from the Head Office, which he could cash at any Post Office Savings Bank by producing his deposit book and affixing his signature to the order. He would thus be able to get the money he required at once without paying fifteenpence for a telegram. What an advantage that would be. A workman might be moving about looking for a job, and having withdrawal orders in his pocket could get one cashed at once without awaiting correspondence by post and losing two or three days. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause, notwithstanding the attitude of the permament officials who tried to influence the Postmaster-General. The scheme he proposed was a feasible scheme, and would be an undoubted advantage to the vast number of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank who might require to withdraw money at once. It might be said that the scheme would affect ordinary banking business. He could never understand why the Post Office was so concerned about the interests of banks. This was not a case of transferring money to another person; it was merely repaying money to a depositor, and could not therefore affect the banking interest in the slightest degree. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not advance the old argument that the scheme would interfere with the business of the banks. It

397
might be said that the scheme would encourage fraud; but a person might, at any time, get hold of a depositor's book and obtain money by forging the depositor's name. Under the scheme, there would be no more risk of fraud than existed at the present time. He had suggested orders of the value of 10s., 153., £1 or £2; but he would not object to the amounts being altered in any way the right hon. Gentleman desired. Under the scheme a depositor could get his money easily and cheaply; and the commission to be charged would bring revenue to the Department without any additional trouble. He begged to move.
A clause (Regulation in regard to withdrawal orders).
"The Postmaster-General may by request of a depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank issue against money standing to the credit of such depositor a hook containing eight savings bank withdrawal orders, each order to be of the fixed value of ten shillings, fifteen shillings, one pound, or two pounds; and payable at any Savings Bank Post Office in the United Kingdom, on the depositor producing his deposit book, and affixing his signature to the order. It shall be lawful for the Postmaster-General to debit the account of any such depositor with the sum of one shilling as representing a commission of three halfpence on each order. (Mr. Weir.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he regretted the hon. Member's criticisms of the officials of the Post Office, and in particular the officials of the Savings Bank Department. No Department of the public service was managed with greater skill or economy, or care for the public convenience than the Post Office Savings Bank; and there was nothing comparable to the work it accomplished in this or any other country. To be able to open an account in any one of the thousands of offices where savings bank business was transacted, and to be able to withdraw money at any other of these offices, required in itself an efficient organisation, which showed how well the work was being carried on. He thought the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. In this clause the hon.
398
Member went in a directly contrary direction to his intention in his last proposal. In that he desired to deter depositors from withdrawals, in this he offered facilities for withdrawing in a hurry. The cost of withdrawing by telegraph was not 1s. 3d., but 9d., except in cases where a telegraphic reply was required, and these cases were a very small proportion of the total number of withdrawals. The hon. Gentleman had on previous occasions commended this scheme to the attention of the House in the form of Questions addressed to the late Mr. Hanbury. The scheme was, he believed, originally propounded by a Mr. Lupton; and was carefully considered by the Post Office authorities. It was that, in addition to all present means of withdrawal, a depositor should be allowed to withdraw a sum not exceeding £16 through the medium of postal orders to be cashed as he desired at any post office. The organisation of the scheme proposed that while the depositor would be charged 1½d. on each order, he should continue to be credited with the interest on the amount until the orders were cashed. Instead, however, of simplifying the transaction, that would double, and more than double, the work of the Department in regard to each transaction. The very flr3t result would be that for every letter now in use—and they numbered 20,000—new letters would have to be substituted. Complications would also arise in reference to interest, and there would be difficulty in the depositor knowing exactly the state of his account at the end of the year. Further, the way in which the accounts were kept did not lend itself to this scheme. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that according to the best information he could obtain, instead of increasing the revenue of the Post Office, the scheme would cause very considerable extra expense and trouble. What would happen in the case of orders which were not presented within the limit of three months the clause did not state. If they were to be subject to the ordinary rule regarding postal orders, that would introduce a new complication and would cause a great deal of natural irritation to depositors who had taken out such orders, and found that, at the end of three months, they could not be cashed.

399
Under all the circumstances, he could not accept the clause; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press it. After all, as the hon. Member himself said, the object of the Post Office Savings Bank was to promote thrift. It was not, however, intended that a depositor should use the Post Office Savings Bank for the purposes of an ordinary current account. The Post Office Savings Bank was established to encourage thrift; and their efforts should be directed to securing it. He could not accept the clause. Its working would be difficult and costly; and he did not think it would be desirable to introduce such an innovation into Savings Bank practice.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that it was understood that Post Office officials were very partial to their own views with regard to postal arrangements. With reference to the Savings Bank Department there was, however, a great deal in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said; and he noticed himself in the last Post Office Report that that Department had been able to produce a very considerable surplus. With regard to the clause, he thought there was a great deal in the idea. He quite agreed with what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that interest could not be paid on every little thing of that kind. At the same time it would be a great convenience to get an order of the kind payable at any post office. With regard to what had bean said about it not encouraging thrift, he would point out that a man would only get a withdrawal order as a matter of precaution. A man travelling about might want to take more money than he required, and in such a case he would instead of taking bank notes take a withdrawal note and only cash it if required. There was a great deal to be said in favour of a scheme of that kind, especially on behalf of the working and other classes who when travelling wished to have command of money, but who did not wish at the same time to withdraw it from the bank. He quite recognised that it was not a scheme that could be earmarked by the House in this Bill, nevertheless he thought it was a scheme which should be placed before
400
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the best opportunity of drawing attention to it was when this Bill was brought before the House. The clause had answered its purpose, and he therefore hoped his hon. friend would not persist.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.),while recognising that the scheme as it stood would not work, thought it was one which deserved careful consideration. There was no doubt that there was considerable delay, and he was satisfied that small people did not put money into the Post Office Savings Bank because of the difficulty of getting it out. The best way to encourage thrift was to make it easy to draw money out. In London there was very little difficulty, but in outlying districts it was different, and if there were some document by which a man could, on proving his identity, get a withdrawal at the next post office without the circumlocution of sending up to London it would be a useful reform. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider some scheme by which that difficulty could be met he would make the Post Office Savings Bank much more popular.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. WEIRsaid the right hon. Gentleman had shown a great desire to safeguard the depositors in every possible way and to encourage thrift, and that being so, the clause lie (Mr. Weir) now proposed was that the Post Office should convey all the correspondence of the Post Office Savings Bank at a fixed charge of £50,000 against the cost of management. If £50,000 was too much let them make it £10,000 less, and if it was not enough let it be £10,000 more, but let there be a fixed charge for the conveyance of this correspondence and not a different amount every year as at present. He begged to move.
A clause (Maximum cost of Post Office Savings Bank postage).
"In page 5, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause, 'The Postmaster-General shall convey all correspondence on behalf of the Post Office Savings Bank at a uniform charge of fifty thousand pounds per annum against the cost of management.'"—(Mr. Weir.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINopposed the clause. At the present time, he said, the Exchequer was not making any profit out of the Savings Banks account; on the contrary, it was incurring a heavy loss. One of the objects of the Bill was to reduce that loss so that it might not be necessary to reduce the rate of interest to depositors. If, however, the Amendment were carried, the present cost to the Exchequer would be increased, because the charges now were considerably in excess of £50,000. It had always been the opinion of the Treasury, and he believed the policy of the House, that the Savings Banks should be charged by the Post Office with the fair cost of the work that was done for them, and in making that charge all the part which would in the ordinary way represent profit was deducted. Thus the Post Office made no profit out of the Post Office Savings Banks, though it made no loss. He saw no reason for departing from the present system.
MR. CALDWELLsaid he did not understand why, if the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to reduce the charges against the Savings Bank, he did not accept this clause.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Treasury had to find the money any way, and he did not wish it to be said that the Savings Banks were charged £20,000 or £30,000 less than they really were.
MR. CALDWELLsaid it was a matter which could not be properly discussed at that time. There was no doubt this was a Bill which ought to have been brought in by the Government, and he recognised the friendly disposition of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to it, but it was quite obvious the clause would not be accepted, and he hoped his hon. friend would be satisfied with the reasons which had been given.
MR. WEIRsaid he had no desiie to occupy the time of the House at this hour and therefore would withdraw the Amendment.
Motion and clause by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CALDWELLsaid his Amendment was to leave out from the word 'appointment' in Clause 1 down to the end of the clause. All the officers of the Savings Banks had to give security for their good conduct. Among those officers was the auditor, who had to make statutory balance-sheets which were placed in the books. Supposing that auditor disappeared and the balance-sheets were false balance-sheets they had no security. Everyone else had to find security against misconduct.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'appointment' to end of clause"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that out of respect to the spirit the hon. Member had shown not to finally impede the progress of this Bill he was prepared to accept the Amendment in the hope that it would facilitate the passing of the Bill on that the last day. In his view the best way to meet the question of the auditor was not by requiring him to give security, but by requiring the trustees of the bank to be most careful in their selection. The Bill provided that the office of auditor should only hold for one year, so that a change might be made in the auditors if it was deemed desirable. He appealed to the hon. Members for Mid-Lanark and Ross and Cromarty to allow the Bill to pass in the interest of the promotion of thrift. If they would do that he would confer with them, and if in any other direction he could make similar concessions he would be only too happy to do so.
MR. WEIRsaid he should be only too glad to accede to the wishes of his hon. friend. He recognised that, so far as the Bill applied only to trustee savings banks, it was a good Bill, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tacked on. to it most objectionable clauses affecting the Post Office Savings Bank, and if the hon. Member wanted his Bill to pass he should induce the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw those clauses.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CALDWELLsaid there was just one question which he thought was the most vital question of all. He regarded Clause 3 of the Bill with the greatest possible objection. It was really that clause to which he objected most. This Bill was going to give them a pension scheme. It was to be given to every officer—it was in the entire discretion of the trustees of a savings bank to grant it to any officer of a bank who became unable to discharge his duties through illness or age without any regard to length of service. If there was to be a pension scheme it should be under another Bill altogether. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out Clause 3."Mr. Caldwell.)
Question proposed, "That the words of the clause to the end of line 24, page 1, stand part of the Bill."
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid could not accept the Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid if he might make a suggestion he would suggest that the National Debt Commis-
404
sioners should be substituted for the Inspection Committee which would result in the limitations of the Superannuation Acts being enforced.
MR. CALDWELLsaid that that would still leave the objectionable principle of superannuation in the Bill. He would suggest that the clause should be withdrawn and the question at issue left open for further negotiation.
SIR ALBERT ROLLIThoped that that course would not be taken at this
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that if the Bill were to be allowed to go through the objections of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark might be satisfied by Amendments moved to the Bill in the House of Lords.
MR. WEIRsaid he could not allow the Bill to pass without some consideration of the clauses added to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very much disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the points which he had raised.
And, it being half-past five of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee) to be further considered upon Monday next.

REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee) considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.