Commons Sitting of 26 July 1907

Preamble
The House met at Twelve noon of the Clock.
High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division (Additional Judge). The Comptroller of the Household reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the eighteenth section of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, an additional Judge may be appointed to the High Court of Justice in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire."
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills. (See p. 237.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill; Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords]; Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CONVENT LAUNDRIES.
  Petition from Edinburgh, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Orkney, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR, TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Walkerburn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Two Petitions from Reading, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  Petition from Hertfordshire, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Brixton and other places, and Shepherd's Bush and other places; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (NEW CHARTERS).
  Copy presented, of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Nuneaton, dated the 22nd July, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FORESHORES (SALES, ETC.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 25th July; Mr. Lloyd-George]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 269.]
  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  Return presented, relative there to [ordered 17th July; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 270.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3872 to 3875 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (BOMBAY POLITICAL DEPARTMENT).
  Address for "Return showing the length of service and present pay and allowance of all Officers in the Bombay Political Department, showing the pay and allowances of the military Officers of the Department as compared with the pay and allowances of military Officers of the same length of service in the general cadre of the Indian Political Department, and as compared with the pay and allowances of Officers of the same length of service serving with their regiments."—(Sir Seymour King.)
  KING'S BENCH JUDGES.
  Address for "Return showing, for the years 1905 and 1906, in the case of each Judge of the King's Bench Division, the number of days on which he was absent from the King's Bench Division to go on circuit and the number of days on which he sat at assizes for the trial of prisoners or of civil cases."—(Mr. Herbert Craig.)
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) [REMUNERATION].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the remuneration of any interim Sheriff Substitute appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to regulate and amend the Laws and practice relating to the civil procedure in Sheriff Courts in Scotland (King's Recommendation signified), upon Monday next.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Completion of new Destroyers.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the average time taken to complete the six destroyers of the 1905–6 programme, reckoning the time from the date of the announcement of the programme to Parliament in February, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) None of the six destroyers referred to have yet been completed, and it is therefore not possible to supply the information desired.

  Irish Post Office Clerks and Alleged Favouritism.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed at the annual conference of the Irish Post Office clerks with regard to favouritism and secret reporting, and as to the manner in which disciplinary inquiries are conducted; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in these matters. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Resolutions dealing with the subjects referred to by the hon. Member were
  242
  passed at the annual conference of Irish Post Office clerks on the 5th instant. Evidence on those subjects was given before the Select Committee of this House which is now about to Report.

  The Australian Commonwealth and the Companies (Colonial Registers) Act.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain the ground on which it is thought necessary to remove doubt as to the Commonwealth of Australia being included in the British Colonies covered by The Companies (Colonial Registers) Act, 1883, and not thought necessary to deal in the same way with the Dominion of Canada.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The doubt raised by the Commonwealth of Australia was due to the special form of constitution conferred upon that country by the Act of 1900. In view of the fact that the federal constitution of Canada differs from that of Australia, and of the fact that Canada has not raised any doubt or asked for any amendment of the law, that country was not included in the Bill to amend the Companies Acts now before Parliament, and before any amendment of the Bill in this respect could be adopted the Government of Canada would have to be consulted.

  Silver Coinage.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many descriptions of silver coins are still issued by Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and France, respectively; and whether there is any evidence to show that the number of British issues might be diminished with advantage.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) New issues of silver coin in the United Kingdom are now ordinarily made only in the five denominations: half-crown, florin, shilling, sixpence, threepence. The current new issues in the United States are at present confined to three denominations (silver dollars not having been struck since 1905); in Germany to four; and in France to three. Of our own issues, that of threepences is comparatively small in amount, and during the last twenty years the popularity of the florin has steadily increased at the expense of the

  243
  half-crown; but I am not prepared to say that there is any positive evidence that the number of denominations might be diminished with advantage.

  Revenue from Taxes on Food, Drink, and Tobacco.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived in the last financial year from taxes on food, drink, and tobacco, and licenses for the manufacture or sale of these articles.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) £64,839,260.

  Civil Rights of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to cause the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to comply with the public demands made in Ireland, and endorsed by himself, dealing with the civil rights of teachers; and, if so, at what time he proposes to do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I regret that I can add nothing to the very full reply which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on 13th May last.†

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Wednesday next.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Shackleton; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Parker.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: Mr. Murphy.
  †See(4) Debates, clxxiv., 581.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. George Hardy and Mr. Hedges; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Bennett.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Beck; and had reinstated on the Committee (previously discharged in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. George White.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Public Health Bill): Mr. Arkwright; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Health Bill): Sir Francis Powell.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, that the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee be printed. [No. 271.]

  PUBLICATIONS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs),in moving, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at.

245
any hour, though opposed; that, at the conclusion of Government business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11," said—I have to make this Motion, which is the usual one as the close of the session approaches, and to offer such excuses as I can for the length and prolongation of the session to the late time of the year to which it is necessary to ask the House to sit. The truth is, a large portion of our time was occupied, and fruitfully occupied, at the early period of the session, first, by discussions upon rules of procedure, upon which opinions will differ, and are bound to differ, but which embodied a well-considered design for increasing the efficiency of the House in its legislative capacity. These discussions occupied, as the House will remember, a number of Government days at a lime when the Government has but a small share of the public time allotted to it. The same remarks apply to the proposals of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War for regulating the military service of the country. That Bill, I think, took up thirteen days of the time of the House, which, again I would remind the House, at that period of the session made a large inroad on the time usually allotted to us. Therefore, we are obliged to ask the House to sit well into August—beyond the middle of August. This is not a pleasant duty for one who has always advocated an early rising of the House, but there are circumstances, and I have mentioned some of them, which are more powerful than our own inclinations and desire; therefore I will make a general statement as to the amount of legislative work we shall have to call on the House to undertake during these last weeks of the session. First of all I will name the Bills we think should not be proceeded with. The Naval Lands Bill must suffer that fate; the Statute Law Revision Bill is a largo measure which we cannot hope to proceed with: the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, which is opposed in certain quarters; the Lunacy (Ireland) Bill, which, however much it may be required, must be abandoned.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: It is only a Bill for taking money from Ireland.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I leave the observation to be adjusted as may be thought fit. There is the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Bill, to which there is strong opposition; the Municipal Milk Depots Bill again meets with strong opposition; the Telegraphs Construction Bill can wait; and the Companies Consolidation Bill is a large measure for which clearly the House has not time. These are Bills that must be parted with. The next list is a list of Bills which are of a non-Party and non-controversial kind, and of a Departmental character, which we hope to be able to pass. But they are Bills which it will be impossible to proceed with if they are keenly opposed by any considerable section of Members of the House. They are important and useful Bills, but unless they are agreed Bills we cannot attempt to carry them. The first of these is the Companies Bill, which has passed through the other House, and which, I believe, is strongly demanded in the public interest. I trust that any outstanding points of controversy in it may be adjusted; unless that is so we cannot hope to pass it into law. The Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill, to protect the public from insurance companies of a mushroom kind in respect of workmen's compensation, we should be glad to pass if it; can be arranged. The Factory and Workshop Bill, to amend the law relating to the inspection of laundries, is of the same character; and so also is the Cab Fares Bill, to enable the Home Secretary to fix a limit for cab fares in London. There are next the Prisons (Ireland) Bill, to assimilate the law in Ireland to the English law in certain respects, and the Education (Scotland) Bill. Scotland has had an Education Bill dangled before it for the last few years, but from one cause or another it has always been disappointed. This is a Bill that is ardently desired in almost all its particulars, but there are one or two points in it upon which opposition will be offered, and therefore I put it in this category. If, as I hope, we can come to one mind on the subject, we shall be greatly pleased if it can be passed into law. The Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Bill is a Bill of to same sort; and also the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill. The Vaccination (Scotland) Bill assimilates the law as to vaccination in Scotland to the law in England, and I hope that will be agreed to. The Public Health (Scotland)

247
Bill is a Departmental Bill; and there is a Bill dealing with salmon and freshwater fisheries. These comprise the category of Bills which can be passed, and we hope may be passed, if they are admitted to be more or less agreed Bills. I now come to the Bills with which we are resolved to proceed. I need not mention the Appropriation Bill; and there is, of course, the Army Bill, which will return to us from another place in a day or two. There are the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill, which is nearly through Committee; the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, of which we mean to take the Report on Monday; the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill, which we hope will be through Committee next week, where it has been very largely criticised and examined; the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, which is awaiting its Committee stage; and the Patents and Designs Bill, which is awaiting Report, and to which I hope there will not be much objection. Then there are two agreed Bills—the Patents and Designs (Consolidation) Bill and the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Bill. There are also the Butter and Margarine Bill, the Report of which we shall take today; the Criminal Appeal Bill, which passed the House of Lords last year and which I know has strong support there. We hope to finish the Report stage on Monday, and I hope this Bill will not be very keenly opposed. The Matrimonial Causes Bill is an agreed measure; and the Australian States Constitution Bill and the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill are also, of course, agreed Bills. The Employment of Women Bill, to carry out certain international agreements, is also an agreed Bill. The Probation of Offenders Bill is, I think, generally welcomed in this House, and it is awaiting Report. The Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill embodies the non-contentious portions of the Education Bill of last year, and I hope it is agreed to. I think there is also general agreement upon the Released Persons (Poor Law Relief) Bill. The Judicature (Ireland) Bill was introduced by the late Government to reduce the number of Judges in Ireland, and I hope it may be passed. The Navigation Works (Ireland) Bill is a small Bill which will be useful to the fishing industry. The Irish Land (No. 2) Bill affects mineral rights. Then there are two Bills, one for England and one for Scotland,
248
dealing with the qualification of women for sitting on local authorities. The English Bill is still before the Committee of the other House, but it will, I hope, be sent down here very shortly. The Vaccination Bill, which awaits the Report stage; the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill, for the protection of the public health from what is called prepared food, as to which there is much need for protection; the Telegraphs (Money) Bill, which is awaiting Third Reading; the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill, which has passed its Second Reading and is awaiting Committee. Of these, I am entitled to say that there are only three which seem to be seriously opposed. I exclude the English Small Holdings and Allotment Bill for the reason that it was passed unanimously in both the principal stages, and although there may be controversy as to details, the main object and purpose of the Bill appears not to be contentious or controversial. The Evicted Tenants Bill and apparently the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and the Land Valuation (Scotland) Bill appear to be of the contentious kind. I think that is a very modest proportion of absolutely controversial measures. That is the programme I have to put before the House. There is one Bill which I seem to have omitted. That is the Bill which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India introduced yesterday dealing with the Council of India. Of course, at this time of the session that Bill can hardly be proceeded with if there is much opposition to it, but although it is important, it is a very short and concise Bill. There will also be the Transvaal Loan Bill, which will be introduced very shortly.
MR. LYTTELTON: The Pacific Islands Bill?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That question is still before the law officers on the point, as I understand, whether it is necessary to have a Bill at all. I do not think a decision has yet been arrived at. These are the measures which we hope to pass with the good-will of the House. We cannot ask for much good-will as to the contentious Bills, except the ordinary courtesy that we have always received from the Opposition in all parts of the House, but I think we

249
may expect the active and energetic good-will of the House in regard to the category of measures to which I have referred which merely require the adjustment of some difficulties they contain in order that they may become agreed Bills. With that good-will, after having looked carefully into it, we think it possible that Parliament should be prorogued on 24th August. But I need hardly point out that, without saying that is a sanguine view, it is a view which can only be brought to fruition if the House addresses itself, as I have no doubt it will, to the future work of legislation with a desire to occupy as little time as is consistent with the proper consideration of the measures before it. I do not think I have anything to add, Sir, and I hope the House will not think we have made a too exorbitant demand upon its patience. I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; that, at the conclusion of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to his task, which is never a very agreeable one for the Leader of the House, with great good humour and in a spirit of the most sanguine hope—always a useful and sometimes a necessary preparation for dealing with the practical affairs of life. I should have thought, if he had made this speech in February last, that he was asking us to find more time than it was likely the House would provide in order to get through the programme which he has cheerfully sketched out on 26th July. I really think he has forgotten the occasion of his speech, and that he has made a mistake of about six months in its application. Although I am ready, not perhaps willingly, to sit as long as the right hon. Gentleman requires me to do so. I confess when I remember that
250
last year there were only two months—January and September—inwhich this House was not sitting, and in this year there has been only one month—namely, January—in which the House has not sat, I am bound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is throwing a heavy burden on those who think it their duty to deal to the best of their ability with the schemes the Government brings forward. Now what does the right hon. Gentleman propose? I have not put down all the Bills he mentioned, but my right hon. friend near me tells me he enumerated forty-three Bills which he hopes to pass. [Cheers.] I daresay it is very desirable to pass them. I am not dealing with the merits of the Bills, I am dealing with the number, and it will hardly be denied by hon. Gentlemen who cheered that enumeration that, on July 26th, the prospect of having to deal with forty three more Bills is not exhilarating to those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, desire to spend their time in July, or, at all events, in August, September, and October, in a more cheerful atmosphere than they can expect this House to provide. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt justified in saying that of these forty-three Bills there are a certain number which everybody desires to see passed, and which will provoke very little discussion; but with regard to a largo number even of those which he rightly describes as being non-Party Bills, he must expect that, unless the House is to be exhausted by late hours and long sittings, there will be a legitimate desire on the part of Members on both sides of the House to offer some criticism and comment. I suppose he means to pass these Bills at three or four o'clock in the morning, when no doubt, the ardour of criticism greatly diminishes, unless there is to be one of those fights which none of us like, but which from time to time on both sides of the House it appears necessary to indulge in. When the right hon. Gentleman came to the category of Bills which may properly be called contentious, and which he admits to be contentious, I was surprised to find him omitting the English Land Bill. It is quite true that the object of that Bill commends itself to Members on both sides of the House, and that no division was taken on the Second Reading; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not assume that that Bill either can or ought

251
to leave this House without receiving a full measure of comment and criticism in the whole House. It deals not only with a great object, but with great interests—the interests of local authorities, the interests of those who desire land, the interests of those who possess land, and the interests of those who cultivate the land—all interests that require and demand from this House fair discussion and fair comment. If you add, therefore, the English Land Bill to the Bills which the right hon. Gentleman admits to be contentious, the Scottish Small Holders Bill, the Scottish Valuation Bill, and the remaining stages of the Evicted Tenants Bill, I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the idea of our getting up on 24th August is really quite ludicrous, unless he takes such steps as I will refer to directly, and even, I think, after he does take those steps. The English Land Bill, I understand, cannot be down here for discussion on the Report Stage until the week after next, and I believe the same is the case with the Scottish Small Holders Bill; therefore it cannot be before 5th August that, for the first time, this House, as a whole, will be permitted to deal with these two great measures. And as for the Scottish Valuation Bill, a Bill which may have every merit in the world, but it is undoubtedly revolutionary in the magnitude of its scope, and which, from the nature of the case, demands an opportunity for discussion, seeing that it involves a principle which, if accepted for Scotland, cannot be confined to Scotland—that Bill has not-even gone upstairs for discussion in Committee, still less has it had effective discussion in the House. I suppose the Scottish Valuation Bill cannot go to the Scottish Grand Committee until that Committee has finished dealing with the Scottish Small Holders Bill; that is to say, it cannot begin to discuss that Bill until the week after next. This immense revolutionary change in the whole system on which it is proposed to value rateable property will not be discussed, even upstairs, and still less in this House, until 7th August. And yet the right hon. Gentleman expects to get up by 24th August! Is that really his sanguine hope? Can he really expect to get up even by 1st October? [Cries of "September."] Well, I am not sure it will not be 1st October. Whether we like it or not, we are to sit here, patiently or impatiently, up to some
252
unknown date in the month or months succeeding August. I have forgotten to mention the Transvaal Loan Bill. The right hon. Gentleman must be perfectly well aware that that Bill, in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, is a Bill which raises most formidable issues in connection with our policy in the Transvaal. It raises most formidable issues in connection with the general position of British finance. It is a Bill with a double aspect, each aspect requiring and demanding that full discussion in this House which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity of having. I do not ask that he should put every stage of that Bill down at a convenient time, but I am sure it would be an absolute outrage on such liberties as are still left to us if we have not a full and fair opportunity of discussing the character of that Bill—the ground which has induced the Government to adopt the Bill, the views which the Transvaal population hold with regard to it, its effect on the credit of the Transvaal, how the credit of the Transvaal affects the security of the loans we have already made to that country, and the effect upon our money market. It is not a long measure, but it raises points of enormous importance, and it has to be squeezed in after next week between all these Scottish and English Land Bills and Valuation Bills, and all the rest of the controversial measures. Then they all have to go to the Lords, and will probably be amended by the Lords, and have to be rediscussed here. How the right hon. Gentleman can without a smile on his face and with the impressive gravity of the practised prophet come down and talk about 24th August I really cannot imagine. I do not think it would be in accordance with usage or precedent, and I do not think it would be expedient on the present occasion, to allow this Motion to pass without some comment on the past as well as a, forecast of the future. The right hon. Gentleman has not, I think, shown himself very successful in his forecast of the future, and he has been wisely reticent as to what has gone on in the past. But I think if he will cast his eye back over the session he will feel probably that the responsibility for the want of progress is certainly in no small degree owing to the methods he has adopted, and the Motions he has brought before us. We have really expended time on other matters than

253
legislation which make this huge legislative programme, be its merits what you like, absolutely out of place. When I go back to the King's Speech at the beginning of the session, I remember various incidents which I am sure will give some disquiet to the right hon. Gentleman if he makes the same survey as I do. Ho promised us a great measure about the House of Lords. [Ministerial cries of "No."] He promised to deal with the House of Lords. How has he dealt with it? He brought forward an abstract Resolution which took a whole week of our Parliamentary time—three complete days which could have been given to legislation—and which, as far as I can see, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, has not advanced matters at all. Let us grant for the sake of argument that the House of Lords requires all the coercive measures the right hon. Gentleman desires to apply to it, how is that object furthered by an abstract Resolution which wastes the most valuable period of the session in perfectly barren controversies which do not help matters so far as the Government are concerned, which compel us to give up our rights of free debate and to sit in months when we would much rather be doing something else, and give whatever excuse there may be for that persistent interference with liberty of discussion which is becoming more and more a fatal habit with the right hon. Gentleman? I remember when the King's Speech was under discussion, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmoreland got up and said he was delighted with the intentions of the Government on temperance reform. He was good enough to say I had twitted the Government with a passion for constitutional changes which were thrusting into a remote and indefinite future the projects of social reform about which people talked so much in the country. The hon. Gentleman, with less experience, perhaps, than some other Members of the House, took the amiable observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on the subject of temperance reform as a proof that my criticism of his words was an unfounded criticism, and that the Government for once really did mean business. How soon were the sanguine hopes of the hon. Gentleman dashed to the ground! Not only have the Government not found time for that particular instalment of
254
social reform, but they have admitted that they were never in a position, even had they had the time, to bring forward a measure. They have been talking about temperance, not merely since they came into office, but for months, for years—well, for a Parliamentary generation; and yet they not only could not find time for a measure, but they have not got a measure even if they could find the time. The hon. Gentleman will do well on the occasion of the next King's Speech to moderate the sanguineness of his expectations. He is not the only gentleman, nor does he belong to the only Party, who cherished, and thought they had a right to cherish, the strongest views as to the amount of time the Government were going to devote to carrying out their particular desires. I remember the Leader of the Irish Party got up on the King's Speech and told the House there was a distinct understanding that there was to be an Irish session; and that the Government were pledged to carry great reforms for Ireland leading on to the full policy of Home Rule. I have not quoted the exact words which were used, but that is practically their substance. We know what has happened to these expectations; we do not know what would have happened if the hon. Gentleman and his friends had not summarily put down their foot upon the abortive legislative efforts of the Secretary for Ireland. Why, we should be now discussing, not only the English and the Scottish Land Bills, the subject of the Irish evicted tenants, Transvaal loans, and the other thirty-six measures we have to deal with, but we should be involved in the Serbonian bog of Irish quasi-Home Rule legislation. Whatever disappointment the Leader of the Irish Party may feel on this question, and however painful may be the disappointment of the parental hopes of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if either of these two Gentlemen has the smallest affection for a holiday, he must rejoice at the unhappy blight, the untimely frost, which earlier in the session destroyed this budding legislation. The time the right hon. Gentleman has spent upon the new Rules of the House is time which has been equally misspent with that bestowed on the abstract discussion about the House of Lords. I do not wish too early to prophesy as to what the fate of this new scheme of sending up the biggest

255
measures to Grand Committee may be, but I think nobody can watch the working of that system without feeling the deepest disquiet as to its effect upon the general deliberations of this House. It has been shown to throw quite undue labours on these new Members of the House in the Grand Committee. Any number of Gentlemen in this House can testify how heavy and intolerable is this burden of anxiously dealing with the details of a Bill from eleven o'clock in the morning till four in the afternoon, and then attending the sittings of this House. I cannot help thinking the emptiness of our benches during important debates is, in part at least, due to this cause. There is yet a more important point than the labour thrown upon individual Members. This session shows a really alarming advance in the methods by which the Administration of the day are dealing with free speech. It was after we had been in Committee a good deal over thirty days on the Education Bill of 1902, when the House had been sitting nine or ten months, that, as Leader of the House, I moved closure by compartments on that measure. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said—no doubt with truth—that these were great invasions upon the liberty of debate, and that what was done by the Government would, of course, be done by their successors. But the present Government has gone on to what is far worse. The glory of this House used to be that in Committee or on Report it was able to deal with the details of a Bill. Now you send your important Bills to Committee upstairs; upstairs you closure them; they come downstairs, and, instead of giving the House on Report some pale reflection, at all events, of the powers it had on the Committee stage, you immediately proceed to gag the Report stage by compartments. The result is that this House has really no power of discussing the details of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was correct in 1902, when he said that what the then Government did threw an excess of power into the hands of the Executive, and made them, not merely arbiters of the policy of the country, but uncontrolled arbiters of the legislation of the country, what must he think of his own colleagues who have carried that process to a degree never before dreamed of? Every think-
256
ing man will have the gravest doubts as to whether, unless we find some wholly new solution of our difficulties this House can be in the future anything like what it has been—the glory of our institutions. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe once saying that the amount of closure put on by any Government was the measure of their incompetence. If that be a true canon of criticism, how unplumbed must be the depths of incompetence of those who at present control the destinies of the House! No past Government has approached the present holders of office in the manner in which they have dealt with our debates. It is evident from what fell from the Prime Minister that he looks forward cheerfully to increasing the stringency of methods which most people, I believe, think sufficiently stringent already. Whatever he does, I do not think he will be able to getaway by 24th August; but that he should dream of it clearly indicates that he is not going to allow the House to discuss on the Report stage either the Scottish Landholders Bill, the Scottish Valuation Bill, or the English Bill, or the Transvaal Loan Bill. In the calculations he and his friends have made they must have openly admitted to each other that if this programme was possible at all, it was only possible at the price of preventing this House discussing fully any single one of these measures. [Ministerial cries of "No."] I think that is a deplorable practice. It must be borne in mind that the Government of the day is sometimes beaten in Grand Committee. In such a case, when the Bill comes back to this House, shall we have an opportunity of discussing the views of the Grand Committee if the Government desire to restore the measure to its original state? Not at all. These Amendments introduced in Grand Committee will be dealt with mechanically at half-past ten some evening in the middle of August, and even the very members of the Grand Committee who defeated the Government will, I dare say, march into the lobby to support them in this silent and un-criticised reversal of the policy adopted upstairs. I think that is a very unhappy state of things and deserves the most earnest attention of the Government. I quite recognise the difficulty which any Government has in dealing with this matter, but this Government

257
has been absolutely reckless in regard to the amount of legislation. They have so trusted to the machinery of the closure that they do not think it worth while to think over Bills before introducing them, conscious that their worst blunders can be put right in another place. I see no signs whatever that the right hon. Gentleman has learned in this respect by experience. May I remind him of the solemn pledge which he has already given, as I understand, for next session? He is then going to deal with the licensing question, and to deal in an avowedly controversial spirit with education, and I believe we are to have a great Budget. The sugar duties and the old-age pension scheme will come up in a more serious fashion than they have done in the present session. Then there are the questions of English land valuation, Irish University education, Welsh Disestablishment, and the abolition of the House of Lords. That is not what is commonly called a modest programme. Even that programme includes nothing for Ireland. I do not know whether we are to have a Home Rule Bill in addition. I do not know if he is going to try his prentice hand on another instalment of Home Rule. If not, I do not know what hon. Gentlemen below the gangway will say; but, if he does, I think that by this time next year, when the right hon. Gentleman comes down to slaughter the innocents, he will probably find himself immersed in the details of the measure. I think each one of the Bills I have mentioned has been promised priority in turn.
Mr. LEIF JONES: We have been promised first place for the Licensing Bill.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I would, in all good feeling, advise the hon. Member not to be too sanguine that in the legislative programme next year his cherished project will find first place. Whether he will like it when he see sit is another question. Is it not a serious thing for those who care for the interests of the House that the Government have been forced by the programme of this year and their management of it in into these intolerable measures of closure by compartments? Is it not a serious thing that they are going to try a programme next year
258
which I do not think can be carried through, even with a double measure of severity? I think it is the duty of every man who cares for this House—and I have spent too much of my life in it not to care for it with an almost passionate interest—it is our bounden duty to see if there cannot be found some solution for the difficulties which press upon us. I have no hope that we shall ever be able to go back to the halcyon days of twenty or thirty years ago. I quite agree that there will always be, and must be, limitations upon our debates, which we have to regret, but the limitations are reaching a point which makes free discussion an absolute impossibility. Nobody will deny that measures are leaving this House more and more undebated, undisclosed, un-dealt with, and with a majority of Members knowing but little more than the general scope of the Bill and the general machinery for carrying it out. Nobody can deny that, if there is to be discussion and examination, we are more and more being driven to rely on the work of the other House, which is here the object of so much unjust criticism. Whatever we may think of the House of Lords, whether it is good or bad, I am too proud of being a Member of the House of Commons to wish to see the House of Lords surpass it in its great function as a deliberative Assembly. I do most earnestly hope that the Prime Minister will do two things—that he will, in the first place, try to moderate the magnitude of the programme he is henceforth going to ask the House to get through in the course of a session, and that he will, in the second place, set his mind to the far more difficult and important problem of how even a moderately modest programme is to be got through without unduly curtailing the immemorial rights of this House.
*The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith, Fifeshire, E.)said this was an annual demonstration, to which old Members were well accustomed. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the admirable good humour with which he had performed his part. He was not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into his imaginative forecast of what lay before them in the immediate future, except to enter a caveat against

259
the assumption that the list of Bills which he read out represented the measures which the Government had pledged themselves to introduce in the next session of Parliament. Nor was he going to discuss whether the Prime Minister and his colleagues had been too optimistic as regards the future. The sole point for which he rose was to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman had said by way of criticism of the Government in their management of the business of the session. He entirely dissented from the view that the three days occupied in debating the question of the House of Lords was time wasted. On the contrary, he thought they had advanced a step, and a very long step, in the practical dealing with this most urgent question. For, in the first place, the House, by an enormous majority, affirmed its view of the relative position of the two Chambers in the Constitution, and further there was a general and almost complete acquiescence on the Ministerial side in the main principles of the practical scheme for dealing with the matter which the Prime Minister adumbrated.
A much more vulnerable point for the right hon. Gentleman's attack would have been if he had asked them what possible justification they had for devoting a whole day of Parliamentary lime to the discussion of Colonial preference—a question which was decided at the General Election. That, of course, was in deference to constitutional Parliamentary tradition, which compelled the Government to place a day at the disposal of the Leaders of the Opposition for a vote of censure. The plan for extending the reference of Bills to Committees upstairs, which the right hon. Gentleman thought was a retrogade step, was put forward as an experiment, and, as far as he was able to form an opinion, it was an experiment which was absolutely necessary if this House was to perform even a tithe of the business of the country. The right, hon. Gentleman had bemoaned the sad fate of Members of the Opposition in having to attend all the morning at those Committees, and all the evening in the House. Looking at the right hon. Member for South Dublin and the hon. baronet the Member for the City of London, he did not think there were any two Members in the House who bore less sign of wear and tear, or more capacity for continuous
260
and strenuous labour. As long as they had men sent here by the constituencies endowed with their physical and intellectual powers, there need be no fear of a breakdown of the Parliamentary machine. The Scottish Land Bill had been in the Grand Committee ten hours a week throughout the whole of May, June and July, and that it should require an inordinate amount of Parliamentary time when it came back to the House on Report was perfectly preposterous. As regarded the English Bill, it had had happier treatment, a great deal of time had been most fruitfully occupied in the discussion of details, which could be handled in a much more practical spirit in the Committee than in the House, and there again the claim that they should spend a large amount of time in doing the work over again was not in accordance with the real requirements of the case or the best Parliamentary tradition.
There was nobody on either side who regarded the guillotine, and the manner in which it had been applied, with anything like unqualified satisfaction. The right hon. Gentleman had truly said that he did not apply the guillotine to the Education Bill in 1902 until after the measure had been for some time in Committee. He himself, however, pointed out then, and subsequent experience had shown, that if they once began the use of an instrument like the guillotine it would be used with increasing vigour and severity year by year. The right hon. Gentleman had wisely confined his references to the Bill of 1902, but his own recollection was that only a few lines of the Aliens Bill were discussed before the closure was applied. [An Hon. Member: After three days.] And what about the Licensing Bill?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Eleven days.
Mr. ASQUITH: Yes, and then it was compulsorily closured. These cases, when they came to be examined, showed that anything which this Government had done would bear not unfavourable comparison with the action of their predecessors. However, he was not anxious to engage in a game of battledore and shuttlecock, or reciprocal recrimination. He quite agreed that the state of things was unsatisfactory. One of the most urgent needs in their procedure was the devising

261
of some machinery by which wholesale closure would be taken out of the hands of the Government and the majority of the day, and by which there would be something like a regulation, by some more or less impartial tribunal, of the amount of time to be given to different subjects. In the absence of that machinery, they must go on in the present rough-and-ready and unsatisfactory way unless the House of Commons and its work were to be reduced to impotence and become a laughing-stock both to itself and the nation.
He wished to make one remark in regard to the Transvaal Loan which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Under the procedure of this House they had first of all a Resolution in Committee previous to the introduction of a Bill involving public expenditure, then Report on the Resolution; then Committee on the Bill, and Report. As regarded the rules and machinery of the House, ample opportunity was afforded for discussion; and ho could not see any necessity for the extension of those proceedings into minute Committee details. Ho submitted to the House that they had made a not improvident and not wasteful use of the opportunities the House had placed at their disposal, and that their legislative programme would redeem this session from the charge of legislative barrenness.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in the few words he wished to address to the House he had no desire to continue what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had called the annual demonstration towards the end of the session. No Radical could believe that the present position of things in the House was satisfactory. It was, he believed, by devolution alone that the House could be relieved of this yearly wrangle and of the constant increase of pressure on Members not to express their opinion on the matters that came before them. But apart from devolution those who were anxious for progress could not be satisfied with the present condition of affairs. He condemned the manner in which the new Army scheme had been placed before the House so as to consume thirteen days, during which the new Members had to vote in troops and legions for a
262
Bill which they did not profess to understand and which competent men declared to be, except for one or two clauses, unnecessary, because the changes could have been accomplished without coming to the House. If the House was slow in adopting devolution, if there was not to be an autumn session, it was evident that they would have to employ the guillotine more and more every year. It would not be in order to discuss in detail any of the Bills which the Government had resolved to pass. The Prime Minister had said it was his intention to pass a Scottish Valuation Bill upon grounds which, if sound, would apply with tenfold force to the English Bill; but he did not think they were sound. He thought, however, that the changes foreshadowed in the Bill in regard to valuation were not greater than those made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to agricultural rates without a special Valuation Bill. They had to ask now whether they were being called upon to support the right Bills. Labour legislation was beginning to fall into arrear. Not one of the eighteen Bills already prepared had been brought forward. He appealed to hon. Members to turn their minds to devolution and the necessity for sitting for a greater portion of the year. As to the time alleged to be required for drafting measures, he reminded the House that in 1870 the Irish Land Bill, drafted entirely by Mr. Gladstone himself, the Education Bill and the Ballot Bill, all first-class measures, were drafted under circumstances at least as difficult as those of the present year. The Ballot Bill did not pass that year because of the action of the House of Lords, though it passed the following year. In fact, Ministers who were the most hard worked in the House found time to draft their Bills. They wore now face to face with the English Land Bill, which was only drafted during the present session.
*Mr. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid he intervened in the debate chiefly to put one or two questions in regard to the details of the business of the Government. It would ill become new Members when the House was in controversy as to its proceedings to express too dogmatically their views upon Standing Orders and Procedure. For, he confessed that the more they

263
considered the rules of debate in the House, the more difficult it was to understand them. He wished to emphasise that the Labour Members came to the House full of a desire to do honour to its traditions, and they associated themselves with the tribute paid to the House of Commons by the right hon. Member for the City of London. They came there to do work, and they believed the House would allow them to do this work. But there was no good in trying to disguise that they had been disillusioned; for somehow or other the House of Commons did not do work and did not allow others who wanted work to be done to carry out their intentions. Some of them had been carefully studying the evidence given upstairs by some older Members who were entitled to speak on its machinery; and he was struck in listening to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with its omissions of points he had brought out in his evidence. Would it not be well that some of the more authoritative Members should say on the floor of the House what they had said before this Committee? The right hon. Gentleman had said in his evidence that measures which might be considered non-controversial became controversial if discussing them was likely to embarrass the Government. Would not the honest recognition of that truth on the floor of the House by those who had influence over private Members assist the House in getting out of their difficulties? It was no good talking about the guillotine limiting the right of private Members to express their opinions. That right must be limited if it was abused. However much they might object to it—and personally he objected to it very much—what was the use of trying to hide it from themselves like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand? The remedy rested not upon the guillotine, or Resolutions, or Standing Orders, but on the individual Members themselves. If hon. Members cared to do certain things no Standing Order could prevent them. No Standing Order that could be devised could prevent certain hon. Members from abusing the privileges of debate in the House. He spoke with a good deal of feeling on this matter, because he felt deeply. Here they were practically at the end of the session with a most formidable list of measures which they wanted to discuss reasonably and fairly.
264
How could any one say in his heart that they could rise on 24th August and yet give all these Bills adequate discussion? The Prime Minister himself would not say that. And what was left out of the list? Although they did not want to be unreasonable, those interested in social reform could not but be impatient when they saw that at the present rate of progress twenty years would be required to redeem pledges given not two years ago. If they were impatient of the progress made, the Government could see why it was so. One did not wish to use offensive language, but after his experience of last session and of this, what he had to say was that there was too much purposed and deliberate killing of lime. They in that portion of the House were perfectly amazed at the extent to which this was carried on. Hon. Members said in the course of the evening when there were three or four Bills that the Government expected to get through that they could only give them one. That was the reverse process to what the country expected of the House. The country did not expect the House to give them hurried legislation, but they did expect the House not to waste its time so as to prevent a Government, whether it was Liberal or Conservative, getting measures through. He felt bound to say these things, and he ventured to express the opinion that the vast majority of earnest politicians outside the House, not on one side but on all sides, would associate themselves with him in what he said. As to the business which had been laid before them, they were exceedingly sorry that the Laundries Bill was not to be proceeded with. It was in the doubtful list, as there were some objections to it. Those objections must be debated and voted upon, for they could not be negotiated. The right hon. Gentleman knew that there were certain clauses in that Bill which must be retained if it was to be satisfactory to those interested in the proper inspection of laundries. No round table conference could get rid of the difficulties: it was a question of a fight on the floor of the House and a division between the "Ayes" and the "Noes." Therefore he regretted that the Bill should be on the doubtful list, because it meant that it was doomed to death. Then there was the Scottish Education Bill, which also might be put in the list of Bills which were dead, because it could not be carried through

265
with the other Scottish business before the middle of August. It had to follow the Scottish Valuation Bill on the Scottish Committee and would not be reached until within a few days of Members going for their holidays. Although the Scottish Education Bill was dead he would venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman about one section of it. The Bill was a composite one and dealt with twenty or thirty subjects, but one subject which it dealt with, that of the feeding of underfed children, he had greatly at heart, and the Secretary for Scotland had pledged himself to see it carried. When the Bill dealing with this question came from the House or Lords last year, the Premier made strong reflections on the Upper Chamber in regard to their action. He himself had a little Bill on that subject which was still alive and had reached the Committee stage. It did not propose anything which the House had not already decided should be done. The House passed the Second Reading of this Scottish Feeding Bill by an overwhelming majority. The Bill went upstairs and the Secretary for Scotland came there and said they intended to push their measure through. The Secretary for Scotland gave a pledge upon that, and having given it the Committee adopted a certain procedure. He had warned the Committee at the time of what might happen, but he kept his Bill alive. It was a small Bill which dealt with this feeding question and it could be "starred" and settled in half away. He urged that it would be desirable to make the law of Scotland conform to the law of England, and for that purpose he hoped the Government would give that half day. They would have liked to have seen a Housing Bill this session, if only for the sake of its being printed and discussed in the autumn. He presumed they were going to have a Miners' Eight Hour Bill printed for the purposes of discussion. Then there was another question, that of Supply. It was felt in all quarters of the House and even amongst the supporters of the Government that there should be one more day for Supply in order that they might have a discussion on the Vote for the Local Government Board. There were most important questions of local administration involved in the Vote, which dealt with such matters as the unemployed and other municipal points, in which the country took keen
266
interest, and he hoped the extra day woud be given.
MR. S. T. EVANSsaid he wished to call the attention of the House to the conditions under which it did its work. He also desired to congratulate and bear testimony to the excellent manner in which the Labour Members had endeavoured to get work done in the House of Commons. The mischief was that in their debates there was a great deal of absolutely irrelevant talk. He made bold to say that if they examined Hansard, pretty nearly half of the hundreds of pages would be found to contain observations which could not be said to have a business quality in any sense. All this must lead ultimately to each Member of the House asking himself whether he was doing his duty in presenting observations of that character. It had been hoped that the establishment of Standing Committees would have expedited the business of the House, but that could only be if the House accepted the spirit in which those Committees were set up. After the House had passed the principles of a measure and read it a second time, the Committee upstairs ought to be simply a business assembly with a desire to carry out principles already acceded to in the House. He himself thought that the Prime Minister should have had an autumn session this year. There was a great desire for it on both sides. At present the length of the session depended entirely upon the state of the weather. If the weather got hot Members became tired, and legislation went through. Was it really sensible that the first legislative assembly in the world should have its business conducted on those lines? If the Government had adjourned the House in the middle of July, Members could have come back fresh in October, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had exposed the hollowness of the argument that Ministers could not prepare their Bills if there was an autumn session. He implored the Government not to repeat in the next session of Parliament, or the session after, the great error of not adjourning in July and meeting again in October. He would suggest that the rules of the House should be so altered that Bills could be carried over to the next session and their consideration then resumed at the stage

267
they had reached in the previous session. The present system of dropping measures with the session was an unjustifiable waste of time and energy on the part of men who should aim at doing their Parliamentary work on business lines.
Mr. CHAPLINwelcomed the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he thought it pointed to a desire to return to the better traditions of the House. There could be no doubt that in recent years there had been a decadence in the general tone and procedure of the House, and it would be well if those who had the best interests of the House at heart were to consider whether some remedy could be devised. The reason at the root of the present state of affairs was that which a great and distinguished man who was long the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gladstone) had expressed to him privately, namely, the want of deference to the general sense and feeling of the House of Commons which in former days prevailed. Would it not be possible to restore, in some degree at all events, that position of affairs? He agreed with his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that to go back to the former state of things which prevailed in the House of Commons for so many years would be impossible, but if that was impossible, at least they could do something. In those days there were old habits and practices in this House, and a system which was very effective, of individual closure, which enforced the general sense and feeling of the House. He did not say that was a remedy which he should recommend, because when the House expressed its feelings by shouting, "Divide, divide!" although it showed that somebody was doing something against its freedom, such proceedings did not add to the elevation of its debates. He thought that rules for the closure of individuals might, however, be devised which would do something in the direction of restoring the state of things that used to prevail. He had been provoked into making his observations more or less by the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, whose observations throughout he had heard with the greatest pleasure. Returning to the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Scottish Land Bill and expressed astonishment because that
268
Bill had been in Committee since 7th May, had not been returned to the House, and would not be returned to the House before the middle of August. What did that mean? That Scottish Land Bill was the greatest revolution which had ever been put forward in this country. It was a Bill of the very highest importance, which was not only entitled to receive but demanded the must careful consideration in Committee. What did that long consideration mean? The Bill had been before the Committee for twenty-two days, but that only meant eleven Parliamentary days in the House. The Prime Minister would recollect the great discussions on the Irish Land Bills of Mr. Gladstone in 1870 and 1881, and it was impossible to conceive that there should have been only eleven days in Committee in reference to either of those Bills. He had made no reference to find out the time those Bills did occupy in Committee, but he was certain, speaking from memory, that he should not be very far wrong if he were to say, especially with regard to the larger measure of 1881 which was the more revolutionary that it occupied at least eleven days in Committee. The Bill which was now before the Committee upstairs in regard to Scotland was not one whit less important than the great measure passed by Mr. Gladstone to which he had alluded.
Mr. BRACEsaid he was very much impressed with the arguments as to the unnecessary speeches which were made in the House, and therefore he did not propose to make any speech but to observe the very good rule which had been laid down. He simply rose to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. He noticed that the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction for Propelling Power) Bill was upon the orders of the day for Committee. That was a Bill in which he was deeply interested, as were also a number of other Members. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, but the Report of that Committee had not been placed upon the Table of the House, and he simply suggested that the consideration of the Bill should be put off until the Report was before the House, so that Members might know where they were.

269
He hoped the Prime Minister would not put the Bill on the Paper for a week.
Mb. LAURENCE HARDYprotested against the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the amount of discussion which should take place in that House on the Bills which had been before a Grand Committee. He pointed out that, when the new Standing Orders were discussed, it was stated by the Government that full opportunity would be given to the House to discuss these Bills, and for this purpose the Government enlarged the powers of debate on the Report stage. A very important discussion took place upon that point and those who sat in Opposition only agreed to the alteration on the condition that the Government intended to conduct the debate on Report On the same lines as debate in Committee. If these Bills were to be taken under the extreme limits of the guillotine the only effect of the concession made in the Standing Order would be to give more time to the Government and less to the House. He thought some protest ought to be made.
Mr. PIRIEsaid this discussion was an annual one and this year there was exceptional interest taken in it. There was a unanimous feeling in the House that for some reason or other the Parliamentary machinery for carrying on the business of the country had broken down. That at the end of July forty measures were mentioned as having to be passed into law during the last three weeks of the session was clear evidence of the machinery having broken down. Two remedies for this condition of things had been mentioned. One of those might be carried out with very little trouble, namely, that Bills should be carried over from one session to another. There was one Bill that might be dealt with in that way, namely, the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, which had been before the House for many years. It was simply a scandal that year after year that Bill should go through its various stages and then not be passed into law. But the great remedy for the present state of affairs was that suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for, the Forest of Dean—a system of national
270
assemblies in the different countries of Great Britain. An hon. Member had alluded to Scotland, and he had waited before rising for a more authoritative voice than his to reply to the hon. Member. But as no one had risen he rose to protest as strongly as he could against the dropping of the Education Bill for Scotland this year. That the education of Scotland should be paralysed in this way was a scandal. In seven years they had had five Education Bills dangled before their eyes, and there was no man more convinced than the Prime Minister of the gravity of the educational situation in Scotland. Scotsmen had every reason for feeling aggrieved in this matter, Six Scottish Bills had been put into the doubtful list. Why he did not know. But it meant that those Bills for all practical purposes were dead for this year. [Cries of "No."] He hoped that was not so, but so far as the Scottish Valuation Bill and the Sheriff Courts Bill were concerned he believed they were dead. There was yet another Bill, introduced it was true by a private Member, for which there was prime need in Scotland, a Local Option Bill, which had no chance of passing this year. He had now entered his protest with regard to these matters, and he trusted the result of this year's debate would be to convince hon. Members that there was no other remedy for the breakdown of the Parliamentary machine than the scheme of devolution suggested by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean.
MR. SEDDONsaid he came with many of the other new Members to this House with a great zeal for social reform. He came believing that this Assembly had in itself the power to improve the condition of the great mass of the people of this country, and he believed the Prime Minister had much sympathy with a good man of the social problems which were pressing for solution at the present time. But during the eighteen months which he had been a Member he had been disillusioned. No one knew better than the Members of the Scottish Grand Committee that this House had not that power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had called attention

271
to the fact that the Scottish Small Holdings Bill had been under discussion for three months. The Committee had met twice a week and the spectacle of a small knot of men working together and farming out carefully framed Amendments with the avowed intention of embarrassing the Government and preventing them from passing the Bill was viewed by the public with disgust. The right hon. Member for South Dublin had a great crowd of men behind the bar where the public were allowed, and he was informed that most of them were legal and other gentlemen interested who were cudgelling their brains to bring about Amendments. Some hon. Members who believed that land reform in Scotland was pressing had been discouraged by the tactics that were brought into operation in that Grand Committee, and considered that they were making Parliament a by-word. He had a strong suspicion that within a short space of time, unless constitutional measures were brought into operation, unconstitutional methods would be adopted by certain Members of the House. So far as the Scottish Bill was concerned he had come to the conclusion that there ought to be a time limit. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said when he was a candidate for this House that he could talk for any length of time on any subject, and so far as the Scottish Grand Committee was concerned he had justified the character which he then gave himself. Not only so, but the hon. Member was always in the House at eleven o'clock to utter the words "I object" when any private Member's Bill was put to the House. He knew nothing about the contents of them and came down to the House for the purpose of pure obstruction.
Sir F. BANBURY: That is not true.
Mr. SEDDONsaid there was one Bill in particular to which he referred which the hon. Gentleman knew nothing about. He thought the present House of Commons, generally speaking, had come with a determination that something should be done, and he was not filled with awe for old traditions. What was good might be retained, but let them
272
destroy what was antiquated and worthless. With some reorganisation much might be done to redeem the pledges given by Members to their constituents who had made up their minds as to the legislation they required by which the lot of the unfortunate should be made better than it was at the present time.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the hon. Member who had just spoken had stated that the public would view with disgust the proceedings in the Scottish Committee. With that he quite agreed, but he thought the disgust would arise because of the attempt of hon. Members opposite to force through revolutionary measures without adequate or proper discussion. With regard to the personal attack which had been made upon him he might say that he had not taken a prominent part in the proceedings after eleven o'clock. He was always present, and had always felt, and always should feel, that the House was not doing its duty as a House of Commons in passing Bills without discussion simply because one or two Members were interested in them. During the time he took a prominent part, if ever he did, he always read the Bill, and with regard to the particular Bill referred to by the hon. Member he might tell him that it was a Bill to prevent an employer making an agreement with one of his clerks or workmen in the shop that that man should not set up for himself when he left.
Mr. SEDDONsaid the chief clause of that Bill was to restrict the area in which an employer should prevent a man earning his livelihood.
Sir F. BANBURYsaid that was just what he had said. It would be out of order to refer further to the matter, and he only referred to it to show that he was cognisant of the Bill. With regard to the proceedings in the Scottish Committee, the right hon. Member for Wimbledon had pointed out that the proceedings in that Committee on the Small Holdings Bill had lasted twenty-two days, which was equivalent to eleven Parliamentary days. The Education Bill brought in by the Party to which he belonged occupied thirty days before the closure was adopted, whereas

273
in the Scottish Committee up to the last two or three days he did not think there had been a day in which the closure had not been moved. He had endeavoured to find out how many contentious clauses had been passed on the question that "this clause stand part," and out of twenty only two had been passed in that way. As hon. Members knew, the question gave rise to most important discussions, and out of twenty of the contentious clauses eighteen had been passed under the closure without any discussion whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was only present on one of those twenty-two days. Ministers did not attend at the House. The Prime Minister came to Questions and then left. He hoped if the House was to be kept sitting until the middle of October the right hon. Gentleman would give them the pleasure of his company. With regard to the crowds of men in the public part of the Scottish Committee-room, he did not understand the hon. Gentleman's reference. Not only did the Government have the assistance of clerks and officials who sat by the side of the Chairman, but also the assistance of the Lord-Advocate and the Attorney-General for Scotland, whilst the Opposition had not a single official to assist them. With regard to the congestion of business, his proceedings in the Grand Committee had been conducted not with the object of killing the Bill, as had been stated, but with the view of amending it and making it more workable. That was the only feeling by which he had been actuated. The real reason why the House was in its present position was the action of the Government, who had endeavoured to put too many measures through all at once. Hon. Members prepared themselves for coming into the House by giving all sorts of pledges, and then they were astonished that they were not able to get all things dealt with in two sessions of Parliament. They would not return to the old conditions of Parliament until they recognised that they could not pass every Bill that was brought in because one or two people were interested in it. The measures passed should be those that were supported by a great part of the House and should be measures of
274
an important character, and nothing could be worse than that they should be passed in the early hours of the morning. The only reason for the present condition of things was the endeavour to force upon the House a greater number of Bills than it was capable of receiving. He mentioned the matter recently to the Patronage Secretary, and he would quote the hon. Gentleman's own statement to him—
"The Bills brought in by this Parliament are enough for three ordinary sessions."
He deprecated the idea that the House of Commons, which for 600 or 700 years had occupied the most prominent position of any deliberative assembly in the world, was going to stultify itself by allowing every little vestry to pass what Bills it required. If they once allowed Scotland, Ireland, and Wales to do this and adopted the scheme of devolution suggested, they would very soon have to have devolution for north, south, east, and west, and every county in England. If a Bill was a very important one it required to be considered with great care and deliberation. A few measures passed in that way would do more good than a great number passed in a hurry in order to carry out pledges that had been given. He himself did not want to stay here till October, and the Bills putdown by the Patronage Secretary could not be got through before; but, whatever the hon. Member who last spoke might say of him, nobody could say he was afraid of work.
Mr. FINDLAYsaid it had been the desire of Scottish Members that more attention should be given to Scottish legislation, and they had hoped that progress would be made by means of the Grand Committee. Their hopes, however, had been disappointed, and he thought there must be devolution if Scottish legislation was to have any chance.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he desired to put in a word on behalf of the Education Act (Amendment) Bill. He ventured to make an appeal to the Prime Minister, as he had done on a former occasion. The Bill now stood for Third Reading. It was a Bill affecting public health as well as education, and was a most important measure. He

275
thought that there never was a Bill which contained more valuable matter, and he believed that if it passed the House of Commons it would receive the sanction of the other House.
*MR. GULLANDsaid he rose to ask the Government whether they could not see their way to putting the Scottish Education Bill into the list of those that should pass. The subject of feeding school children was in the Bill of last session and was cut out at the last moment in order to save the English Bill. Parliament must have some regard to making provision for feeding school children in Scotland. There were many other points with regard to education in which Scotland had to be considered. As had been said, five Education Bills had been brought in in seven years for Scotland, and not one had been passed. As one who was intimately connected with the educational problem of Scotland he could testify to the way in which education had been paralysed by the non-passing of those measures. He asked the Patronage Secretary to make an exception of the Education Bill. It would be very difficult for the ad hoc school boards of Scotland to continue their work satisfactorily unless that Bill was passed this session.
*SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that frequently in the Scottish Grand Committee the numbers of those who spoke on the Government side had exceeded those on the Opposition side. On one occasion seventeen Members supporting the Government spoke against seven of the Opposition. The Solicitor-General for Scotland would not, he was sure, accuse the Scottish Committee of having unduly prolonged the proceedings or taken more time than was necessary shortly to express their views on the difficulties that arose. The block of business had been caused by the Government's sending to that Committee a measure so highly controversial in character. In regard to the Scottish Education Bill it must be remembered that in regard to one pro-vision in that Bill—the Provision of Meals—the Government had been trying to run two measures together—a Bill of a private Member,
276
and one of their own which dealt with the same subject matter. He himself was reproached by the Prime Minister in November last for having influenced the decision on that Bill in another place. The right hon. Gentleman said that that Bill ought to have passed, and would have passed but for the action he (Sir Henry Craik) had taken, and said that he had been guilty of an unparliamentary and improper action. But nevertheless the Government themselves this session introduced a Bill of their own, on the same subject, but on entirely different lines. They had resolved to allow the Bill of the hon. Member below the gangway to go on, with the possibility that it might be taken as a starred measure. They had been running these two measures together, and now they must know before the Scottish Education Bill came on what procedure the Government were going to adopt—whether they were going to adopt the measure on which they lavished time last session, but which they did not adopt as their own this session, or whether they determined to push their own very different measure. He must point out that although this Education Bill was one which, in Scotland, it was desired to see passed, and on which it was thought that they might arrive at a satisfactory decision, common prudence and foresight should have led the Government to infer that there were elements of opposition to the measure on their own side of the House. They would find no obstructive opposition on his side. He was as anxious as anyone could be to help what was so urgently needed in Scotland in order to put an end to the suspense which had been experienced in regard to Scottish education for the last five or six years. He was ready to do what he could, but he was not going to accept an emasculated Bill, and with important provisions regarding the teachers' pensions cut out because of the opposition of hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman and on the benches below the gangway. He would not undertake the responsibility for Scotland of obstructing the Bill, but neither would he take responsibility for Scotland in passing the Bill in the shape which he could see would not do good to Scotland and would not meet her

277
educational necessities. He thought the measure might have been more satisfactorily dealt with if the Government, instead of sending the most controversial Small Landholders Bill to the Grand Committee, had left it—as any sensible men would have done—to be dealt with by the House, and sent the Education Bill as an uncontroversial measure to the Grand Committee to be dealt with by the Scottish Members acting in concert with one another. Had they done so, the Education Bill might easily have passed into law.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that before the discussion closed there was one question to which he thought they ought to have an answer from the Government. Was it their intention to star any private Member's Bills? During the fifteen years he had been in the House he did not think there had ever been a Motion of this kind made by the Prime Minister without clear indications either that the business would be confined to Government Bills or of any particular Bill which it was proposed to star. It was conceivable—though he did not know whether it was so or not—that there might be private Member's Bills of an entirely non-contentious character which it might be desirable to star by common consent of the House. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan had spoken of a Bill of which he knew nothing, though it was quite clear that before the Government received powers to keep them day and night they ought to have some assurance that they were not going to use those powers to star contentious private Member's Bills. If they were to use their powers at all, then the Bill suggested by his hon. friend behind him might be a proper one, though he did not know whether it was or not; but it was only in cases where the Bill would go through nemine contradicente, with the good will and free sanction of the House, that the powers should be exercised. He trusted that they would have an answer from someone on the Government Bench. He wanted to add a word or two as to the condition of business and the position in which they found themselves; he did not think that position had yet been fully stated to the House. He never recollected an
278
occasion where the Finance Bill had not been passed and sent to another place before this period of the session. And it was now proposed that the Third Reading of that Bill should be put down, not as the first order of the day, as had been the invariable practice ever since there had been a Finance Bill, but after a Motion as to another matter which he should heartily support, but which he had reason to believe was likely to give rise to a contentious and angry discussion in other quarters of the House. He suggested that the Prime Minister might find another occasion for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill when it could be the first order of the day. He thought that was not unreasonable, and he urged that the Third Reading of the Bill should not be taken towards the dinner time, still less after dinner. The Prime Minister had made no allusion to the allotted days for Supply. If there was one subject in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite professed a special interest, and in regard to which they announced tithe country that they were going to effect great reforms when they came into office, it was the conduct of the financial business of the House. They had repeatedly stated that insufficient time had been given to the control of the financial business of the House, and that they intended to pursue a policy of economy and to restore the control of the House of Commons over finance. What was the case this year? If the Prime Minister did not alter his programme they were going to have less time for Supply this year than they had in any year in recent times. The Party who were the champions of financial purity and control of the House of Commons were content to smuggle through Supply with less control than the House had ever had. The Government had just tabled a Supplementary Estimate for £560,000. He could not help overhearing what the Financial Secretary had said to his colleague, that £200,000 of that Supplementary Estimate was provided for in the Budget, but there still remained of the £560,000 sufficient to wipe out the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. And the hon. Gentleman who voluntarily thrust himself forward to defend this Supplementary Estimate

279
had been one of the foremost to condemn such a procedure. Was it not a remarkable thing that when the legislative programme was so notoriously in arrear the Government had not been able to make satisfactory arrangements for the discussion of the financial business of the House? Among the Bills announced as being necessary to be carried was one which was obviously indispensable, and one which the right hon. Gentleman considered as hardly calling for comment.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say that it did not need comment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he wanted to remind the Prime Minister that the Appropriation Bill was more contentious this year owing to the action of the Government than it had ever been before, because the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister deliberately asked the House of Commons to break the law by means of it. That did not make the Appropriation Bill less arguable or likely to pass more smoothly than hitherto. The Appropriation Bill was this year to contain a clause which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised in order to carry out certain requirements of the Controller and Auditor-General and certain recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised the hon. Member for Norwood, unless he was much mistaken, that he should have an opportunity for discussion which he was prevented from obtaining in the ordinary way at an earlier period of the session by the interposition of a blocking notice in the name of an hon. Member opposite, between the time when his question was put down and the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to answer him. The Appropriation Bill, therefore, became more important than in ordinary years. Then there was the Transvaal Loan Bill. He agreed that the Committee stage of that Bill would not give rise to prolonged discussion like a large and complicated legislative proposal, but he could conceive of no more amazing measure. There had been various explanations of it from the Government. It was a measure of preference in its worst and most invidious form. It was not preference between a
280
British community as against foreigners; it was preference of one British community against other British communities, with a detrimental effect to the position of the others in the money market of the United Kingdom.
Mr. MARKHAM: Who gave them £30,000,000 after the war?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what inference the hon. Member drew from that? Was his interruption relevant? They gave the grant to a Crown Colony; they had often given grants to Crown Colonies before and might have to do so again; but they had to go back more than thirty years to find a precedent for giving guarantee of the loan of a self-governing Colony, and they had to justify themselves for doing it at a time when they knew that it was difficult for every other Colony that wanted money to raise their loans. And they had to justify themselves for doing it, also, by raising a new loan on a Government guarantee at home, though, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, his first duty was to raise the credit of this country by stopping its borrowings. It was certainly not a measure which ought to be discussed late at night or in the early hours of the morning; it was one on which the House, if it cared at all about its duty as guardian of the public purse and the public credit, ought to insist upon having full, free, and fair opportunity for discussion. Having said so much, might he say one word about the situation generally? They had begun the session with an amendment of the Rules of Procedure. The Prime Minister in explaining the backward state of legislation said it was because they had occupied a good deal of time in dealing with the Rules of Procedure; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer following his right hon. friend behind him, had said that they had occupied very little time upon them. If the latter statement were correct it afforded no explanation of the position in which they found themselves. But what he wished to call the attention of the House to was that the new scheme of procedure by which Bills were referred to Grand Committees had wholly broken down, and one after another on both

281
sides of the House, had expressed disappointment and almost dismay at the result of the new rules, which excluded the bulk of Members from taking any share in the proceedings on the most important measures of the session, and, in spite of having done that. In spite of having used the guillotine, the Government were more behindhand with their legislation; they had reduced the House to greater impotency and ineffectiveness than he had ever known during all the years he had been a Member of that Assembly. They might deduce from the statements of Ministers that they were going to apply the guillotine with added stringency when the Bills came downstairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it could not be that the Scottish Bills would take long on Report, because they had been fully discussed upstairs. By whom? By eighty Members. Were the other 590 Members to have no voice in any of these questions? The position was seen to be preposterous the moment it was stated. What the Government had done was to proceed on the wrong lines when they reformed procedure. They had an opportunity of dealing with procedure with general acceptance and agreement between both sides of the House. If they had begun with such a proposal as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned that day, the Government had reason to know from past declarations of many on his side of the House that such a proposal would have received not merely fair, but friendly consideration. But they determined not to act on any suggestion which their predecessors or their opponents had made, nor to avail themselves of any offers of assistance. The new rules had completely broken down. Experience showed that the Opposition were right in regard to them. Let the House look at the list of Bills which the Prime Minister had read out; it was inconceivable that the Government intended to allow the House a fair opportunity of discussing those Bills on Report, and yet expected their proceedings to end on the 24th August or the 24th of the following month.
Mr. MARKHAMrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld
282
his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINjoined in the expression of regret which his right hon. friend had used earlier in the debate at the position in which they found themselves. He agreed that reform of procedure was necessary in the altered circumstances of the case, but surely that should be proposed by those who were responsible, and such a proposal would meet with support from all quarters where they valued the dignity of the House. If it was necessary to curtail their liberties in matters of procedure at least for great and contentious measures, there should be a fair opportunity for the whole House to consider them, and express its opinion upon them. There was nothing more wholly untrue than the idea that speeches in the House never changed votes. Again and again he had known votes changed in that way. What often happened was that the effect of speeches was that no vote was necessary, because those in charge of the question under discussion felt bound by the force of the arguments to modify and alter their proposals. The value of discussion in modifying and improving measures had been large in the past and might be so in the future; but if they treated discussion as a mere work of supererogation and an obstacle interposed to delay the registration of the will of a Ministry they would be doing their best to confirm the false impression that Members did not listen to argument, or speeches influence votes, and they would be striking a most serious blow at Parliament as a representative institution.
LORD R. CECIL (,who was received with cries of "Divide divide," said that hon. Members were mistaken if they imagined that he was going to be put down by clamour. He thought the remarks of his right hon. friend deserved a reply from the Government. The House would do well to give attention to the candid criticism of the hon. Member for Leicester upon the present position. He had listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member, and they all felt that it was a very candid criticism. The hon. Member

283
for Leicester had said that the reputation and the position of the House were suffering, that the machinery of legislation had broken down, and that those who came to the House with high hopes of carrying through great measures of social reform had been disillusioned. That was a very serious matter, and the House might well spare some time discussing a question of that magnitude. He thought the position of the House had become very serious. It was suffering in popular estimation, and they had nothing to take its place from a constitutional point of view. He did not believe in devolution; it was an absurdity. Hon. Members below the gangway hoped to get Home Rule, but even they must realise that they could not get it from the present Ministry. But even Home Rule would be a miserable remedy for the present state of things, for it would only remove one or two Bills from this Parliament. The inevitable result of Home Rule would be that they would have to grant devolution to Scotland, and everybody knew that that would be impracticable. He agreed with the hon. Member that the House had suffered in the popular estimation, and rules would be ineffective until there was a different spirit in Members of the House. ["Hear, hear."] He was glad to hear the Prime Minister cheer that, for the right hon. Gentleman was, not personally but officially, the root and front of the evil. ["Oh."] It was the Cabinet system, the rigidity of the Party system, which was at the bottom of the trouble. No speech was given the chance of influencing opinion in the House. Within the last few days they had seen the whole Party machinery set in motion, at the bidding of the Ministry, against Members who had ventured to vote against their Party, and that had been done in the past by either Party. So long as that system prevailed there would be no inducement to direct argument to the merits of a subject, and recourse could only be had to indirect methods of opposition, methods he disliked and condemned, but which were the only methods until the spirit by which the House was governed and the country directed was altered. Unless Members of the House and the people of the country were prepared to take a sounder
284
view there would be no hope of the House being restored to anything like its former position. Although he thought something might be done with reference to non-controversial measures he did not think that any alteration of the position of that House would free them from the incompetence and chaos which they found themselves in this year. He trusted that the Government would answer the Questions which had been put by his right hon. friend.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrecognised the clearness and calmness of the noble Lord in his wish for abolition of the Party system.
LORD R. CECIL: Its modification.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was surprising, seeing that the noble Lord not long since voted for a Motion he said he did not agree with.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he was sure that the Prime Minister would search his Parliamentary career in vain for any such instance. He had never voted for a Motion which he had said he did not agree with.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had some difficulty in reconciling that explanation with what the noble Lord said in regard to his vote upon the Colonial preference Resolution, when he stated that he voted for the Motion not because he liked it, but because the Government favoured another proposal.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman must have been misled by an imperfect report, for he had said nothing in the least resembling what had been attributed to him or anything which would bear the interpretation which had been placed upon his words.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid there had been a useful discussion, which had included an instructive speech from the hon. Member for Leicester and a violent diatribe from the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, and there seemed to be an idea that the whole Parliamentary machine

285
was out of joint. He was at one with the hon. Member for Leicester, and in introducing his proposals for altering the rules of procedure stated his belief that the House devoted far too much time to the discussion of small matters, and that the forms of the House were not calculated to secure the passage of well-considered legislation approved by the House. There was a debate on the Second Reading of a Bill in which considerable difference of opinion was shown, and then the House came to a decision by an overwhelming vote. But then the difficulties began, because those who were opposed to the main purpose of the Bill had opportunities under the forms of the House for preventing a measure passing, by discussing, criticising, and analysing the minutest details, and the process was intended to prevent the Bill passing into law. Unless the House devolved some of the details of its duty in the discussion of Bills, it was impossible for it to transact the business which its duty to the public required. He had put aside the question of devolution in his first speech. He was in favour of it. That, no doubt, was the radical cure; but, accepting the situation as it was, and admitting that devolution on an effective scale could not be accomplished without great difficulty and expenditure of time, he maintained that sending Bills to be considered in their details by Committees and then allowing them to be reconsidered by the House when they had gone through that process was the way to get through the business they were expected to effect for the country. He was, however, entirely at one with the hon. Member for Leicester in the view that even any such plan as that must fail if it was not loyally carried out, and if hon. Members took part in the proceedings with a view of doing that which it was not intended to do—namely, to destroy the measure they were dealing with. What they ought to do, of course, was to set themselves, as strenuously as they could, to improve the measure, acknowledging and admitting the purpose for which it was intended. He had been told that a number of Members on the Scottish Committee devoted themselves to minute and elaborate discussion of small details, with the result that an inordinate time had been
286
devoted to the Small Landholders Bill, to which reference had been made. A case like that proved nothing against the system of sending Bills to a Committee; because the system had not been rightly tried in that case. He did not say it was not natural for Members, finding themselves in a very small minority on a Committee, and holding strong opinions on what, he supposed, they would say was the iniquity of a Bill, to endeavour to kill the Bill in this manner; but it was not carrying out the intentions of the House when it passed the new rules and regulations. He hoped that as Members became more accustomed to this mode of dealing with business, there would be less tendency to adopt these unhealthy methods, and that they would come more nearly back to the old relations between hon. Members when they happened to differ on legislative measures.
Mr. LAMBTONas a member of the minority on the Scottish Committee, challenged the Prime Minister to give some specific instance in support of his charge.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the fact that the Bill had been all these weeks in Committee was in itself conclusive evidence that some Members of the Committee departed from the intention of the new procedure. [Cries of "No."]
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYrose amid cries of "Order," but the Prime Minister did not give way.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdid not himself see the decadence observed by the right hon. Member for Wimbledon since their own early Parliamentary days. There used to be a closure adopted by Members themselves crying "'Vide, 'vide," when one of their number talked against the general feeling. They did not wish to restore that method of dealing with long and unnecessary speeches; and the House, so far from showing any signs of decadence, had immensely improved in the zeal, knowledge, and intelligence of its members. Their difficulty had been largely created by the

287
fact that there were so many Members well-informed on the subjects in hand, and capable of speaking with effect upon them. That was one of the reasons why this process of sending measures to a Committee was an experiment deserving of trial. He had always been an opponent of long speeches and lengthy debate, and he was sorry to miss his old friend the Member for Chelmsford, who had kept before them the ideal of short speeches. If they were to preserve for the House the respect of the country, they must, as had been said in the debate, put restraint upon themselves, and remember that it was not loyal to the House to spin out one debate to prevent another coming on. He did not speak of embarrassing the Government. It was a question more serious—the restriction of measures that could be passed. He trusted that what had been said that day would be valuable as showing, not only to the House, but to the country, where the mischief really lay, and in what way, by giving the new rules and conditions a fair trial, they might find relief from a state of things which was not creditable to the House. With regard to the particular question as to facilities for a private Member's Bill he was not going to say anything about that now. At this time of the session a private Member's Bill ought to be either unanimously supported or to be recommended by some special circumstances in order to justify facilities being now given to it. Until they had proceeded a little further with their own business they had better not take up other people's. As to Tuesday night and the danger of the Finance Bill not coming on until an unduly late hour because of the prolongation of the discussion on Lord Cromer's Grant, he admitted that, in view of the immense dignity and importance of the Finance Bill, it ought not to be brought forward at the fag end of a sitting, and if he found that, according to past practice, the Cromer Grant could be taken after the Finance Bill, that measure would be taken as the first Order and the Cromer Grant next. As to the request for an extra day for Supply in order to discuss the Local Government Board Vote, it was quite impossible to grant that. There had been sporadic discussions during the session of questions of local government, and
288
there were, of course, other opportunities to which he need not allude for the discussion of particular points.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he had no intention of taking part in the debate but for the attack of the Prime Minister on the minority of the Scottish Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, himself, that he spoke without any personal knowledge of the subject. He did not know whence the right hon. Gentleman got his information. He had said that the proceedings of the Committee that considered the Scottish Small Landholders Bill showed it had been subjected to undue obstruction or discussion and, in fact, that discussion had been improperly conducted on the part of the minority of the Committee. When the Bill went into Committee some of the newspapers stated that five days were wasted over four lines. That might seem to some to be obstruction, and as he saw the Solicitor-General in his place he would ask him whether he would not acknowledge that the discussion on those four lines was absolutely justified. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to the Decalogue he would find that many of the most important commands were contained in one line, and he challenged any hon. Member to get up and say that five days would have been wasted in discussing the four words of the eighth Commandment. He maintained that the discussion which had taken place in the Scottish Standing Committee on this particular Bill had not been a waste of time. Small details were discussed by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty and others, but when information was asked upon really serious questions the closure was put on. The discussions in the Committee had not been of greater length than they ought to have been. Members never knew when the closure was going to be sprung upon them. Clause 14 was put to the Committee without any discussion at all. The Prime Minister had made a most unfounded charge.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYrose to continue the discussion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 236; Noes 57. (Division List No. 325.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Micking, Major G.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Alden, Percy

Gilhooly, James

Markham, Arthur Basil

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Massie, J.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth

Grant, Corrie

Masterman, C. F. G.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Meagher, Michael

Barker, John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gulland, John W.

Menzies, Walter

Barnes, G. N.

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Bell, Richard

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Bellairs, Carlyon.

Halpin, J.

Mond, A.

Bennett, E. N.

Hammond, John

Montgomery, H. G.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mooney, J. J.

Bertram, Julius

Hart-Davies, T.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Harwood, George

Morrell, Philip

Boland, John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morse, L. L.

Bowerman, C. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Branch, James

Hayden, John Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Brigg, John

Hazleton, Richard

Murphy, John

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Myer, Horatio

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hedges, A. Paget

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Cameron, Robert

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Malley, William

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hudson, Walter

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clancy, John Joseph.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cleland, J. W.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Paulton, James Mellor

Clough, William

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Cooper, G. J.

Joyce, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Cory, Clifford John

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

Cox, Harold

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Laidlaw, Robert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Crean, Eugene

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

Crombie, John William

Lamont, Norman

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n)

Cullinan, J.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Ridsdale, E. A.

Curran, Peter Francis

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Delany, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf 'd)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Duckworth, James

Lundon, W.

Rose, Charles Day

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Russell, T. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Elibank, Master of

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Evans, Samuel T.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Sears, J. E.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Maclean, Donald

Seaverns, J. H.

Field, William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Seddon, J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Seely, Major J. B.

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Callum, John M.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Toulmin, George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ure, Alexander

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Verney, F. W.

Wilkie, Alexander

Steadman, W. C.

Vivian, Henry

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Williamson, A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Thompson, J. W. H. (S'mers't,E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.

Thorne, William

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Pease.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darling'n)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r)

Fell, Arthur

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)

Starkey, John R.

Bull, Sir William James

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Wards, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Alexander Acland, Hood and

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore).

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Viscount Valentia,

Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Question put accordingly.
The House divided:—Ayes, 233; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 326.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Evans, Samuel T.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Everett, R. Lacey

Alden, Percy

Cheetham, John Frederick

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Field, William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Clancy, John Joseph

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Cleland, J. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Clough, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Clynes, J. R.

Flynn, James Christopher

Barker, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cooper, G. J.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barnes, G. N.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bell, Richard

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cory, Clifford John

Gilhooly, James

Bennett, E. N.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cox, Harold

Glendinning, R. G.

Bertram, Julius

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

Crean, Eugene

Grant, Corrie

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Crombie, John William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Boland, John

Cullinan, J.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bowerman, C. W.

Curran, Peter Francis

Gulland, John W.

Branch, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Brigg, John

Delany, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)

Halpin, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Hammond, John

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Duckworth, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Byles, William Pollard

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hart-Davies, T.

Cameron, Robert

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Elibank, Master of

Harwood, George

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Rose, Charles Day

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Russell, T. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Massie, J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Hazleton, Richard

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Meagher, Michael

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Hedges, A. Paget

Meehan, Patrick A.

Sears, J. E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Menzies, Walter

Seaverns, J. H.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seddon, J.

Higham, John Sharp

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seely, Major J. B.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mond, A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hogan, Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Horniman, Emslie John

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hudson, Walter

Morse, L. L.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Illingworth, Percy H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Murnaghan, George

Steadman, W. C.

Jardine, Sir J.

Murphy, John

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jenkins, J.

Myer, Horatio

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Joyce, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Sutherland, J. E.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorne, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Toulmin, George

Lambert, George

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Ure, Alexander

Lamout, Norman

O'Malley, William

Verney, F. W.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Wardle, George J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lough, Thomas

Power, Patrick Joseph

Waterlow, D. S.

Lundon, W.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Searboro')

Whitehead, Rowland

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wilkie, Alexander

Maclean, Donald

Rees, J. D.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

Macnamara, D. Thomas J.

Richards, T. L. (Wolverhampton)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

MacNeill John Gordon Swift

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williamson, A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.

Maddison, Frederick

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Pease.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.)

Liddell, Henry

Balcarres, Lord

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

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Doulgas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Faber, George Denison (York)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fell, Arthur

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Forster, Henry William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bull, Sir William James

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'mds)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Hills, J. W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

294

295

Starkey, John R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Alexander Acland-Hood

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

and Viscount Valentia.

Ordered, That, for the remainder of the session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; that, at the conclusion of Government Business each day, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put; and that no Motions be made to bring in Bills under Standing Order No. 11.

BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
Order for Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
*MR. BARRIEmoved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee. He said that although the Bill had passed its Second Heading in the House, when it went to the Committee upstairs it was found on every division that there was very substantial support from all sections of the House against some of the sections of the measure, and he hoped that they would have a final statement that afternoon as to what the view of the Government was in regard to the Bill. The importance of the subject could be realised from the fact that the annual value of the butter trade of this country was over £21,000,000. Pure butter and margarine were only allowed by the existing law to contain 16 per cent. of water. During recent years, owing to the practice of scientific adulteration by certain foreign firms, a new article had been brought into the commerce of Great Britain. It was called by various names but preferably "milk-blended butter." Nobody would deny that that article was a fraudulent article; it was really a water-loaded butter. It had lately been sold under various certificates by enterprising firms, whereby the public were imposed upon. The water-loaded butter was sold with a declaration which conveyed nothing to the average man and woman, much less that they were buying an article which contained 50 per cent. of water, whereas pure butter or margarine contained only 16 per cent. He was sorry to say that the recent
296
Select Committee had more or less provided for the continuance of the sale of this article in the British market. He opposed legislation of this kind, not only on behalf of the agricultural constituency which he represented, but on behalf of all the trade interested in the distribution of pure butter and also of margarine, which was a wholesome substitute for butter. All legislation ought to be passed for the protection of the public at large. He took it that if this measure passed the foreign wealthy capitalists who were behind it would be legally entitled to commit still greater frauds in the future than in the past. Some estimate could be formed of the profitableness of the trade in the past by the fact that the penalties inflicted had in no way acted as a deterrent to the manufacture and sale of the article. The magistrates began by imposing fines of £5 for each offence, but they had been gradually increased to £120 and £30 costs. Still the manufacture and sale went on and the manufacture had grown in prosperity. The Bill was remarkable for many things. The wealthy capitalists behind the Bill seemed to have captured the hon. Baronet in charge of it. It was also remarkable for the fact that it was framed in direct opposition to the expert evidence given by all the permanent officials connected with the Agricultural Department. These men were well-known and had a sense of responsibility, and their reputation for giving reliable evidence before Select Committees was at stake. They declared not only that this milk-blended butter was an illicit manufacture, but that manufacture should be prohibited.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Gentleman's argument was good as against the Bill as a whole; but it was not directed against the recommitted of the Bill, which was the only question before the House.
*MR. BARRIEsaid he would address himself to that point. The Select Committee of this year seemed to have reported in opposition to the report of a previous Select Committee presided over

297
by the late Mr. Hanbury. The latter Select Committee reported that if this article was permitted to be sold at all it should not contain more than 16 per cent. of water. The whole of the agricultural interest throughout Great Britain and the Irish Agricultural Department were strongly opposed to the provisions relating to milk-blended butter, and so were the trading interests. Parliament was the guardian of the interests of the public, who could not organise opposition to the Bill. He thought that these grounds were all-important and worthy of the consideration of the House, and therefore he moved that the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYon a point of order asked what arguments were hon. Members to confine themselves to, unless they discussed the merits of the Bill.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he was afraid he could not provide the hon. Member with arguments. If there were no arguments in favour of the recommittal of the Bill, the Amendment should not be moved.
*MR. BARRIEsaid there was one further reason why this Bill should be recommitted, and that was that two Select Committees had already sat on this subject and they had differed—one reporting for, another against, and in addition there was a strong body of public opinion against its provisions. The Bill, moreover, would be prejudicial to those who were in favour of pure butter. No legitimate interest would suffer if the Bill were recommitted to a Select Committee.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYseconded the Motion. He considered that it would be most unfortunate if they allowed 24 per cent. of water in milk-blended butter, when only 16 per cent. was allowed in ordinary butter. Everybody knew that milk-blended butter was a faked article. The milk, generally skim milk, was forced through the butter— generally foreign butter—in order to increase its weight. He asked the hon. Baronet why it was that this adulterated and fraudulent article got a special treatment in this Bill? In his
298
opinion its sale should be absolutely stopped in the public interest.
Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be recommitted to a Select Committee."—(Mr. Barrie.)
Mr. T. M. HEALYthought the Government had taken a very serious step. Indeed if they passed the provisions in the Bill, it would be absolutely ruinous to a great Irish industry. The clause to which he took particular exception was that which provided that this fraudulent article might contain 24 per cent. of water, while pure butter and margarine were only allowed 16 per cent. of water. He knew, of course, that the hon. Baronet would say that this particular article would not be called butter when sold. But it would be called butter in hotels and all such places. Why did the Government do this? It was free trade gone mad. They invited foreigners from every part of the world to send into this country an article loaded with water. He invited the hon. Gentleman to drop this particular clause.
THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somersetshire, S.)said it was perfectly clear that they could not discuss the merits of the Bill on a Motion for its recommittal. He under stood the object of the hon. Member for Londonderry, N. was that the Bill should be recommitted to another Select Committee; but he would remind the House that the Bill was founded strictly upon the recommendation of the Select Commission of last session.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Did the Select Committee recommend you to allow 24 per cent. of water?
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Yes, unanimously. He urged the House not to agree to the recommittal, but to proceed to the work of considering the provisions of the Bill.
MR. FLYNNsaid he wished hon. Members to realise that the recommittal of the Bill meant its destruction for this session. That was obvious. The Bill contained many most excellent provisions, and he suggested

299
that the proper place to discuss the merits of milk-blended butter was on Clauses 4 and 8. If they could convince the House that these clauses were bad, they could be struck out.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEthought the House ought not to be bound by the decision of any Committee. They were there to judge of all questions submitted to them for themselves and were quite competent to come to a decision upon them quite irrespective of the opinions which any Committee might have expressed in regard to them. He was not opposed to the Bill generally, and he would do his best to assist in passing it into law, but there was, nevertheless, this one fatal blot in it, namely, that this new substance known as milk-blended butter was to be allowed to have a greater percentage
of water in it than ordinary butter or margarine. He could not see why that should be so. If the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill could give the House some assurance —
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is taking the cream off his future argument.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE:said he only intended to deal with milk and not with cream. He hoped the hon. Baronet would re-consider the point referred to as to milk-blended butter being allowed to have a greater percentage of water than ordinary butter or margarine.
Question put.
The House divided: — Ayes, 23; Noes, 233. (Division List No. 327.)

AYES.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Roberts,S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Banbury. Sir Frederick George

Healy, Timothy Michael

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills. J. W.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Liddell, Henry

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES — M r.

Craik, Sir Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert)Gravesend)

Hugh Barrie and Mr.

Delany, William

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

O'Shaughnessy,

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duckworth, James

Acland-Hood. Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Ashley, W. W.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Elibank, Master of

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Evans, Samuel T.

Asquith, Rt.Hon. Herbert Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Field, William

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Flynn, James Christopher

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cleland, J. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Clough, William

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barker, John

Clynes, J. R.

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Barnes, G. N.

Cooper, G. J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Gilhooly, James

Bell, Richard

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cory, Clifford John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Grant, Corrie

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Cox, Harold

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Gulland, John W.

Bowerman, C. W.

Crombie, John William

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Branch, James

Cullinan, J.

Halpin, J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Curran, Peter Francis

Hammond, John

Brigg, John

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Burke, E. Haviland-

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hart-Davies, T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Harwood, George

Byles William Pollard

Donelan, Captain A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Cameron, Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Haworth, Arthur A.

Hayden, John Patrick

Marnham, F. J.

Sears, J. E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Massie, J.

Seaverns, J. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Meagher, Michael

Seddon, J.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Seely, Major J. B.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Menzies, Walter

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Higham, John Sharp

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mond, A.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hogan, Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Horniman, Emslie John

Morse, L. L.

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hudson, Walter

Murnaghan, George

Starkey, John R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Murphy, John

Steadman, W, C.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Myer, Horatio

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jenkins, J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nolan, Joseph

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Joyce. Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sutherland, J. E.

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thorne, William

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Toulmin, George

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Ure, Alexander

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Malley, William

Verney, F. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

O'Shee, James John

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Lamont, Norman

Parker, James (Halifax)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Paulton, James Mellor

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wardle, George J.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wason, Rt. Hn. F.(Clackmannan

Lehmann, R. C.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Raphael, Herbert H.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitehead, Rowland

Lundon, W.

Rees, J. D.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

Wiles, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott)Bradf'rd)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

MacNeill. John Gordon Swift

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

M'Callum, John M.

Rose, Charles Day

Yoxall, James Henry

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Russell, T. W.

M'Micking, Major G.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Mr.

Maddison, Frederick

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Pease.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved a new clause to the effect that a name should not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it referred to or was suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest. He said that in moving this Amendment he thought he was carrying out the wishes of the Committee, because he applied the words of limitation not only to margarine but to milk-blended butter. He therefore trusted that the new clause would be satisfactory not only to the House but to the members of the Committee.
New clause—
"A name shall not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest."— (Sir Edward Strachey.)
Brought up and read a first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he really did not see what this clause did,

303
except to carry out what was already provided for in Clause 8. What it did was already provided for in the Bill, which would enact that no name which included the name of butter should be approved by the Board of Agriculture for butter substitutes. He did not see the use of these words, therefore, unless they were designed to throw dust in their eyes. There was no doubt that they were present at the death of a great industry in Ireland, and he asked for an explanation why the distinction between margarine and milk-blended butter was to be drawn? In reality the right hon. Gentleman was proposing that a fraudulent article might have 8 per cent. more of water than the genuine article, and he asked whether it was fair to the true butter interests that either margarine or milk-blended butter, which walked abroad naked and unashamed, should have a better position under this legislation than the genuine article. Milk-blended butter was made up of the rinsings of all the churns of Europe. He strongly objected to the introduction of margarine into the clause unless the hon. Baronet told him that the proposal was to leave the old name, margarine, alone. The clause, if it was to be of any value at all, should, in his view, be confined to milk-blended-butter. He thought they were entitled to know what name the English and Irish Departments had fixed upon for this new adulterant. Had the Irish Department made up their Hibernian mind as to the name of this misshapen child, and had the English Department made up their minds as to what it should be called? He thought they were entitled to know what the Government were going to call this illegitimate offspring of both Departments.
*MR. BYLES,as a member of the Committee, said he was no friend of the Bill. He did not think it was wanted, but he was astonished at the reception it had met with on coming down from the Grand Committee. He and other members had sat day after day upstairs to consider it, and he was surprised to find that the first Motion made by a gentleman who was a member of that Committee was one to recommit the Bill. Then his hon. friend the Member for North Louth, who was also a member
304
of the Committee, came down and denounced the Bill.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had never denounced the Bill. What he had said was that it was a good Bill minus this clause.
*MR. BYLESsaid the hon. Member had denounced the article which this Bill set out to make legal, although it was a perfectly innocent and pure substitute for butter. Really he thought the proceedings somewhat surprising.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the clause now before the Committee.
MR. BYLESsaid that other speakers had alluded to the subject, and he thought he was justified in drawing attention to it. All he wished to point out was that 24 per cent. of moisture or water was not more fraudulent than 1per cent. He was sure the hon. Member would not accuse him of any desire to destroy Irish industries, but he must point out that the Irish salt firkin butter had far more moisture than 24 per cent. He did not see the object of this clause, but, if the House added it to the Bill, he thought they ought to take out the words "milk-blended butter." They were, by the Bill, going to legalise the production and sale of an article which was milk-blended butter, and then it was proposed, by this clause, deliberately to enact that it should not be sold as milk-blended butter or under any name which suggested butter. He thought that was to stultify themselves.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid it was not often that he agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite, but he was glad to be able to agree with him on this occasion. The objection which he took on the Committee stage was taken not to Clause 8, but to Clause 7, which had nothing to do with milk blended butter, but had reference to the marking of wrappers in which margarine was to be sold. What he and others had contended was that the clause as it stood was badly drawn, incomprehensible, and insufficient to carry out the purpose for which it was intended, and one of the reasons why he

305
had objected to it was that there was nothing contained in it to indicate the manner in which the Board of Agriculture should exercise the discretion which was given to them to approve a fancy name to be used in connection with the word "margarine" upon the wrappers, etc., in which it was enclosed. He had himself brought forward a new clause to substitute for Clause 7, and the hon. Baronet had agreed if this were withdrawn to bring forward a new clause of his own to remedy these defects on the Report Stage. The new clause now proposed, taken in conjunction with other Amendments on the Paper in respect to Clause 7 and standing in the name of the hon. Baronet, seemed on the whole sufficient to meet the objections which had been raised to the clause. Under these circumstances, although he preferred his own clause, he was prepared now to withdraw it in favour of that of the hon. Baronet.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell, Tyrone, S.)pointed out that the sale of milk-blended butter was perfectly legal now without any restriction whatever, and was going on to-day to the great detriment of the butter trade.
MR. BARRIEsaid that might be the case, but the fact that it was milk-blended butter must be disclosed on the wrapper.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was true that it must be sold with a wrapper on which it was declared that the article was milk-blended, but this Bill placed further restrictions on its sale. In the future it must be distinctly separated from butter altogether, and it must not be sold under any name resembling it. Therefore, so far as the butter trade, who had complained that the sale of this article was a detriment to the butter industry, were concerned, the Bill was a help and not a hindrance. Was the House of Commons prepared to say that an article of food such as milk-blended butter was not to be sold at all? Were they going to tell the working people of this country that whether
306
people wanted it or not milk-blended butter should not be supplied? It was in the interest of the butter trade to put a restriction on this article which came into competition with butter. Every one of the Nationalists on the Committee voted for this, and the only two Irish representatives who voted against it were the hon. Member for North Derry and the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. Clause 8 provided that this article should be sold under a distinct name, and in conformity with the undertaking given to the Committee the Government provided in this new clause that that name should in no way resemble butter.
MR. DELANY: Call it faked butter.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid this Bill placed a restriction on the sale of milk-blended butter. He would prohibit it altogether, because he thought the article was a fraud. Milk-blended butter was butter into which milk had been forced by a spiral machine in order to increase its weight and bulk. When people purchased margarine they knew what they were purchasing. When they bought this milk-blended butter they did not, and he would like that word struck out of the clause.
MR. FLYNNsaid it appeared to him there was a good deal of misconception upon this subject. At present the sale of milk-blended butter was legal. It was sold very largely all over the country, and the sale was increasing. It had been proved that the general public did not understand the question of these percentages, and the fact that milk-blended butter contained 45 per cent. of moisture conveyed nothing to their minds. If some restriction was not made the sale would go on. Surely the opinion of the Committee which had devoted two months to a close and laborious study of the question was worthy of some weight. The process was to buy good Colonial butter containing 9 or 10 per cent. of moisture, and then milk was pressed into it and was a source of enormous profit. The Committee after a long discussion came to the conclusion that in butter and margarine there should be 16 per cent. of

307
moisture; that margarine should continue to be sold as margarine, which was a name not in any way suggestive of its being a dairy product. With regard to milk-blended butter they came to the compromise, which would practically kill the trade, that in that article the moisture should be limited to 24 per cent., and that if it was sold it should not be sold as a dairy product of any kind. This new clause which compelled the Department of Agriculture to take a certain course was an honest compromise which met the views of the public on this question, and if the clause was adopted there was no doubt that this trade would perish in a very short time.
*MR. BARRIEsaid the desire of the Government was that there should be a particular name for this article. He saw no necessity at all for a third article. There was already butter and margarine, but he recognised that if the Government insisted that the sale of milk-blended butter must be regulated, the important thing was that it should be known by one name only.
MR. KILBRIDEsaid the question to which the House ought to address itself was whether this clause was likely to benefit agriculture or not. He agreed that it was intended to, but would it in fact benefit the ordinary butter-producer either in England or Ireland? No one denied that milk-blended butter was fraudulent butter. It was colonial butter into which separated or skim milk had been injected. If colonial butter was put upon the market and sold as colonial butter, it would, under this Bill, have to contain no more than 16 per cent. of moisture, and the objection to this fraudulent article was that it was allowed to contain 24 per cent. He thought the promise given to the Committee should be carried out and that this article should be given a name which in no way suggested that it was a dairy product. Would the Government consent to call it bastardine or cow-juice? He thought the hon. Baronet ought to be able to tell the House, after having considered the question for months, what name the Government intended this article should be sold
308
under. People who went into a grocer's shop for it ought to be secured from deception, and the hon. Baronet ought to tell the House whether he had made up his mind what name he was going to give to this fraud.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYexpressed the opinion that the matter required a little explanation as to whether the clause really carried out the understanding, having regard to the fact that owing to the way in which it was now put to the House it was separated entirely from Clause 8. So long as it was a proviso to Section (d) it no doubt carried out the understanding, but now it was separated and put into the Bill as a new clause it was very doubtful whether it did.
MR. STEWARTsaid that both margarine and milk-blended butter were manufactured articles, and they were not fraudulent unless they were sold under a fraudulent name, and the name of margarine did not describe that article at all. Neither did the name of milk-blended butter describe this article, because, in the first place, it was only separated milk that was put back into the churn and not milk. It was only the residue after the butter-fats had been removed. He asked the hon. Baronet if the House carried the 16 per cent. instead of the 24 per cent., whether he, in the interests of the entire community, would include both these articles under the name of margarine.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the whole question dealt with by this Amendment ought to be dealt with on a future clause of the Bill. As to the question of whether milk-blended butter should be called margarine, the answer was "No," because milk-blended butter was butter with an added percentage of moisture over 16 per cent. If that was reduced to 16 per cent. the effect would be that it would become butter, and under this clause it would be illogical for the Board of Agriculture to call it margarine. He appealed to the House to come to a decision upon the point as to whether the Board of Agriculture should devise a name.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he thought that there might be some little difficulty in interpreting this clause owing to its phraseology as it at present stood, and suggested that instead of "in connection with" the hon. Baronet should insert the words "now known as," because the words were not quite so plain as the hon. Baronet seemed to think.
*MR. DELANYthought the House was entitled to ask the hon. Baronet what name he was going to give this article. He ought not to expect the House to give him a blank cheque in the matter. For himself he might say he was not satisfied. As one connected with the agricultural council since its inception he might say they were not against this Bill. They found there were divergent interests in the dairying business in these two countries, and unfortunately there was an unholy alliance between the hon. Baronet and the hon. Gentleman representing the Agricultural Department of Ireland.
LORD R. CECILsaid the House was entitled to an answer with regard to what was a very serious matter, and he did not think that the Government appreciated the point intended to be raised. If they were to treat the words milk-blended butter in the same sense as margarine it meant that they were not to have a word in addition to the words milk-blended butter. They might have milk-blended butter but not a word in addition. But here they were not doing that; they were going to say, and were in fact saying that they would sell the article as milk-blended butter provided they did not use in addition to milk-blended some word which was suggestive of butter or other dairy produce. Surely that was not intended by the Government. They were using the same word and machinery for margarine and milk-blended butter, though they were two different things. In order to prevent any additional word being used for margarine and for milk-blended butter they wanted to prevent the use of any word excluding the use of milk-blended butter." In spite of the great authority of the Government draftsman he could not help thinking that some
310
alteration was required. He believed that the Bill was much better drafted as it originally stood. If they wished to have a new clause let it deal with milk-blended butter alone.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Ure, Linlithgowshire)said he could not agree with the noble Lord. He thought that the words clearly expressed what was intended, Throughout the provision the word "margarine," was used, and in addition the words "milk-blended butter."
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE: said it was distinctly understood in the Committee that the term "milk-blended butter" was never to be used as a description of this now butter-substitute, but that it was to be described by a fancy name to be approved by the Board of Agriculture which did not in any way suggest that the substance was butter or anything resembling butter. To use the term "milk-blended butter'' would certainly suggest that it was butter.
MR. UREsaid that if they had a packet of milk-blended butter there might be added another name, but the Committee were anxious that whatever name was used it should not be suggestive of butter in any way. The clause provided that when the Board of Trade approved of a name which was suggested by the trade it should not approve of any name to be added except a name which was not milk-blended butter or a dairy produce.
MR. BOWLESsaid the Solicitor-General for Scotland had just given them the effect of the clause. He said that milk-blended butter, according to the intention of the Bill and of the Government was a butter substitute hitherto known as milk-blended butter, and it might be sold with the words milk-blended butter on the wrapper in which it was placed
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: No.
MR. BOWLESsaid he had certainly understood the Solicitor-General to say so. He only wanted to know whether

311
that was the intention of the Government, and whether that was the interpretation which they attached to their own Bill; if not, what was the necessity for putting the word "margarine" into the proposed new clause at all? As he understood, the whole intention of the Bill was that milk-blended butter, having a certain amount of moisture in it, should not be presented for sale to the public under any name which would suggest butter. The theory was that it was a fraudulent substitute. Now came the Solicitor-General to tell them that it might be described by other names which were not suggestive of butter, though nevertheless it might be described among other things as milk-blended butter. ["No."] Could anyone representing the Government tell them what it was to be described as? If the substance was not to be described as milk-blended butter what on earth was the meaning of this new clause? The point went to the root of the Bill; it was perfectly ridiculous that there should be any doubt left on the matter, and he earnestly hoped that some hon. or right hon. Gentleman would give some reasonable account of the meaning and intention of the Government in regard to this fundamental point of the whole matter.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid the clause had been threshed out by the Committee upstairs, and members of that Committee would remember that what Clause 8 referred to was an agreement which they had come to in Committee to make sure that any purchaser buying what was now known as milk-blended butter would have indicated on the packet what he was buying.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why was not the clause put in upstairs?
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid the clause was put in upstairs for the reason he had just stated. This new clause was in substitution of the clause put in upstairs, because, as hon. Members well knew, a clause put in while the Committee was sitting was very often subject to the Minister in charge of the Bill bringing up words which had been prepared by the Government draftsman
312
instead of the words put in by the Committee. He was perfectly content with the words proposed by the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill, after his no doubt, though he himself did not see much difference in the words on the Paper that, with the advice at his disposal, the clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman was better than the words put in upstairs. With regard to this clause submitted by the hon. Baronet he did not see why they should be so confused about its meaning. It appeared to him simple. The word "margarine" was put in to enable the Board of Agriculture to regulate its sale better than they were able to do at present, because the evidence which came to them last year on the Select Committee was that although margarine was being sold as margarine, yet in a very large number of cases it was sold without the word "margarine" appearing, save in very small print, while the word "churn" or "cream" or "butter" appeared in very large type. He understood that the word "margarine" was put into the clause to protect the purchaser when buying margarine or churn or butter-fat, or any of the fancy names which, although not to be prohibited, were not to be used as they were being used now, in a manner which might deceive the public into thinking they were buying something other than margarine. They had had some cases before them where the word "margarine" appeared on some flimsy sort of paper, on which it was with difficulty seen that the word "margarine" was on the packet at all. This clause was only to enable the Board of Agriculture to see that the purchaser, when buying margarine, although there might be a fancy name attached to it, would have it made quite clear to him that it was margarine. The clause did not do away with fancy names, because one maker of margarine might be entitled to a fancy name for it as a better margarine than that of another maker; but the Board of Agriculture said that, whatever the fancy name selected, it must be so used as to make quite clear it was margarine that was being bought. As to milk-blended butter, the whole object they had had in view upstairs was

313
to see that there was no fraud perpetrated on the public. What they meant by this clause, and what he understood the hon. Baronet meant now, was that the purchaser, in buying what was now milk-blended butter, should have some name given to that article so that he and the public might know they were not buying pure dairy butter. Hon. Members had been asking the Minister in charge of the Bill to state the name. He did not understand that it was to be one name. [Cries of "That is worse."] It might make the matter worse for some hon. Members, but not for those who knew the facts. Anyone who wanted to sell that article to the public under this clause would have to go to the Board of Agriculture with the name which he wished attached to the article, and the name would have to be approved by the Board before he could put it on the packet. He would also have to register the name, while the article would have to be brought under trial by the Board of Agriculture's inspector. Surely that was a step in advance. It might not go so far as some hon. Members would like; still, it was a step in advance, seeing that the article was now sold freely on the market without any regulation whatever. He was not going to argue about the words of the Government draughtsman. He was content to leave them to him and the Minister in charge of the Bill. He thought there was some confusion in the minds of hon. Members as to the intention of the clause, and if he had been able to throw light on the matter he had attained his object in speaking.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid ho thought the explanation which had been given altered the whole character of the clause. Personally, he understood the clause to mean that in future milk-blended butter was not to boar the name of milk-blended butter. Now they were told that it was to bear an additional name. If that were not so why had the words "in connection with" been inserted? Did that phrase mean "together with"? If so, there was no reason why this milk-blended butter should not continue to be sold. Almost all hon. Members on that side of the House were under the impres-
314
sion that the name of milk-blended butter would remain under the clause, whereas the intention of the Committee was that the name should disappear altogether.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid this clause made it quite clear that milk-blended butter would disappear and would cease to exist as a name except in the Act of Parliament. Once more he desired to assure the House that the name would never appear again if this clause was passed.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that if that was the intention of the clause he did not think the draughtsman had been very successful. In this new clause milk-blended butter was taken as the alternative to margarine, and therefore it was intended that the expression "milk-blended butter should no longer be used; it should be clearly stated that it was not going to be used as an alternative to margarine. What did the words "in connection with" mean? He did not say what the Courts would decide in the matter, but the draughtsman must have meant something by them in order to justify the adoption of the title. At any rate as the clause now stood there was some ambiguity in it which ought to be removed.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he thought the hon. Baronet must admit that the clause had not been very happily worded to meet the purpose which the House had in view. What they all wanted was that margarine and milk-blended butter should not be sold under any name that would deceive the public. The word "margarine" might be used in future, but he understood that milk-blended butter could not be used. That being so the point of the noble Lord was perfectly sound, because the clause implied that this name might be used. They could easily get out of this difficulty by wording the clause to state exactly what was meant. He suggested that the clause should run "margarine and milk-blended butter shall not be offered for sale under any name that refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest."
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsuggested that the Government should consider favourably the proposition which had just been made by the hon. Member for the Appleby Division. The object of the clause was that the public should not be deceived and in the public interest it should be made perfectly clear that people knew exactly what they were buying. With regard to milk-blended butter he was not particularly interested, but a large section of his constituency were interested in the butter trade, and as far as he was concerned he would have opposed this Bill to the bitter end had he not received the most explicit assurance that the Irish salt butter trade would not be injuriously affected by the passage of this Bill.
Clause read a second time.
LORD R. CECILsuggested to add at the end of the clause the words "nor shall such a name be used as a description of or in connection with milk-blended butter."
MAJOR SEELYmoved that the words "for use in connection with" should be omitted and in place thereof the words "as descriptive of the substances now known as" inserted. The advantage of that was that it would be much shorter than the words the noble Lord had suggested, and it would get rid of the words "in connection with." His suggestion would really make the matter perfectly plain and there could be no possible mistake. That would meet the view of the noble Lord, because milk-blended butter would disappear.
MR. LEHMANNseconded.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'for use in connection with,' and insert the words 'as descriptive of the substance now known as.' "—(Major Seely.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause."
SIR E. STRACHEYsaid it appeared to be the desire of the House that some
316
alteration should be made in this clause. It was impossible to accept the words which had been suggested, because there was already in the Bill a description of what milk-blended butter was. If the hon. Member for the Abercromby division would withdraw his Amendment he would undertake that when the Bill went to another place an Amendment would-be moved to insert the words "as descriptive of" after the word "or" in line 2 of the clause.
LORD R. CECILsaid the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member would scarcely meet the case, because it would still leave margarine and milk-blended butter on the same footing. His own proposal was to separate the two, and deal with them by separate Amendments. He did not think the words suggested by the hon. Baronet were very satisfactory. He might be unduly attached to his own suggestion, but he thought that the words "milk-blended butter" should be taken out from the place where they now appeared in the clause, and that milk-blended butter should be dealt with by a separate Amendment at the end of the clause.
SIR E. STRACHEYsaid there was really no difference between the noble Lord and himself. He was quite willing to undertake after consultation with him to see that words were introduced when the Bill went to another place to carry out what he desired.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYexpressed the hope that the Government would accept the words proposed by the noble Lord. They had been asked to leave this matter over for the present, but it should be remembered that this was the second time they had been asked to leave it over. When the Bill was in Committee they were asked to leave it over to the Report stage.
MAJOR SEELYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had given notice of an Amendment to omit the words "as milk-blended butter or" in the second line of Subsection 2 of Clause 8.

317
What was the object of omitting those words? He had already pointed out that the clause, as he understood it, practically meant that the Government might abolish altogether the word "margarine." [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was the construction which it might receive. In the eighth clause the words "name or names" were used, whereas the House was misled to-day by the use of the words "A name" in the new clause He would like to know if in future there was to be only one name for these fraudulent articles. He would like to know why the hon. Baronet had not in the new clause followed the words in Clause 8. Suppose that instead of calling it milk-blended butter, he for the moment called it "bosh." He understood from what was said by an hon. Gentleman below the gangway that any fraudulent faker of butter could use for his own speciality a particular name instead of the good old English word "butter." There might be 400 or 500 different names, and the public would not know what they were getting. The hon. Baronet had made the suggestion that words would be put in the clause when the Bill went to another place. This was a question for the people, and the Amendment ought to be made now. It was really very hard to know what the intentions of the Government were. If there was a difficulty in finding the proper phrase on the spur of the moment, let them agree that this clause should be recommitted on the Third Reading. It was really a serious matter. This was the third or fourth session in which Conservative and Liberal Governments had tried to deal with the question. It was most unfair in dealing with an article of such enormous importance for the hon. Baronet to propose that the duties of this House should be handed over to "another place."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD E. CECIL: said the new clause with his Amendment added. would read as follows—
"A name shall not be approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for use in connection with margarine if it refers to or is suggestive of butter or anything connected with the dairy interest nor shall such name be used as descriptive of, or in connection with, milk-blended butter."
He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 2, to leave out the words 'or milk-blended butter.' "— (Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new clause."
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I have already intimated that the views of the noble Lord and myself are in agreement, and I at once accept that, subject to any alteration that may be necessary
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid there would be considerable doubt as to the construction of the clause as proposed to be amended. The suggestion of the hon. Member for North Louth was far better. The two substances were entirely distinct, and the reason for the confusion which the House had got into was that an attempt had been to deal with them both in one clause.
Clause as amended, added to the Bill.
MR. BARRIEsaid he wished to move on Clause 1, line 13, to leave out "milk," and insert "water."
*MR. SPEAKERsaid that the House had just passed a clause that a name should not be approved of for use in connection with margarine or milk-blended butter if it referred to, or was suggestive of, butter or anything connected with the dairy interest. The Amendment which the hon. Member proposed would violate that clause.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYmoved an Amendment to meet the case of an establishment with two sets of premises—the one a butter factory proper, and the other a creamery.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 25, to leave out the words 'other premises,' and to insert the words 'premises other than a butter factory.' "— (Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wanted to know why this consideration was given to a creamery. It seemed to him that a creamery was the very place of all others which required inspection.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had power to send specially authorised inspectors to inspect creameries, as the premises were registered.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that under Clause 3 it was optional to inspect creameries, but in the case of butter factories the inspection seemed to be compulsory. Now that they were legalising milk-blended butter, he believed that fraudulent creameries would start up all over the country. Why should not a creamery be dealt within the same way as a butter factory? Surely both were engaged in the manufacture of butter. It would be a case of butter factories and creameries saying to the public: "Codlin's your friend, and not Short; try our old creamery butter, and not the factory butter." Without casting any aspersion on the creameries of the past, why should creameries of the future have an advantage over the butter factories? Of course his view would be met at once if all the makers of butter and margarine whether in factories or in creameries were put upon the same footing. He would recall to the House the views of the Committee appointed by the Conservative Government, which consisted, among others, of Sir Horace Plunkett and the hon. Member for Devonport. That Committee of butter experts, eleven in number, reported in 1902 that in the course of their inquiry they had been informed that the incorporation of water with butter in order to increase its weight was at one time extensively practised in Hamburg and Holland, and in a modified form that practice was now in operation in this country; and a considerable quantity of material was blended with what was called milk, containing 24 or 25 per cent. of water. The Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. of water in the preparation of butter and margarine. He admitted that the subject was a most difficult one, and that many interests had to be met; but he insisted that if they compelled
320
butter factories to undergo inspection, creameries should be put on the same basis and level. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was now on his trial, because he had said on the previous day that he would stand up even against the Treasury, and squeeze all he could out of the Treasury. What they asked him to do was to squeeze this "bosh" butter, and take the water all out of it.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that creameries could be inspected if the Board of Agriculture suspected that any illegal process was being carried on in them. He strongly urged his hon. and learned friend not to press his argument too far, for if he read the evidence he would find that it was in the interests of Ireland, or of parts of Ireland, that these regulations were put in.
Question put, and negatived.
Proposed words there inserted.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEmoved the adjournment of the debate. He said that they had now reached the most important part of the measure, the part dealing with the percentage of water to be allowed in milk-blended butter. They had been sitting from twelve o'clock to half past six, and he thought they should bring fresh minds to the consideration of what was really the gist of the whole opposition to the Bill.
MR. ASHLEYseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."— (Sir Francis Lowe.)
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John-Burns, Battersea)said he felt quite sure that the plea put forward by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion was not a sufficient justification for it. He therefore hoped that it would not be persisted in. The discussion on the Bill had proceeded harmoniously, and he was sure the general feeling of the House was in favour of going on. He was convinced that the consideration of the Bill should not now take more

321
than an hour or two, although he hoped that it would take less.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the discussion of the Bill would take less time if the representative of the Board of Agriculture would state his policy. The progress of the Bill depended upon the manner in which the Minister in charge met reasonable Amendments without wasting time. They had been hammering at him for two hours in regard to one Amendment which he said he could not accept, and at the conclusion of two hours he accepted the proposal of the noble Lord. Having done that now, he looked as if butter would not melt in his mouth. All margarine and bosh butter should, in his opinion, be put on the same footing. Why should a Liberal Government stand up for fraud and resist the proposal that margarine and bosh butter should be put on the same footing? There was no reason why the Bill should take any considerable time if the Minister in charge of it would meet them in the matter. He would point out that the House of Lords would be on their side, because the House of Lords were not in favour of bosh butter, and, so far as he knew, it was not a principle of the Conservative Party. The Minister in charge had the whole matter in his own hands, and all he had to do was to put margarine and bosh butter on an equal footing—16 per cent. of water for both.
MR. O'SHEEthought that they ought to have some indication of the name which the Board of Agriculture intended should be applied to this substance of milk-blended butter. He had come to the conclusion that "Milkerine" would not be a bad name for it. [An Hon. Member: It should be "Waterine."] For his part so long as the Government were content to call it "Milkerine" he did not think anyone would care whether it contained 30, 40, 50, 60, or even 90 per cent. of water.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsuggested that the compound should be called ''frauduline."
*MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to discuss matters of that sort, as the only question before the House was the question of the adjournment of the debate.
LORD R. CECILhoped the Government would accede to the Motion for the adjournment. It was not reasonable that they should ask them to sit after half-past six on a Friday evening, and also on Saturday and he supposed on the Sunday as well. For himself he had lost account of the Bills read out by the Prime Minister, and he did not think the Government was treating the House of Commons in a fair way.
MR. RAWLINSONhoped that even if the Government did not accept this motion for the adjournment they would not after the conclusion of the proceedings of this Bill bring on any other work and set up a fresh Bill on a Friday afternoon.
MR. BOWLESwished to know how long the Government contemplated keeping the House sitting on a Friday evening with a Saturday sitting in view. If the Government were determined to keep them there hour after hour, and day after day, in view of the fact that the minority was a very small body but had a considerable amount of work cast upon them, it did not seem unreasonable to ask how long the Government intended to keep them in the House over this Butter and Margarine Bill. He understood they did not intend to accept the Motion for the adjournment, and under the circumstances he did not think it was too much to ask them to give some vague idea of the measures which they intended to discuss that evening.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 174. (Division List No. 328.)

AYES.

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Cavendish.Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Crean, Eugene

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Dalrymple, Viscount

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.)

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Bowles, G. Stewart

Chamberlain.Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

Forster, Henry William

Boyle, Sir Edward

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

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craik, Sir Henry

Gilhooly, James

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Valentia, Viscount

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Walker,Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Healy, Timothy Michael

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Tellers for the Ayes—Sir

Murnaghan, George

Starkey, John R.

Francis Lowe and Mr.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ashley.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hedges, A. Paget

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Helme, Norval Watson

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Astbury, John Meir

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Hogan, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hudson, Walter

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Barnes, G. N.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bell, Richard

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Russell, T. W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Jenkins, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Berridge. T. H. D.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Boland, John

Jones. William (Carnarvonshire

Sears, J. E.

Bowerman, C. W.

Joyce, Michael

Seaverns, J. H.

Branch, James

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Seddon, J.

Brigg, John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seely, Major J. B.

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Laidlaw, Robert

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lamont, Norman

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Byles, William Pollard

Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Cameron, Robert

Lewis, John Herbert

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cheetham. John Frederick

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzi

Cherry. Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lundon, W.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cleland, J. W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Clough. William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Clynes, J. R.

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

MacVeagh,Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Sutherland, J. E.

Cory, Clifford John

MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal,E.)

Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset,E

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Thorne, William

Craig,HerbertJ.(Tynemouth)

M'Killop, W.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Cullinan, J.

M'Micking, Major G.

Toulmin, George

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Maddison, Frederick

Ure, Alexander

Delany, William

Marks.G. Croydon(Launceston)

Verney, F. W.

Devlin, Joseph

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Donelan, Captain A.

Massie, J

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds,S.)

Duckworth, James

Meagher, Michael

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Mechan, Patrick A.

Wardle, George J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Menzies, Walter

Wason,Rt.Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Elibank, Master of

Mond, A.

Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Evans, Samuel T.

Montgomery, H. G.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Field, William

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Patrick (Meath, Nort)

Findlay, Alexander

Murphy, John

Whitehead, Rowland

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Wiles, Thomas

Gardner,Co.lAlan(Hereford,S.)

Nolan, Joseph

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williamson, A.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gulland, John W.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Halpin, J.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Hammond, John

O'Grady, J.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Parker, James (Halifax,)

Pease.

Harwood, George

Paulton. James Mellor

Halsam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to make the limit of 16 per cent. of water which applied under the Bill to butter and margarine apply also to this new and somewhat equivocal substance which was recognised for the first time under this Bill as milk-blended butter. He was utterly at a loss to understand why milk-blended butter should be allowed to have 24 per cent. of water in it, whilst butter and margarine should only be allowed to have 16 per cent. of water in them, or why the addition of 24 per cent. of water should be considered to be adulteration in the one case and not in the other. The addition of so much water to milk would certainly not be allowed, and the milk-seller who attempted to doctor his milk in that way would certainly be had up before the magistrates and fined heavily for his pains. The whole object of this Bill was to protect the people against fraud and to insure that every article purporting to be butter or any substance analogous to butter was in reality that which it was represented to be when it was sold. He could not conceive of anything that was more calculated to open the door to fraud and make easy the path to adulteration than a provision of this kind. It simply meant that a person who sold butter would be able to load up his butter with water to such an extent that it would weigh a great deal heavier, and although on the face of it it would appear to be a great deal cheaper than ordinary butter, the purchaser would in reality have to pay a good deal more for the actual butter it contained, because it would contain 50 per cent. more water than the genuine article. It was said that a considerable demand for this class of butter existed amongst the poorer classes, because it suited their purpose and was cheaper than ordinary butter. He did not know whether this demand really existed or not, but even if it did it ought not to be legitimised or encouraged, as these poor people were deluded into believing they were getting it at a lower price, whereas a great part of the price they were paying was for water and not for butter at all. Further-more, he might point out that if any of their people desired to have an admixture of butter and water, it was
326
open to them to buy a smaller quantity of butter and mix it with water for themselves. This Bill itself amounted to a deception and a fraud because throughout the whole of its clauses the term "milk-blended butter" was invariably applied to a substance which was not milk-blended butter at all but merely water-blended butter.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,in seconding the Amendment, said he failed to see why this milk-blended butter should be allowed to have 24 per cent. of water and ordinary butter only 16 per cent. He would like to know what induced the hon. Baronet to agree to the figure of 24 per cent. of water as the standard for milk-blended butter, while for ordinary butter he only allowed 16 per cent. It was a monstrous thing that such a standard should be allowed and if he had the power he would do away with milk-blended butter altogether, because he regarded it as a fraudulent article.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 13, after the word 'factory,' to insert the words 'or if any milk-blended butter, which, when prepared for sale or consignment, contains more than 10 per cent. of water, is on any premises registered under this Act.' "—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that at last they had come to what had been constantly referred to as one of the greatest objections to the Bill. The House had now to decide whether they wished to prohibit milk-blended butter altogether or to restrict the sale of it. At the present moment the sale of milk-blended butter was perfectly legal. He was surprised, when he heard the hon. Member for North Louth denounce it in no unmeasured terms, that the Government had not had his help on the question of the sale of milk-blended butter during the last six or seven years. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman not only wished to prohibit its sale altogether, but also, as he had said "the old fraud, margarine." He could not help thinking that there were others who desired to prohibit the sale of milk-blended butter

327
because it would help to prohibit the sale of "the old fraud, margarine." The whole question now was the prohibition or the restriction of the sale of milk-blended butter, because all would agree that its unrestricted sale was a fraud. The arguments put forward in favour of prohibition were, first of all, by grocers throughout the country, that the grocers did not desire to have a third article of this character in their shops. He ventured to think that that was not an argument which the Government ought to consider. They ought in the interests of the country to see that so long as they were properly protected the public should have a right to buy a cheap article suitable to their needs. The Mid. Rhondda Grocers' Association passed a resolution to the effect that to allow the extra 8 per cent. of moisture would be unfair to the retailer. But that again was not in the interests of the public, and if the Government saw that the public were properly protected and that they had the opportunity of buying butter and did not care for margarine, then he thought they should have an opportunity of buying milk-blended butter if they so desired. Then they were told that milk-blended butter was an article of no food value. It was admitted that separated and skim milk had not the same food value as whole milk and that would also apply to skim milk cheese, which was not of the same food value as a cheese made from whole milk or cream. But was it to be said that people who were not able to buy whole milk or cream cheese were to be prohibited from buying separated milk or skim cheese? What was the position that had to be taken up if the House agreed with the view he put forward, that so long as a man knew what he was buying, so long as the public were not deceived, they had a right to buy any article of food so long as it was wholesome and not so described as to deceive them? The position was this, that the public were buying milk-blended butter under the impression that it was another form of butter, and in some cases they believed they were buying something better than ordinary butter because this butter had been returned. The House now had to consider the two alternatives prohibition or restriction and limitation
328
of sale. What this Bill did was to decide that it was impossible to prohibit the sale of a wholesome commodity so long as people knew what they were buying. The Government had been fort-fied in that opinion because the Select Committee on the Butter Trade which sat for a considerable period and heard a great deal of evidence upon the question came to the conclusion that this milk-blended butter should only be allowed to be sold under another name to be approved by the Board of Trade. That recommendation was embodied in the Bill. That Committee came to the conclusion that it would not be right to recommend the prohibition of the sale of this article. Let there be no cant about this matter. When hon. Members wanted to reduce the moisture from 24 per cent. to 16 per cent. those who knew anything about it knew that that was prohibition, because when the moisture was reduced to 16 per cent. milk-blended butter became simple butter. The only difference between butter and milk-blended butter was that one had 16 per cent. and the other more than 16 per cent. of moisture. It was a mere question of moisture. The Standing Committee had taken the same view as that which had been taken by the Select Committee on the Butter Trade and had retained in the Bill the proviso restricting and limiting but not prohibiting the sale of this article. The Central Chamber of Agriculture discussed the question at their meeting in March or April, and after a long discussion decided by a small majority to retain the 24 per cent. of moisture as against the 16 per cent. The Central Chamber of Agriculture came to that conclusion, because as sensible men they knew they could not ask for protection in this way and that the 16 per cent. meant absolute prohibition. No doubt all agriculturists if they considered these matters only from the point of view of their own selfish interests would like to see both milk-blended butter and margarine prohibited, and it was satisfactory to find agriculturists insisting in the Central Chamber of Commerce that all they could do was to pass resolutions that milk-blended butter should be called by a name which had nothing to do with, and which would

329
not be suggestive of butter. Not only did the Central Chamber of Agriculture pass resolutions approving the Bill, but the British Dairy Farmers' Association also a few months ago unanimously passed resolutions approving the Bill and expressing a hope that it would pass.
MR. ASHLEY: They wanted the Bill, but did not want this particular proviso.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he was president of the association and was present at the meeting of the council when the resolution was passed. He himself told them that if they opposed the resolution the Bill would go through with the 24 per cent. of moisture, and they then declared they would have the Bill as it was.
MR. ASHLEY: Naturally they would rather have this than nothing.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Not at all. He had great faith in the Dairy Farmers' Association, and if they had thought it was necessary not to have this Bill they would have said so. They saw that under the Bill they would derive great advantage. Then the question was brought before the Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association at the instance of the Cheshire County Council, who desired that association to object to milk-blended butter, and ask for prohibition by reducing the percentage of moisture to 16 per cent. The Parliamentary Committee replied that they were not in favour of the resolution of the Cheshire County Council, and that the reduction of moisture to 16 per cent. would be equivalent to prohibition. The Parliamentary Committee of the County Councils Association knew exactly what was meant by such a suggestion. The recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee came before the County Councils Association only a few days since, and the association unanimously accepted the Report of the Committee. The County Councils Association could not be said to be prejudiced in this matter except in so far as it was their duty to look after the public health. They considered that this substitute for butter could be sold
330
under a name, which proved that they did not consider in the interest of the public health that there was anything wrong being done. They were quite clear on one thing, and that was that there ought to be no prohibition. What did it all come to? It came to this, that they asked that in future milk-blended butter, although it would be allowed to be sold, should no longer be sold as milk-blended butter or described by any name at all that had anything to do with butter; and, further, that it should only be sold in a wrapper, and only be described by a name on any wrapper or in any advertisement, which name must be approved by the Board of Agriculture; and the Board were not to approve of any name or description which suggested butter. It would be perfectly in the power of the Board of Agriculture to have a wrapper on which notice was given of the exact amount of water that was contained in the mixture. The Board of Agriculture would do their duty fully in the matter, and would see that the substance was described in such a way that the customer could not be deceived as to the article he was purchasing. In future this substance known as milk-blended butter would only be sold under some proprietary name approved by the Board of Agriculture. He hoped that the House would be satisfied with what the Bill proposed. It would do justice between the two interests, and the working classes of the country would not be deprived of the food they desired. If they were unable to pay for an article so expensive as butter they would, at the same time, be absolutely protected by the fact that milk-blended butter could only be sold under a name which had nothing to do with butter.
*MR. DUCKWORTHsaid he was sure that the House would congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the ability with which he had spoken on the case. He was not in opposition to the Bill as a whole. He was in favour of the Bill with the exception of this one clause. He would be very sorry personally, and he knew that those for whom he spoke would also be very sorry, if the Bill were dropped. But he was very strongly opposed to any favour being given to what was known now as milk-blended

331
butter, and especially that it should have an advantage over margarine and butter. He spoke with an experience of nearly forty years in the butter trade. The firm to which he belonged had in the North of England nearly 100 branches, where butter was sold day by day. But he had behind him also the whole of the trade of the North of England, both wholesale and retail. There was hardly a single association connected with the trade that was not in favour of this article being brought on to a level with margarine and genuine butter. He presided at an enthusiastic meeting on Tuesday last at Manchester on the question. There were delegates attending that meeting from the port of Hull, Glasgow, and many other places in the North of England, and the following resolution was unanimously and enthusiastically passed—
"That this meeting is thoroughly of opinion —Firstly, that milk-blended butter, under whatever name it may be called, should not contain more moisture than either butter or margarine. Secondly, that the introduction of this article, containing as it does 50 per cent. additional moisture, will be harmful to the producing and distributing interests, and is really, more or less, a deception on the consuming public. Thirdly, that as Acts of Parliament already prohibit the addition of more than a certain percentage of butter fat to margarine, the wilful addition of water to butter should also be prohibited."
He had received a letter that morning stating that the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Manchester, representing 1,200 co-operative societies, were in agreement with the resolution. But it was said that traders were afraid of competition. That had been said in Committee and had been said also in the discussion that day. Nothing could be further from the truth than a statement of that kind. If the country were flooded with this faked article, as it would be if 8 per cent. additional moisture were allowed, the trade would have to handle it, and they all knew that the profit on a substitute was greater than on the genuine article. So that they had nothing to fear from an article of that kind. Their opposition was based on the certainty that the sale of this stuff would lend itself to fraud, and the victims would be largely the poor and ignorant. It was all very well for hon. Members to say
332
glibly that people knew what they were buying, and why should they prohibit it. But the people did not know what they were buying, especially when those they were dealing with were trying to deceive them. The promoters of the Bill said: "Oh, we wilt give it a name that will kill it." His reply to that was: "Why create a thing in order to kill it?" They would not kill it. If it was made the colour and shape of butter they might call it "Butterine" or "Waterine" or anything else; the people would buy it, and thousands would buy it for genuine butter. He was amazed at the persistency with which this Bill was being pushed. There was something behind it that did not appear on the surface. It had been publicly stated that if this part of the Bill passed, and it became legal to add 24 per cent. moisture to this article, a huge trust would be formed with any amount of capital behind it, and the thing would be pushed to the exclusion of all other kinds of butter or margarine throughout the length and breadth of the country. Only those who were familiar with the trade knew in what numerous ways. an article like this might be pushed. Names might be given to it, if they allowed the use of names, and it might be put in different shapes in order to deceive the public. He would like to ask the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture and the hon. Baronet who represented him in that House how they liked the contemplation of such a possibility. How would their friends the farmers, who liked to sell a genuine butter and get a fair price for it, fare under these circumstances? It was said that it was only a small matter. But he thought it would be found to be a very vital matter to the farmers of the country if the market were flooded with this butter substitute. He was sure that the promoters of the Bill did not want to encourage the clever fellow who could make water stand on end and sell it at 10d. or 1s. a pound. But that was what they were doing. Forty to 50 per cent. of moisture, he was told, had been found in this faked article; yet they said it was legal. Fines had been inflicted, but like the street bookmaker they paid the fines, smiled, and went on selling the stuff. They could easily do that because of the enormous

333
profit they were making. But they were about to say to these defrauders of the public: "You shall not be allowed to put 40 or 50 per cent. of water in this article, but we will allow you 24 per cent.," which was 8 per cent. more than was allowed in margarine or genuine butter. That was a curious method of giving preference. By law they already prevented makers of margarine from putting more than 10 per cent. of butter in the manufacture of that article, professedly to prevent its being sold as butter; but here they wore going to allow an extra 8 per cent. of water, instead of 40 or 50 per cent., in the hope that it would not be sold as butter. To borrow an illustration from one of the speakers on Tuesday—the Government might just as well strike off a number of gold coins exactly like a sovereign, but worth only 18s. each, and expect that no one would pass them as real sovereigns. They were told that milk-blended butter was a cheap and harmless article of food, and that on free trade principles they had no right to prevent its being sold. He had a letter which rendered this very clearly, and knocked the bottom out of the argument altogether. He denied that it was cheap or harmless. The added water made the article dear. Poor people, to whom it was sold in the greatest quantities, did not reckon so much per cent.; they knew nothing about that, and therefore they were deceived. It took the place of butter fats, and it was a fraud on the purchaser. He could give the House an example of the effect this proposal would have upon Lancashire operatives. They took their breakfast largely from bread and butter which was prepared either the night before or at 5.30 in the morning, and it was taken to the mill in a handkerchief or tin and had to be kept several hours in a room in which the atmosphere varied between 80° and 90° Fahrenheit. By supplying them with an article containing so much moisture they were being deceived and were not getting a proper amount of nourishment from it. They heard a great deal about physical degeneration, but this was one of the things which was increasing that danger. They were told on the Committee that they had no right to interfere with the food of the
334
people, but he was strongly opposed to any advantage being given to milk-blended butter over margarine and genuine butter. He was sure the Government did not really wish to encourage fraud in the sale of this or any other article of food.
*MR. A. H. SCOTTsaid it was not inappropriate that one grocer should follow another in the debate, but he wished to state clearly that in this matter, unlike the Member for Stockport, he held no brief for the trade. Those who knew the severe competition that existed in regard to this particular article would understand why the grocers' associations in various parts of the country were up in arms against milk-blended butter. He remembered the time when the grocers were quite as antagonistic to margarine as they were now to milk-blended butter, but all that opposition had disappeared now because margarine had become a more profitable article over the grocers' counter than pure butter. He believed there were still some grocers who never sold an ounce of margarine and might reasonably advocate the doing away with it altogether. Those who had watched the rapid growth in the sale of milk-blended butter would see at once the reason why there was a prejudice against it. He cross-examined every man who gave evidence on this point before the Committee with the direct object of getting some admission that milk-blended butter was an unwholesome article, and he failed to get any such admission. Other hon. Members also failed in this respect, and there was nothing in the big book of evidence which had been published to the effect that it was an unwholesome article. The only evidence on this point was that if they took milk-blended butter into the hot factory or put it into the oven it would not keep fresh so long as Danish or Irish butter. He contended that at the present time nine-tenths of the milk-blended butter sold was sold fraudulently. People who bought milk-blended butter believed that it was made from the milk without any separation taking place, and they thought it was a better article than the ordinary butter. There was evidence to show that the public appreciated this article. What was the position? There

335
was evidence that the public demanded this article, but there was no evidence that it was an unwholesome article. Were they going to say, "We do not care what may be the weight of evidence; it is disagreeable to the grocers, and for that reason we are not going to allow the public to demand it"? He contended that there was a question of free trade involved. [Voices, "Oh, no."] To stop an article being sold which was not unwholesome and for which there was a public demand was surely a violation of free trade doctrine. He contended that the opposition which had been aroused on this question was needless. If under the Bill milk-blended butter was called by a name which was not associated with butter and had no connection with butter they could rest assured that not only would its sale cease to increase but it would result in eventually stopping the sale altogether of milk-blended butter.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked if the Board of Agriculture intended that the wrappers in which this stuff was sold should give notice to the public of the amount of water in the mixture.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYindicated assent.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had done his best to help Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes and Mr. Han bury, but the hon. Baronet was the first person who had ever put milk-blended butter into a Bill. He was the first person who had linked the name of the Liberal Party with fraud. And if he wanted a name for this, instead of "Perfecto" he would suggest "Liberalismo." Mr. Hanbury proposed. 20 per cent. in 1903, and the House came to the conclusion that the proposal would open the door rather too much for fraud. Accordingly, Mr. Hanbury's Bill was objected to and stopped. Mr. Fellowes brought in another Bill in 1904 to the same effect. Until the hon. Baronet introduced the phrase "milk-blended butter" into this Bill, nobody had ever heard of this monstrosity before. For what purpose did he introduce it? The hon. Baronet said it was for the purpose of extirpating it, although milk-blended butter had never been heard of before.
MR. ANNAN BRYCEsaid the term "milk-blended butter" had been used for many years.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was speaking ing of Statutes and Bills. He knew that the phrase existed before, but it had not received statutory recognition. The hon. Member for Stockport in his able speech had pointed out that when they were dealing with margarine, they were dealing with a manufactured product. It was simply made of butter fats. The fats were genuine, and the fraud in margarine was the endeavour to pass it off for butter; but in the case of milk-blended butter a genuine article of admitted value was taken, and there was added water, and then it was said they had made a new and special article. It was a thing similar to that for which coiners were convicted at the Old Bailey. If he took a sovereign and added 10 per cent. of pewter to it, did it not look as well? Could he not palm it off as well? What crime had he committed? Only robbed the King. It was a crime to rob the King, but they might rob poor people. Let him deal now with the fraudulent phrase "milk-blended," because certainly the adoption of that phrase by the hon. Baronet gave him special distinction. It was not "milk-blended butter." They were dealing with water-blended butter—aquatic butter. Who knew whether any milk was added to the butter? 24 per cent., or nearly a quarter of it, might be water in future. Why not call it water-blended butter? Why should it be dignified with the name of milk? There was, in his opinion, something behind the advocacy and the extraordinary tenacity with which the phrase had been adhered to by the hon. Baronet. It was said that this was free trade. If that was so, then all he could say was, "God help free trade." He was neither a free-trader nor a protectionist; he was an Irishman. He would always fight for what was good for his country, and against that which injured her, no matter under what label it might be described. A fourth of the butter which was to be sold to the people as pure butter was only aqua pura. For aught that he knew the people of this country might have this imposed on

337
them as pure butter. It was extraordinary that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire asked the hon. Baronet to give a pledge that the amount of water should be placed upon the label all that he got in reply was a nod. Nods did not appear in Hansard.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Baronet distinctly said ''Yes." across the Table. There ought to be no mistake about it.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I think I nodded assent. Clause 8 says—
"… there shall, in addition to the approved name, be printed on the wrapper in such manner as the Board approve, such description of the article as may be approved by the Board."
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid Jove nodded to some purpose, but it appeared to him that the hon. Baronet's nod meant nothing, because while he conveyed to the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire that the amount of moisture would be stated on the wrapper, it now appeared that all that was required was that a description of the article should appear on the wrapper. If it was an honest article why should the Government be ashamed of it? If it was to be baptised in pure water, why should they not declare the amount of the "fontage" that appeared on the label? The hon. Baronet was alone in his preference for water, for teetotal butter. If 24 per cent. was an admirable thing for the food of the people, why should not 48 per cent. be good for them? Why was the man who added 24 per cent. of water to butter to be considered a religious man, and the man who added 25 per cent. a sanctimonious impostor? If he were to give a description of the hon. Baronet or of any of the Rosebery Party that had found their way into the Government, he would say that it was "24 per cent. of added water to Liberalism." But the House had arrived at the time when it was entitled to hear from a serious representative of the Government what was its position as to this question. The House had been kept sitting by their minor underlings, by men who had never enjoyed any
338
weight, authority, or confidence in the House. At all events, he was entitled to say that, as to an enormous trade which the Irish people had with this country, a fraudulent article was for the first time to be palmed off on the consumers. They were told that this substance would do nobody any harm. He quite believed that there was nothing harmful in taking water with butter, but that was not the point. The point was whether a man who sold butter was injured by another who competed with him by selling an article of which a quarter was fraudulent. Though milk blended butter did not harm a man' stomach, did the sale of it not open the way for fraud? If in a poor district a little child was sent out with 1s. to buy three-quarters of a pound of butter, might not this other article be supplied unless adequate methods were adopted to protect the public against fraud? The man behind the counter might deliver the "bosh" butter to a child, who had been sent by its parents to buy a pound of butter, and the child might put the difference of a few pence in the price of "bosh" butter and pure butter in its pocket. This was a proposal which came before the House without weight or authority. Sir Horace Plunkett had no doubt been attacked, but at all events nobody denied that he had the interest of Ireland at heart, and he signed the Report against the proposal in this Bill. The hon. Member for Devonport, who knew something of what he was talking about, and was now Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, also signed the Report, and his opinion was more worthy of the attention of the House than that of the hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly this was a grave and serious business. Margarine was now sold under an honest name. Men in Belgium and Germany—and he noticed that every fraud came from Germany—sent over here this "bosh" butter, and for the first time, Parliament, under the Liberal Government, was going to sanction a proposal to add 24 per cent. of water. He maintained that there was something unusual and remarkable in that, and no reason could be given for it in the attitude of the hon. Baronet. He could see nothing in the hon. Baronet's position in the House which entitled him to say

339
that he had any authority behind this proposal, beyond that of the hon. Baronet himself.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the, indulgence of the House to make an explanation. He had put a question to the hon. Baronet as to whether the Board of Agriculture would insist that it should be stated on the wrapper that this mixture contained 24 per cent. of water. He had received an affirmative nod. Thereupon he said: "I may take it that that is so," and then sat down without making any other observation. But the hon. Baronet's interpretation of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Louth had created considerable doubt in his mind as to what the meaning of that nod was. Might he put the question again and ask for a specific and favourable answer to it? Would the Department of Agriculture ensure that under Clause 8 the wrappers there spoken of would mention the fact that this mixture contained 24 per cent. of water?
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he certainly meant that. He should not object to its being put in the Bill if it would improve it, but there was great difficulty in doing that. It might be done in another place.
MAJOR SEELYsaid that if the hon. Baronet pledged himself on that point they had won their battle. Although they warmly applauded the efforts of the hon. Baronet to limit the trade in milk-blended butter, they suggested that he should go a step further and prohibit it altogether. It was ridiculous to contend that poor people were going to be robbed of a cheap butter. It was a fraud to sell butter and water as butter, and to charge for butter. The blend was made with very thin skim milk, which had passed through a collander, and of course the article was a fraud. If the hon. Baronet wanted a name for this mixture, which was made with the aid of the parish pump, he would suggest that it should be labelled, "Pumpine," and the statement added that it contained 24 per cent. of water. If that was done, nobody would buy it.
*MR ASHLEYsaid that the hon. Member for Louth had drawn attention to the Report of the Select Committee signed by Sir Horace Plunkett and the Member for Devonport and other experts, but he wished to direct the attention of the House to the draft Report of the Chairman of the Butter Committee, the hon. Baronet in charge of this Hill, which sat last year. In that Report it was stated that, having regard to the price of milk-blended butter and the amount of water it contained, it was not a cheap article of food. Further, the Report went on to state that one trader had refused to sell milk-blended butter as he looked upon it as a fraudulent article, and that the introduction of that article into this country had had a demoralising effect upon the trade. The Report went on to say that if the sale of this article became general it would entail much inspection, and that it would have a prejudicial effect upon the public health. Therefore, he recommended that, in any legislation affecting the amount of water to be permitted in butter, no special exemption should be made in favour of milk-blended butter.
MR. S. T. EVANShoped the hon. Baronet would relent from the strong position which he had taken up. The hon. Baronet had not given any reason why he had changed the opinion he expressed last year. He had never heard the hon. Baronet speak with such force as he had done that day, and he could not understand why he had thrown so much spirit and eloquence into his speech. It was not enough to say that the article was of a very wholesome character; they had no right to sell it as butter when only one-half of it was butter and the other half water, and to charge the poor people for a pound of butter. The hon. Baronet had said that Clause 8 dealt with this matter. It did nothing of the kind. Again, the hon. Baronet had said that it was impossible to deal with this question now, and that it might be dealt with by the House of Lords. They did not want it to be dealt with by the House of Lords. He warned the hon. Baronet that he and his Government would be beaten unless it was stated clearly on the wrapper what the article really consisted of.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he agreed.
MR. S. T. EVANSsaid that the hon. Baronet seemed to be relenting. It should be clearly stated on the wrapper, not "such description of the article as may be approved by the Board," but some such words as these, "true definition of the article and of its ingredients." They should tell the common people how much milk and how much water was contained in the article, and unless some such words were inserted in the clause he should vote against it.
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that it was plain that there was some misapprehension as to the effect of the clauses relating to the definition o[milk-blended butter. It was, therefore, necessary that this part should be made so clear as to prevent that misapprehension. He would deal with the way in which three edible compounds were now sold. There was butter, which could be bought at from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a pound. That was pure butter and was allowed to contain from 10 to 16 per cent. of water. Milk-blended butter sold for from 10d. to 1s. a pound and it contained 20 per cent. to 40 per cent., or it might be even 60 per cent. of milk or water. That was a state of things which no House of Commons could tolerate, and the object of this Bill was to prevent the fraud which so much moisture involved. In the artificial product, margarine, the same quantity of moisture was involved as in butter.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWE: You are legalising adulteration.
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he never believed that adulteration was a legitimate form of competition. Butter could not legally be sold with more than 16 per cent. of moisture; margarine could not be legally sold with more than 16 per cent. of moisture; but at this moment milk-blended butter, which was a wholesome product, if undesirable, contained 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of moisture. The object of the Bill was to prevent that fraud being perpetrated, to prevent so much moisture, and to protect the poor people who consumed this article and who wished for a
342
cheap and wholesome substitute for butter. The grocers, the Chambers of Commerce, and the poor people would like butter if they could get it, or they would prefer margarine, but some classes of the people were inclined to buy milk-blended butter because it suited their pockets, however it affected their tastes. The Government were seeking to give the necessary protection, but it was obvious from the speeches of the hon. Member for North Louth and his hon. friend below the gangway, that some more protection should be given with regard to this milk-blended butter. Nobody had suggested, however, that it should be abolished, but everyone had agreed that some explanatory words should be applied in the Bill and the Government suggested certain words. They thought their words were better than those of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, as they had had a little more time in which to consider them. Clause 8 was the one which was descriptive of milk-blended butter and regulated its sale, and the Government proposed to introduce into it words which, while providing that it should be dealt with under such name or names as was or were, laid down by the Board of Agriculture, as in the case of margarine, the article should be delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper which in addition to the approved name and description of the article "shall set out the percentage of moisture contained therein." Those were the words they suggested. They thought "moisture" was better than "water."
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid "water" was better than "moisture." If the right hon. Gentleman would make it water he would drop his opposition to the Bill.
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid they all wanted the same thing and the only difficulty was how to do it. The reason why the word "moisture" was adopted was that if one injected milk into butter it was not water; it was milk. If it would suit the hon. Member for North Louth they might insert both words "moisture" and "water" and then he thought all parties would be satisfied.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would take that.
*MR, JOHN BURNSsaid that with that concession, if the hon. Member was pleased to call it one, he thought this controversy might cease.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would accept that, and would now say goodnight. [The hon. Member then left the House.]
SIR F. CHANNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board how he reconciled the logic of his hon. friend with his own proposed clause. They were enacting a 16 per cent. standard for margarine and a 16 per cent. standard for pure butter, but if the Government accepted the contention of his hon. friend, and if he was right to apply a different percentage to milk-blended butter, was not that to undercut the whole basis upon which this legislation as to pure butter and margarine had been worked? If they applied this principle of excusing the presence of an adulterant in a particular article, why should it not be applied in the case of the product of the honest farmer and of the manufacturer of margarine? There was, he submitted, no answer to that contention. It was a reductio ad absurdum. He thought the Government had taken a very wrong step in yielding to the representations of the trade, and they seemed to have acted upon some mistaken idea of the principles of free trade which they apparently thought consisted in allowing a man to buy what he liked. That was not free trade. The process which was used to bring about the product of milk-blended butter was used to disguise rancid butter, and then it was sold to the poorest class of people. It seemed a monstrous thing that they should have a Liberal Ministry and a Minister of light and leading giving effect to such a policy of fraud.
MR. SEDDONsaid he was exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member for North Louth had withdrawn his opposition. If the amount of moisture in butter and margarine was 16 per cent. there was no reason why they should in this product of milk-blended butter give a margin of 24 per cent. He spoke with some knowledge of the grocery trade, as he
344
spent sixteen years behind the counter, and his experience was that the honest trader was always the victim of the dishonest trader. While one sold butter the other sold margarine. The last Act was a protection to the honest trader and to the consumer. Then a production other than margarine was brought in. It was known as "mixture" and the public again were defrauded. The poor people, roughly speaking, were divided into two classes. There were the extremely poor, whose purchasing power was always regulated by their pocket, and they bought margarine because it was impossible to buy butter. But there was another class of the poor who had more delicate tastes, and they would buy a smaller quantity in order to get pure butter. That class required protection, and it was in the poorer districts that traders were enabled to use these milk-blended butters. He did not agree that what was on the wrapper should be the only notice, as it would only give power to tradesmen with money to advertise fancy names. They might, for instance, advertise "So and so's Fraudulene." Anyone who knew the grocery trade knew that the poor people did not buy their butter in pounds and half pounds, but in ounces and two ounces. He did not know what this mixture should be called, perhaps Tatcho. The provisions would give fradulent people a means of evading the law, because the article would be adulterated to the extent of 24 instead of 16 per cent. The Government were in fact going to see that a fraudulent substitute for butter was authorised.
MR. HARWOODsaid if seemed to him that a great deal of bother was being made about a very small matter. The issue was whether there should be two kinds of butter, one containing more moisture than the other. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill said he had a great objection to stopping it. What was the objection? The hon. Baronet said there was a trade for this milk-blended butter; that there was a demand for it; and therefore it ought to be allowed to go on. But the trade had arisen because they had allowed 30 and 40 per cent. of moisture to be added. No sooner had the hon. Baronet put on a limit than

345
the trade would disappear. The objection of the hon. Baronet to do away with this trade had, therefore, no ground whatever. But there was another objection, which was that the public liked to buy this thing and, that being so, the House was asked why they should not be allowed to buy it. He did not see what good they did by allowing the public to buy butter which contained 8 per cent. more water than ordinary butter. Margarine was a different matter. No doubt it was a very good thing to grease bread with, but it was not butter. The hon. Baronet said that if the percentage of moisture was reduced to 16 per cent. this article would become butter. Then let it become butter. He also said that directly the moisture was limited to that which butter contained this trade would cease. Then let it cease. All this terminology and choice of terms was a mere waste of time and there was no good in it. It was said that if the limit was reduced to 16 percent. it would protect the butter industry. It was a curious thing that the House could not discuss anything now without the old bogey of free trade coming in; it was like King Charles' head. A certain percentage of moisture was good for butter. If that was 16 per cent. why have another butter of 24 per cent? The working classes did not want to buy butter with 8 per cent. more water in it than ordinary butter. As representing a working class constituency he said they did not want this water-blended butter; therefore let the House tackle the thing boldly at once by saying that they would not have it in any shape or form.
*MR. BARRIEsaid he had hoped that even at the eleventh hour the legalising of a third article would have been dropped. The proposal of the hon. Baronet had met with no sympathy from any portion of the House. This proposal was entirely owing to two or three wealthy firms who had been able by vigorous lobbying during the last few months to get a certain amount of support for an article that was frandulent. Every agriculturist in the district which he represented protested against this privilege being given to an inferior article. He urged upon the House the fact that it was proved before the
346
Committee that there was no legitimate demand for this article, and that its consumption was only 2½ per cent. as compared with that of butter altogether apart from margarine. No part of the community would suffer if this new article was made to conform to the 16 per cent. standard. On the contrary it would only ensure necessary precautions against a few ingenious manufacturers who had succeeded in amassing large fortunes at the cost of the public, by pushing this article off on the average consumer, who was least able to protect himself. All the heads of the Agricultural Departments had spoken strongly against the legalisation of this article. They had been reminded that afternoon that the agriculturists were practically unanimous against it, and the late chief of the English Agricultural Department, the late Mr, Hanbury, carried the Committee over which he presided unanimously with him against giving facilities for the sale of this article. They must, therefore, assume that those responsible for the butter industry of the country were absolutely undivided in their opinion that this faked article should not be placed in the hands of the people. He therefore asked the House to vote in favour of the Amendment to make the standard 16 per cent. He was aware that he was asking them to give the death blow to this article by so doing, but they would not do justice to the consumer if they did not do so.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Lloyd - George, Carnarvon Boroughs)said the hon. Member had suggested that this was the result of the operations of some great syndicate outside, but the hon. Member must have overlooked the fact that there was a Committee which sat last year, and went into this matter, and that Committee had actually recommended the provision which was in the Bill. The names of the Committee who made that recommendation were the hon Member for Rye—
MR. ASHLEY: He doss not agree with the 24 per cent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he understood that the decision was arrived at

347
unanimously. Another Member of the Committee was the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, who took a leading part in fighting this matter, and there were two or three Members of the Irish Nationalist Party, and the result was a unanimous report of the Committee who had heard the evidence on the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bolton that the only thing the public wanted to know was what they were buying. If they wanted to buy water in the butter, so long as there was a percentage of water fixed they were entitled to know what that percentage was. He also agreed that once these facts were substantiated as to the percentage of water the public were buying and the limitation of the percentage of water fixed by the Bill, it would be hardly worth while to continue to manufacture. But so long as the public knew what they were buying that was all that was required. The Government were carrying out impartially the recommendations of the Committee which represented all interests and heard all the evidence. He trusted the House would now see its way to come to a decision. The question had been well thrashed out. If the Amendment was carried he must point out that the Government could not proceed with the Bill for the simple reason that the clause represented a very fair compromise which had been arrived at and accepted by the fanners and the Chambers of Agriculture. The Chambers of Agriculture representing the farmers of the country had accepted the Bill as a compromise, and if the Amendment was carried the hon. Member opposite who moved it would have to take the responsibility for it; This was the third attempt that had been made to deal with the problem. Unionist Governments had twice attempted to deal with it, and owing to the difficulty of adjusting conflicting interests their attempts broke down. This was a Bill that had been accepted by the Committee, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to destroy the Bill it must be clearly understood that the responsibility rested with hon. Members and not with the Government. The Government would oppose the Amendment in order to save the Bill.
348
He hoped the House would now come to a decision.
MR. FLAVINsaid he fully recognised the compromise that had been made, but he would have much preferred it if the Government had placed milk-blended butter on the same footing as margarine, because milk-blended butter was a strong competitor of Irish butter. He also admitted that it was sold to-day with an unlimited amount of water in it. He did not say the Government had gone as far as they could, but they certainly had taken a step in the right direction to bring the dishonesty of the trade under control. That being so, he suggested as a compromise that the Government should reduce the percentage from 24 to 20 per cent.; that would be a step in the right direction.
MR. GILHOOLYsaid he could not understand the attitude of his hon. friend who said there was a compromise. Who were the parties to the compromise? As a representative of an agricultural constituency he was strongly in favour of the Amendment and absolutely against any compromise which would perpetuate a fraud on the poorest of the poor. A deputation from the South of Ireland waited on the hon. Baronet who was responsible for the Bill, and that deputation distinctly told the hon. Baronet that they would rather the Bill was lost than that this fraud should be perpetuated. He should vote for the Amendment because milk-blended butter was a fraud upon the poor, who thought they were getting good butter when, as a matter of fact, they were getting a mixture containing 24 per cent. of water.
MR. THOMPSONsaid that he had received a communication from a body of agricultural councils in the district from which he came, saying they could not support the Bill as it stood and asking him to vote against it.
MR. C. E. PRICEasked whether if the Government conceded the 16 per cent. limit on this butter, hon. Members opposite representing Ireland would support a Motion for placing Irish

349
firkin butter on the same footing. Irish firkin butter at the present time contained more than 16 per cent. of moisture, and therefore if Hon. Members opposite voted for limiting the percentage of moisture in milk-blended butter to 16 per cent. they must also support a Motion that Irish firkin butter should contain no more. The hon. Baronet had made a great concession and had said that every packet must have marked upon it the fact that the article contained 24 per cent of water, that it was not sold as butter, and that if it was sold under a name which was not associated in any way with butter there could not be any fraud in it. He pointed out that a great deal of process or renovated butter was imported into this country from America. The butter was usually lacking in colour and flavour, and under American law had to bear the mark of renovated butter. That mark was removed directly the butter came into the United Kingdom, and the butter known as milk-blended butter was the same article with its mark taken off. Unless this Bill was accepted that thing would be allowed to continue. The Bill regulated the sale and allowed an article with a limited percentage of water to be placed upon the market.
MR. SEDDONasked whether he was to understand that any quantity, whether it was an ounce or a pound, would have a wrapper upon it giving all the information?
*MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not see that in the Bill.
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the words were in Clause 8, which stated that a butter substitute shall be dealt with under the conditions applicable to the sale of margarine—
"With this modification that in any case where, in order to comply with those conditions, the article is delivered to the purchaser in a wrapper, there shall, in addition to the approved name, be printed on the wrapper in such manner as the Board approve, such description of the article as may be approved by the Board."
MR. BOWLES: said that only applied to cases where the article was delivered
350
in a wrapper, but what about the cases where it was not necessary to put it into a wrapper. This article would be sold by the ounce and in very small quantities, by the pennyworth and so forth, and in order to comply with the conditions of the Bill it was not in the least necessary, where a small quantity was asked for, to give a wrapper at all. It was trifling with the House to suggest that this was any compromise whatever.
MR. FLAVIN: They cannot take it away in their hands. They might take it away, but they would have to have a wrapper to take it away in.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not wish to raise any difficulty and if the right hon. Gentleman could show that the wrapper would be supplied in every case he would sit down at once. If he could not, then he could only say that the whole thing was a sham.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid a plain question was asked by an hon. Gentleman below the gangway as to whether it was the fact that this article would be enclosed in wrappers. The right hon. Gentleman explicitly and in terms replied that every portion sold would be contained in a wrapper. His hon. friend the Member for Norwood pointed out that there was not in the Hill a single security that milk-blended butter would be contained in wrappers, and when the right hon. Gentleman was asked for a clause in the Bill which showed that, he pointed to a clause which had no relation to it at all. He did not understand that small quantities were to be sold in wrappers.
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that such wrappers were provided for in the Margarine Act.
MR. F. E. SMITHread the 6th section of the Margarine Act, and said he confessed he did not see the precise effect of "with a paper wrapper," and "in a paper wrapper." Was it to be delivered with a paper wrapper, and not in a paper wrapper?
Question put.
MR. UREmoved, in Clause 5, after the word "imported" to insert the words "bearing the same mark or description." The reason for the Amendment was that three times the price might sometimes be changed.
The House divided:—Ayes, 22; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 329.)

AYES.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duckworth, James

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton

Bowerman, C. W.

Forster, Henry William

Starkey, John R.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gilhooly, James

Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tellers for the Ayes—Sir

Crean, Eugene

Paulton, James Mellor

Francis Lowe and MR. Hugh

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease.Herbert Pike'(Darlington

Barrie.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien.Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor. T. P. (Liverpool)

Astbury, John Meir

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Balfour Robert (Lanark)

Horninan, Emslie John

Pickersgill. Edward Hare

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hudson, Walter

Price,C.E. (Edinburgh,Central)

Barnes, G. N.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Raphael, Herbert H.

Beauchamp, E.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Richards,T.F.(Wolverhampton

Bellairs, Carlyon

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Jones.Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea)

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradford

Boland, John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Branch, James

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Russell, T. W.

Brigg, John

Joyce, Michael

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brunner.J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Kilbride, Denis

Seaverns, J. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Seddon, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Seely, Major J. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

LloydGeorge, Rt. Hon. David

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Clough, William

Lundon, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Collins,SirWm.J. (S.Pancras.W.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex.,E.Grinst'd

Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Strachey. Sir Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cox, Harold

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Thompson. J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

MaeVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

Torrance. Sir A. M.

Cullinan, J.

M'Kean, John

Toulmin. George

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ure, Alexander

Delany, William

M'Killop, W.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Devlin, Joseph

Maddison, Frederick

Wardle, George J.

Duffy, William J.

Marks.G. Croydon (Launceston)

Wason.John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Marnham, F. J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Meagher, Michael

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Elibank, Master of

Meehan, Patrick A.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies, Walter

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Findlay, Alexander

Mond, A.

Whitehead, Rowland

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Montgomery, H. G.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Morrell. Philip

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Yoxall, James Henry

Grant, Corrie

Murnaghan, George

Halpin, J.

Myer, Horatio

Tellers for the Noes—Mr.

Hammond, John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Harvey, A. G. C.(Rochdale)

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Pease.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nolan, Joseph

Hedges, A. Paget

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

It was found that as a matter of practice some mark was always put on butter showing that it came from the same source and was, therefore, of the same quality. This provision protected the man against whom the complaint

353
was brought from being mulcted in three times the value of each consignment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 6, after the word import to insert the words bearing the same mark or description."—(Mr. Ure.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
MR. UREmoved after the word "laboratories" to insert the words ''or if the person who made the analysis be called as a witness, the evidence of that person." The Amendment simply made it quite clear that not only would the certificate be treated as evidence, but the man who made the analysis might also be called to give evidence.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 12, after the word 'laboratories,' to insert the words 'or if the person who made the analysis be called as a witness, the evidence of that person.'"—(Mr. Ure.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEthought that the clause altered the practice which had generally been adopted with regard to legal proceedings. As he understood the clause, the certificate of the principal chemist in itself raised a presumption of guilt against the accused person. As a rule a person was supposed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty, but he thought that under this clause, as proposed to be amended, the accused person would not be allowed to defend himself by cross-examining the chemist as to the statements in his certificate unless he gave a certain notice, and deposited a certain amount in court to pay the expenses of the person who had given the certificate. He thought that was hardly a right state for the law to be in.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with a matter which comes on later under another Amendment by the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did not see the necessity of the words proposed. Could the principal chemist depute the analysis to some other person?
MR. UREsaid the evidence of one witness would be sufficient to secure a conviction. As the law stood at present the certificate of the analyst was sufficient,
354
and therefore the evidence of the analyst ought to be sufficient.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. UREsaid that as the Bill stood it was left optional to the Court to allow the evidence of the analyst to be taken or not. That was thought to be giving too much discretion to the Court, and accordingly he moved an Amendment leaving to the defendent the option of calling the analyst, provided that he deposited a sum sufficient to cover the reasonable expenses of the analyst. This proposal would remove all doubt as to whether when the certificate was produced or the analyst gave his evidence the justice or the sheriff would be bound to convict. The words he proposed were the same as those which occurred in the Food and Drugs Act and the Margarine Act, and they left it to the Court to convict or acquit in the first instance on the analysis.
Amended proposed—
"In page 4, to leave out lines 16 to 21, and to insert the words, 'and the defendant shall not be entitled to require the person who made the analysis to be called as a witness unless he shall, at least three clear days before the return day, give notice to the prosecutor that he requires his attendance, and deposit with the prosecutor a sum sufficient to cover the reasonable costs and expenses of his attendance, which costs and expenses shall be paid by the defendant in the event of his conviction.'"—(MR. Ure)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid this proposal altered the existing state of things, because, as a rule a person he had a perfect right to examine and cross-examine all the witnesses for the prosecution before there was any presumption of guilt raised against him. The certificate alone raised a presumption that the man was guilty before he had had any opportunity of defending himself, and he would only be able to cross-examine after giving notice and paying-all the expenses of the attendance of the analyst. That was something which contravened every principle of English law and justice to which they had been accustomed in the past.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he was afraid that his hon. friend had not fully appreciated this Amendment. Upon the strict words of the clause there

355
might be some doubt as to whether, on the production of the evidence provided for, it was conclusive proof by reason of insufficient evidence.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. UREmoved the omission of Subsection 5. This was inserted in Committee in opposition to the Government. The subsection would give an appeal on matters of fact as well as of law. That was altogether contrary to the Customs code, which gave an appeal only on matters of law, and, moreover, it was altogether inapplicable to Scotland and Ireland. The subsection would introduce an undesirable precedent if allowed to stand. It dealt exclusively with England and was inapplicable to Ireland and Scotland. Where the prosecutors were the Commissioners of Customs, he did not think it was desirable that there should be an appeal on questions of fact from the Court of first instance.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, to leave out Subsection (5)."
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Words omitted accordingly.
MR. COCHRANEhad standing in his name the following Amendment:—
"In page 4, line 34, at end to insert—'(b) For prohibiting the use as a preservative in milk of any substance specified in such regulations, or for prescribing the substances which may be used for such purpose in milk, or cream, or in the manufacture of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine, or for limiting the extent to which either generally, or as regards any particular substance or substances, preservatives may be used in milk or cream, or in the manufacture or sale of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine. Provided that as regards regulations made under subsection (b) hereof the expression "Local Government Board" shall be substituted for "Board of Agriculture" in section four of the said Act of 1899, and in the application of this section to Scotland "the Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Scotland.'"
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the Amendment as it stood was not in order, being beyond the scope of the Bill.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he understood that the Local Government Board would be prepared to accept the Amendment in a different form.
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Board would be quite willing to accept the Amendment in substance.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 34, at end to insert—'(b) For prohibiting the use as a preservative of any substance specified in such regulations in the manufacture of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine, or for limiting the extent to which either generally, or as regards any particular substance or substances, preservatives may be used in the manufacture or sale of butter, milk-blended butter or margarine. Provided that as regards regulations made under subsection (b) hereof the expression "Local Government Board" shall be substituted for "Board of Agriculture" in section four of the said Act of 1899, and in the application of this section to Scotland "the Local Government Board" means the Local Government Board for Scotland."'—(MR. John Burns.)
*THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: So far as I can see that is in order.
Question proposed, "That, those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid he strongly objected to an Amendment being introduced in this slipshod manner. If the President of the Local Government Board and the hon. Member opposite had agreed upon the Amendment, it could have been made in another place. He did not see the representative of the Board of Agriculture present. That Board had not too many friends in the House, and he thought it ought to be protected against the Local Government Board.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the words of the Amendment had boon agreed to by the Board of Agriculture. It was the desire of the representative of the Board not to send too many Amendments to another place.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he willingly accepted the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that on behalf of the legal profession he begged to thank the Government for introducing this Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4. line 35, to leave out Subsection (2)"—(MR. Cochrane.)
Question, "That Subsection (2) stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, line 39, to leave out from the word 'describes,' to end of clause, and insert the words 'it by any name other than "margarine" or a name combining the word "margarine" with a fancy or other descriptive

357
name approved by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and printed in type not larger than the word "margarine," he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Question put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. S. T. EVANSmoved as an Amendment to the Amendment to insert after the word "than" in the fourth line the words "and in the same colour as." He said the object of that Amendment was very simple. Unless the words were inserted, it would be possible to print one word prominently and another word so faintly that the object which his hon. friend had in view would not be met.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"In line 4 after the word 'than' to insert the words 'and in the same colour as.'"—(MR. Evans.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill, agreed to.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that if this new form of butter was to be legalised, it was very desirable that it should be known by a distinctive name for if they were to have a great variety of names for it. the public would be sure to be confused and deceived. Already several names had been suggested, such as "Liberalissimo," "Perfecto," "Pumpine." It would be quite impossible for the public to identity under this great variety of names what they were really purchasing. Therefore he moved to omit the words" or names."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 9, to leave out the words 'or names.'''—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or names' stand part of the Bill."
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that he understood the hon. Member's desire was that there should be one generic name for this article, instead of each person who made it being allowed to give it a name approved by the Board of Agriculture. He did not see what objection there could be to the proposal in the Bill as it stood. The position taken up in Clause 8 was that the article should be sold on its merits. Supposing a firm of the name of Pearks spent a large sum of money in advertising their manufacture, it would not be right that another manufacturer should have the advantage of Pearks' advertisement.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not follow the argument of the hon. Baronet. If milk-blended butter was to be sold as Pearks' butter, it should be stated that it contained, say, 24 per cent. of water.
MR. MYERasked, on a point of order, whether an hon. Member was allowed to make free with the name of another hon. Member by way of illustration?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that if the Amendment of his hon. friend was not adopted, and if Jones, Burns, or somebody else of somewhere else were allowed to give different names to this manufactured article, people would not know in the least what they were buying.
MR. CULLINANthought the best way was to give the article a specific name, otherwise they might have the article sold under a score of different names in every town and village.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that if every tradesman was allowed to choose a separate fancy name for this article, which was not butter, the public would certainly not have the same security as they had in the case of a substance, such as margarine, which was known by one name only
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 43. (Division List No. 330.)

AYES.

Abraham. William (Cork, N.E.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Beauchamp, E.

Byles, William Pollard

Alden, Percy

Bellairs, Carlyon

Clough, William

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W

Astbury, John Meir

Branch, James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Brigg, John

Cooper, G. J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paulton, James Mellor

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Joyce, Michael

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Cox, Harold

Kilbride, Denis

Raphael, Herbert H.

Crean, Eugene

King, Alfred John (Knutsford

Roberts. Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson.SirG.Scott Bradf'rd

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Devlin, Joseph

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Seely. Major J. B.

Duckworth, James

Mac Veagh,Jeremiah (Down, S.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.

Sdipman, Dr. John G.

Elibank, Master of

M'Kean, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Samuel T.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Killop, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Findlay, Alexander

Maddison, Fre 'erick

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset.E.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marks.G. Croydon (Launceston

Toulmin, George

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Marnham, F. J.

Ure, Alexander

Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford.S.

Meagher, Michael

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Menzies, Walter

Wason,John Cathcart (Orkney)

Halpin, J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Waterlow, D. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whitehead, Rowland

Hedges, A. Paget

Murnaghan, George

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Yoxall, James Henry

Horniman, Emslie John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Tellers for the. Ayes—Mr.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Pease.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

NOES.

Acland-Hood.Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F.

Duffy, William J.

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Ashley, W. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.SirH.

Forster, Henry William

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Barnes, G. N.

Gilhooly, James

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Bowerman, C. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gretton, John

Seddon, J.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harwood, George

Smith,F.E. (Liverpool,Walton)

Brunner.J.F.L. (Lanes., Leigh)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Starkey, John R.

Cavendish,Rt. Hon.VictorC.W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hudson, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jenkins, J.

Walker, Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Cheetham. John Frederick

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Mond, A.

Cory, Clifford John

Montgomery, H. G. James

Tellers for the Noes—Sir

Cullinan, J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Francis Lowe and Sir

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parker, James (Halifax)

Frederick Banbury.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

SIR EDWARD STRACHEY,in accordance with a former undertaking, moved to insert in the clause the words "setting out the percentage of moisture or water contained therein."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, to leave out lines 18 to 21."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
MR. BOWLESsaid this was a most unfit Amendment, especially after the proposed new clause had been rejected.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 5, line 23, to leave out the words 'as milk-blended butter or.'"—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
Amendment agreed to.
*SIR FRANCIS LOWEmoved to insert at the end of Clause 9 (Penalties for offences):—"(3) An invoice describing an article as butter shall be deemed to be a sufficient written warranty that such article is pure butter, and shall be available as a defence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act,1875, subject to the further provisions of Section 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899." He thought that the additional penalties imposed by this Bill rendered it desirable that the defence of warranty by invoice should be

361
allowed. It was already allowed under other Acts of Parliament, and having regard to the fact that the retailer was called upon to guarantee to his customers that the articles he sold to them were pure and what he described them to be, it seemed only right that he should receive a like warranty from the wholesale dealer from whom he bought them. It was contended by the promoters of the Bill that the retailer, after he had received the goods in bulk from the wholesale dealer; for instance a keg of butter, might break bulk and split it up into small quantities, and after having done that he might easily adulterate it without its being possible to detect the fraud on his part and bring it home to him. But they had no right to assume that the whole of the retailers of butter were fraudulent people, and that they would be more likely to adulterate their goods than the wholesale dealers from whom they purchased. And, after all, the wholesale dealer was quite sufficiently protected under the sections of the Food and Drugs Acts referred to in the Amendment, and taken in conjunction with the provisions of those Acts, the implied warranty, which he proposed the invoice should be, would be perfectly innocuous and would do justice to all persons concerned.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYseconded. He thought if the invoice described the article as butter that should be sufficient.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 6, line 9, at the end to insert the words' '(31) An invoice describing an article as butter shall be deemed to be a sufficient written warranty that such article is pure butter, and shall be available as a defence under The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, subject to the further provisions of section twenty of The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899.' "—(Sir Francis Lowe.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that the Amendment was plausible in its character, and personally he was in sympathy with it if it could be carried out without doing injury to any one. He pointed out, however, that the proper place for it was the Food and Drugs Act of 1899, but the late Government had absolutely refused to give effect to it. The suggestion was that, when a man was prosecuted by an inspector for selling adulterated butter, which he had adulterated himself in his own back premises, he should escape by
362
producing the invoice as a warranty. What the hon. Member was asking for was that the invoice should be a warranty which should relieve the man who received it from any obligation at all. If he were prosecuted for selling adulterated butter he would go before the magistrates and say, "I had this stuff invoiced to me, and this invoice therefore is my warranty that it is perfectly pure." It might be said that it was a ridiculous thing to think that a man could go into a police court, and because he could say that he had had an invoice sent him, or even a warranty, he would be able to escape scot free. He would quote what he know actually happened as regarded farmers. At the present moment farmers were unable to sell their milk unless able to give a warranty to the man who took it that the milk was pure. Milk was sent to a big centre and was bought by a middleman who would sell it to another man. The third man who bought it from the middleman adulterated the milk and he was prosecuted. He was brought up at the police court where he at once produced his warranty that the milk was pure milk, and said that he had sold it as he had received it. It was impossible to prove that the man had not sold it as he received it, and the consequence was that the magistrate dismissed the summons against the retailer, and a summons was then issued by the local authority against the farmer who gave a warranty with the milk. The farmer was then brought into court, and there was the greatest complaint in the agricultural districts regarding this. The farmers was fined by the magistrate for having adulterated the milk although it was adulterated after it had left his possession, and he was held to be liable although it had passed through several hands. If the Amendment were carried it would have exactly the same effect, that was to say, the retailer would be dismissed although he adulterated the butter, and the wholesale man would be prosecuted exactly the same as the farmer was prosecuted in respect of his milk, although he no more than the farmer had been guilty of adulteration. Therefore he thought the House would see the extreme difficulty of dealing with this matter. On the other hand, the retail grocer had the matter entirely in his own hands. He had the good invoiced as pure butter if he insisted on it, and he was perfectly

363
protected in that matter. All he had to say to the wholesaler was that he refused to take the goods unless a proper invoice was given covering the warranty. On the other hand, what the hon. Member proposed was that the man who gave the invoice should be made responsible for the article whatever the conditions might be after it left his hands. Surely that would not be a proper state of things. Let them look at the matter from the point of view of the agriculturist who certainly considered he was under an absolute injustice that after goods had left his hands he should be held responsible. He could not help thinking that the wholesale man who sold butter to small retailers would be put in an equally unfair position. The wholesale merchant simply invoiced so much butter without giving a warranty for it, and he would run the risk of being haled before a magistrate as the farmer at the present moment was, and of being held up as a criminal for something he had never done. On these grounds alone it would be doing a great injustice to wholesale butter sellers to require an invoice to be deemed a warranty. On the other hand, it was perfectly open to the retailers to require an invoice showing that it was pure butter and they were perfectly well protected.
MR. MONDsaid he wished to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division. He could not say that he felt altogether convinced by the speech of the hon. Baronet who represented the Board of Agriculture. The grievance which had been raised was a serious one to a large number of small retailers, who were not in such a good position to obtain warranties as the hon. Baronet tried to make out. A great deal of his argument seemed to be based on an entire fallacy, because the object of the Amendment was really to make the invoice and the warranty one document instead of having an invoice and a warranty. Many small traders did not realise that an invoice was not a warranty. The inspector came down and seized some of their butter, and they were taken before the magistrate and fined, though perfectly innocent of the fact that the butter was not up to the standard it ought to have been. Of course a careful man with experience asked for a warranty
364
besides the invoice. The evil consequences which might happen to the wholesale trader, and which did happen to the farmer, were not a question of invoice or warranty, but a question of warranty entirely. The hon. Baronet said that the farmer now gave a warranty, and on that warranty he was hauled up in some mysterious manner and fined for sending out milk which he said was not adulterated. The farmer, however, would have a simple remedy by sending out samples, and he could go into Court and prove that he did not adulterate the milk. The farmer was certainly much better able to prove whether or not the article he had sold to the retailer was adulterated or not. The picture of the retailer getting a firkin of butter and sitting in the back garden adulterating it and then saying he had not adulterated it was a little overdrawn. What frequently happened was that the small retailer, who was not experienced in the law of warranty, had stuff palmed off upon him or her by the unscrupulous wholesaler, who would not send it to an experienced firm. He thought that the argument that they ought not to make a change in respect of one article was no argument at all. If they never began on anything they would never get very far. Let them make a beginning with butter. In spite of the reply of the Government, he hoped they would think better of it, and if his hon. friend went to a division he for one would certainly support him.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he remembered in 1899, when the Sale of Food and Drugs Act was passed, he was at the Local Government Board, and he presided over the Select Committee which inquired into the subject. At that time this question caused a great deal of friction and difficulty. The Local Government Board of the day stated a question for the opinion of the London Police Magistrates namely, whether an invoice made into a warranty would have any serious effect upon the working of the Act. The opinion of the Local Government Board of that day, based on the opinion of the Chief Magistrate, was that it would have a very prejudicial effect on the law, and the Government refused in the Act of 1899, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for

365
Wimbledon was responsible, to make an invoice a warranty, and he thought they were well advised. They knew that a great deal of fraud went on simply because many local authorities could not be got to act, and the result would be that if the Amendment were carried the administration of the Act would be very difficult, for the local authorities would be encouraged in giving the go-bye to prosecutions, because they would not go miles and miles outside their own areas to find the person who supplied the butter.
Amendment negatived.

TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [22nd July], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(MR. Harold Cox.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
*MR. HAROLD COXsaid he desired to make a personal explanation. He had received a letter from the Postmaster - General, who had seen a curtailed report of his speech the other night, and his right hon. friend said that that report appeared to show that he had accused him of a breach of faith in not having produced a full statement of accounts before the final passage of the Bill. It would be in the recollection of the House that he had said nothing of the kind, and that there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to induce him to say it. All that he did say was that the Postmaster-General, having heard the discussion on the Second Reading and having promised a full statement of accounts, ought to have completed that promise by giving the House an opportunity a year or two hence of seeing what accounts he had produced and what were the results which they disclosed. He complained that the Postmaster-General, by refusing to accept the Amendments in Committee or on report, had denied that opportunity to the House. In that his right hon. friend disagreed with him: but a difference of opinion was a very different thing from
366
a breach of faith. When he spoke last Monday he was in ignorance that the Postmaster-General was ill. One could not always know what effect one's words produced, but he sincerely hoped he had said nothing that even sounded discourteous.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid there were very serious objections to this Bill, and the objections which had been raised on both sides had not been met. It would be in the recollection of the House that his hon. friend the Member for Preston raised a very serious point upon the large expenditure of money involved in the Bill, and the Postmaster - General endeavoured to minimise it by saying that no larger sum than a million and a half should be spent in any one year, and though hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House and, to the best of his recollection, some hon. Members on the other side of the House, endeavoured to make that assurance certain by inserting words in the Bill the Postmaster-General refused to accept their Amendments. It was an extremely unfortunate thing that this moment, when the finances of the country were in such a bad state, should be chosen to raise so large a sum as six millions of money, and when in the opinion of many it was not necessary that that sum should be spent. They had pointed out that large sums would be required for the telephone service within the next three or four years, and their desire was that a smaller sum should be taken now to meet the ordinary requirements in lieu of the very large sum which the Postmaster-General asked for. The Postmaster-General endeavoured to meet their fears by saying that a public loan would not be required, but that the money would be provided by some department which at the moment happened to have a surplus. He did not recollect that the right hon. Gentleman said what department would find the money, but it did not make any difference as far as regarded the financial aspect of the case, because if the money was to be found by certain departments it was to be taken away from some other object, and, therefore, what they feared were the future inroads which must be made upon the money market. The Bill was rather a striking commentary upon the maxims of hon. Gentlemen

367
opposite when his hon. friends were in power. Nothing then more aroused their ire than borrowing money on capital account to meet the really necessary expenditure of the nation—money to provide for efficient fortifications and for a strong Navy, which were, in his estimation, the most important things the country could provide for. Yet they were told that it was the very worst form of finance to raise money on capital account for those purposes. Here, however, was a question which was not urgent at all, and which could not be considered as a national question, and yet the Government proceeded to borrow six millions of money at a time when the money market was in a far worse condition than at any time when the present Opposition were in power. There had been a fall of eight points in Consols since hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power. He thought it right that a protest should be made on that side of the House, especially having regard to the fact that every day showed them that the statements and opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite when in Opposition were vastly different from their actions when in power.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that although he would not say in the absence of the Postmaster-General a word which he would not say to his face, the general policy of the Bill must have been shared in by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. This Bill proposed to raise a sum by annuities spread over a term. The late Government did the same thing in regard to works not less necessary and which were equally permanent, and the late Sir William Harcourt got up and said they were resorting to the methods of the "Extraordinary Budget," and imitating the ways of "South American Finance."
CAPTAIN NORTONthought he was in a position to satisfy his hon. friend the Member for Preston, and also the other hon. Members who had spoken in this matter. He was fortunate enough to see his right hon. friend the Postmaster-General that morning and he desired him to express to the hon. Member for Preston his regret that he was unable to be present to defend his Department, and to explain the action which he had taken.
368
The hon. Member for Preston had on a former occasion drawn attention to the fact that the ordinary financial statement made by the Post Office was not perhaps the best, and the Postmaster-General undertook to look into the matter. The Postmaster-General was now looking into the matter, and he had authorised him to state that he would, in consultation with the Treasury, endeavour to carry out the views of the hon. Gentleman in a way which, he believed, would be acceptable to his hon. friend. There were one or two other matters to which the hon. Member for Preston drew attention. As to the express messenger system, one of the reasons why the 3d. charge was retained was that we were under an international agreement and were bound to deliver 3d. letters from abroad, and therefore it would be invidious to make a distinction between home and foreign letters. But to show that the Postmaster-General was aware of the necessity of protecting and of making as large a profit for the Post Office as possible, six months ago he took the opportunity of making an extra charge of 3d. whenever any parcel was sent under the guise of a letter. With reference to the remarks made by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City who complained of the sum of £6,000,000 being taken, he begged to point out that seeing it was all raised by the creation of annuities annually provided for out of the Post Office Vote there was ample opportunity for the House to discuss the matter every year. In addition to that an opportunity would be provided for dealing with this question in three years, possibly, and certainly in four years, when in 1911 the whole of the telephone system would be taken over. Precedents showed that four years was by no moans an extensive life for a Telephone Bill, inasmuch as the Telephone Bill of 1902 lived for four years, and that of 1900 for five years. The Post Office was doing nothing unusual in taking the whole sum of money at the present time, especially as the House was protected by the fact that they could deal with this question annually in addition to the present time and four years hence.
MR. GRETTONsaid he wished to express on this occasion—the last on which he would have an opportunity of doing so in this House—the gratification with which he heard the

369
remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken on behalf of the Postmaster-General. The complaint that he and others had made was that the representative of the Department came down with a view of asking for a large expenditure of money and was not prepared to offer any explanation of the Telephone Department of the Post Office while prepared vastly to increase the expenditure on the telephone system. He would take this opportunity of saying that he was glad, and he thought many members on the Opposition side were glad, to hear that the Post Office would next year—he believed he was not going beyond the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken—present accounts to Parliament which would state clearly the exact financial position of the telephone system of the Post Office. He thought the action that they had taken in this matter had been justified by the results. So far as the raising of this large sum of money was concerned he must say that he looked with great alarm upon the inroads which this loan must inevitably make upon the money market at the present time. He knew the Government took a sanguine view of the position in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other day that he expected a rise in the price of Consols and other securities. Since that statement was made he noticed that all the great funds and chief stock in the City had fallen, and there seemed no immediate prospect that the money market would improve. However it was useless, of course, to oppose this Bill, and he did not propose to prolong his opposition to it. In this case he was satisfied with the undertaking of the Government, and he proposed to go no further.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that, in view of the explicit assurances of the hon. and gallant Member for Newington on behalf of the Postmaster-General in regard to the preparation of accounts, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
Consideration, not amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
AUSTRALIAN STATES CONSTITUTION BILL [LORDS].
Committee deferred till Monday next.

PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (No. 2) BILL.
As amended by the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 18, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'under and in accordance with the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901."'—(Mr. Gladstone)
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. GLADSTONEmoved to leave out Subsection (b) of Clause 2. He said the Amendment was worthy of explanation because in the Standing Committee he consented to accept the provision which he now proposed to leave out. The fact really was that on further consideration and in consultation with his right hon. friend near him they came to the conclusion that it ought to come out. The compulsory attendance age could not be above fourteen, and the result of putting in this particular provision would be that the senior boy in the school might be, and would be in fact under the Bill as it stood, the boy who had committed some offence and who was singled out by the court to be kept at school a year longer than anyone else. The effect would be that the senior boy, who would be the leader of the school, would have some sort of a taint about him, and it would be bad for him and for the other children. The senior boy in the school ought to be above reproach, and he was afraid the provision as it stood would have that effect. For that reason he begged to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
" In page 3, line 1, to leave out Subsection(b)."—(MR. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That the subsection proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he did not wish to oppose the Amendment of the Home Secretary if his right hon. friend really thought it was necessary; but he ventured to suggest that on occasions he might find it a misfortune that he had not reserved to himself the power, and he would ask him whether in exceptional circumstances it would not be well that a boy should be kept at school. He was bound to say that the position of the senior boy as outlined by his right hon. friend was a little fanciful as applied to the elementary schools of the country. He had never heard of such a senior boy in any of those schools, and he thought the illustration was taken from a public school.
MR. STUART WORTLEYasked whether the Bill would not be brought into conformity with the Education Act if the subsection were simply altered to read "14" instead of "15."
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. GLADSTONEsaid the next Amendment standing in his name to provide that the Court by which a probation order was made should furnish to the offender a notice in writing stating in simple terms the conditions he was required to observe was to carry out a promise he made to the Standing Committee.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 7, at the end, to add the words "The court by which a probation order is made shall furnish to the offender a notice in writing, stating in simple terms the conditions he is required to observe.'"—(MR. Gladstone)
Amendment agreed to.
*MR. GLADSTONEmoved an Amendment to provide for the appointment, where circumstances permitted, of special probation officers, to be employed in cases where the offender was a person under sixteen years of age. He said this Amendment was also to carry out a promise he made to the Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert the words "There shall be appointed, where circumstances permit, special probation officers to be called children's probation officers, who shall, in the absence of any reasons to the contrary, be employed in cases where the offender is a person under the age of sixteen.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. LEIF JONESmoved as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to add the words "provided that police officers shall not be appointed children's probation officers. "He thanked his right hon. friend for the Amendment he had brought forward, and which fulfilled the pledge he gave to the Committee. He thought it was very advantageous to provide that there should be, where circumstances permitted—and he hoped that circumstances very often would permit—special probation officers for dealing with children. He felt that without these officers the Act would fail very much in the purpose for which it was designed, but he also thought that the Amendment which he had put down would strengthen the clause, and would carry out the intention of the Committee with regard to this matter, which was to keep the children as far as possible from the operations of the ordinary law, which would not be the case if they had policemen as probation officers. He wished to make no reflection on the police in saying this, but it was a fact that on ordinary occasions they had to discharge duties which made them unsuitable for the discharge of the very different duties of probation officers. He thought everyone with experience of the subject would admit that, and he would not argue the case. Everyone was aware of the purpose which he had in moving this Amendment. It was to keep the children apart from anything which savoured of the ordinary law, that the probation officer might be the friend, and the welcome friend, of the children. Therefore, he begged to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
MR. BYLESseconded, and said he cordially agreed with the remarks just made by his hon. friend, both on behalf of a humanitarian organisation which had communicated with him and in accordance with the view he expressed in Committee.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
"At the end, to add the words 'provided that police officers shall not be appointed children's probation officers.'"—(Mr. Leif Jones.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was very glad the Home Secretary had proposed his Amendment for the appointment of special probation officers, and he thought it was a very great improvement to the Bill. He could not agree that the suggested words of the hon. Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland were an improvement. He thought there were many instances in country districts in which the police officer would be a suitable officer for the purpose; in fact, in many cases there was no one else available, and he failed to see why the police officer should be looked upon with suspicion. His experience was that the young people of the country districts for which he spoke specially had no better friend than the police officer, than whom no man knew better what were their wants and the dangers which surrounded them. Nor did he think they ought to make a special exception and prevent police officers being appointed. Of course the clause was not mandatory. Those who had the appointment in their hands could appoint any person they liked under the clause, and it might often happen that other people were available who would make equally good officers; but he protested against a police officer being specially named as a person who was not to be appointed, and he trusted the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment.
*MR. GLADSTONEsaid, while he agreed with what his hon. friend said, he hoped he would not press this Amendment. He thought it stood to reason that the person appointed as children's probation officer in the large towns would have to give so much time to looking after the children that it would be quite impossible for him to discharge the duties of a policeman, and it was quite clear to him that those who had the appointing of children's probation officers would not as a general rule appoint policemen. On the whole he hoped his hon. friend would not press the Amendment, because it was conceivable that in some places it might be desirable to appoint a policeman. This Bill was an experiment. They wanted to feel their way, and they did not want
374
to tie themselves down, especially with regard to the duties of probation officers, more than they could help. For his part, he should prefer, if his hon. friend would allow them, a free hand in this matter. There was one other point, and that was, although he did not think the police would feel aggrieved if this were put in the Bill, yet it did make a distinction between the police and other people, which he was inclined to think was rather hard, as the policeman was as capable of looking after the interests of children as anyone else. Therefore, he deprecated the distinction being made, and hoped his hon. friend, under the circumstances, would not press this Amendment, as he was sure his own wishes would be met without the Amendment.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid that without in any way pressing the Amendment, or asking the House to do so, or even discussing it at this late hour, he ventured to add his expression of regret that the Homo Secretary had taken the course he had. He quite felt it was the Home Secretary's Bill, but the object of the measure as he understood it on the Second Reading was that the probation officer was not to be a uniformed man either in respect of grown up persons or children. It was not a question of policemen not being kind-hearted, because they were; but if a man or boy were in employment, he would not like a policeman to call upon him two or three times a week. If they left, as they were leaving, in this Bill vague and experimental powers in the hands of probation officers, it seemed that the least they could do was to restrict the discretion of magistrates who naturally would turn to the person who was nearest at hand. He ventured to think that the effect of the Bill might be not in the least what was the intention of the promoters if they allowed any uniformed person to carry out the duties of that officer, which were not meant to be anything in the nature of police supervision, but rather in the nature of the work which was so well done at the present time by the police court missionaries. On the Second Reading he understood the idea was rather to subsidise the police court missionaries, and not to set up a fresh body of officials to deal with this subject.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYasked to be allowed to put a point of view in support of the Home Secretary which showed that the Amendment to the Amendment would operate with some hardship upon the policeman himself. It was quite conceivable that the duties of the children's probation officer being rather arduous in a large town might take up a man's whole time, and if the officer were a policeman the police authority would be inclined to detach that man from ordinary duties and put him into plain clothes. No one would desire the man to become permanently detached from the force and lose his pension and other advantages, and for that reason he thought the hands of the authority should be left free.
*MR. LEIF JONESasked if he might be allowed to explain that it was very far from his purpose to make any reflection on the police or their kindness of heart, of which he had had a very great deal of experience. The duties which they had to discharge, however, were different from those of probation officers. He thought his right hon. friend the Home Secretary quite shared that view, and he therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the next Amendment in his name was a drafting Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 4, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'having power to deal with the offender in respect of his original offence,' and insert the words 'before which an offender is bound by his recognisance under this Act to appear for conviction or sentence.' "—(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments proposed to the Bill, and agreed to:—
"In page 6, line 4, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'three.'"
"In page 6, line 18, after the word 'to' to insert the words 'Ireland "Lord-Lieutenant" shall be substituted for "Secretary of State" and each division of.'"
376
"In page 6, line 19, to leave out the words 'a division of that district.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)

RELEASED PERSONS (POOR LAW RELIEF) BILL.
Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.
VACCINATION BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; read the third time, and passed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

STUTUTE LAW REVISION BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
MUNICIPAL MILK DEPOTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock till Monday next.