Lords Sitting of 4 July 1893

NEW PEERS.
John Campbell White, of Overtoun in the County of Dumbarton, Esquire, having been created Baron Overtoun of Overtoun in the County of Dumbarton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Francis Archibald Douglas, Esquire, (commonly called Viscount Drumlanrig), having been created Baron Kelhead of Kelhead in the County of Dumfries—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ARMENIAN PRISONERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdesired to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs an important question with reference to the Armenian Christians lately tried at Angora and imprisoned. He was perpetually receiving letters and applications of all kinds from people with regard to those prisoners. Many of them were known to be highly respectable; some of them were clergy, and others were well-known school teachers. One had been educated in Europe, and generally a high opinion was entertained of many of them. They had been tried and sentenced to death, or to long periods of imprisonment. There was also another group of prisoners, among whom were two Archbishops, the Archbishops of Marash and of Zeitoun, and one Bishop, the Bishop of Moush—men of high character—who had been imprisoned for a long time, apparently, without trial. He wished to ask the noble Earl whether he could give the House any information which would allay the wide-felt anxiety respecting these prisoners who had been recently tried at Angora?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): My Lords, I have great pleasure in answering the question of the most rev. Prelate. But if he finds his
  782
  correspondence largely increased by the recent trials at Angora, what must mine be? I have received an enormous number of inquiries showing the deep and well-founded solicitude on the part of the Christian inhabitants of this country on behalf of their fellow-Christians in Armenia. It has been repeatedly urged upon Her Majesty's Government, publicly and privately, that we should intervene in some way to obtain from the Sultan the unconditional release of those persons recently under accusation, without waiting for the formality of a trial. In my opinion, that was a course which it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adopt. You have no right, without knowing the evidence, to presume the absolute innocence of any person whatever. You have, in my opinion, no right, except under circumstances which I can hardly imagine, to interfere with the course of justice in another country. But I think you have this right—a right that we have, to some extent, founded on Treaty obligations—that when we are convinced that accused persons are not receiving their full measure of justice, and when we are convinced that the trial to which they have been subjected is not a real, au honest, and a genuine, but an illusory trial, it is then not merely opportune, but it is almost the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make some representation. We have therefore awaited the result of the trial at Angora in the full hope, and with some belief, that the trial would be fairly conducted; but I am bound to say that all the evidence which has come to us from our impartial officials in Asia Minor, in the neighbourhood of Angora, make it perfectly clear that the trial was not a fair trial, that the evidence of the prisoners did not receive sufficient weight, even where it was admitted, and that, therefore, it was open to Her Majesty's Government to make the strong representations they did in favour of the release of the accused persons, more especially of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan. The case of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan rests on a somewhat different footing from that of the other prisoners. In the first place, it is only with regard to these two prisoners that we have the detailed and specific information which we should wish to have about them all. In the next place, they are men of education and

  783
  learning, occupying positions of trust, and known to many in this country and Europe for their Evangelical exertions in the cause of religion. A special interest, therefore, has been felt in their case. I have the happiness to assure the most rev. Prelate that, since I entered this House to-day, I have received information that though the Court of Cassation has confirmed the sentences on Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan, they will be immediately pardoned and sent out of the country. That, I think, is a considerable concession to have obtained under the circumstances. With regard to the 15 or 17 other prisoners, I can assure the most rev. Prelate that no exertion on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be wanting to see that they also receive the justice which is their due, and also if, as we believe, the evidence will show that their trial was as futile and illusory as that of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan, we shall make the same representations on their behalf. With regard to the case of the Bishop, to which reference has been made, we have no information. The Court of Cassation has confirmed the sentence on one of the Archbishops; but we have not heard definitely of the confirmation of the sentence on the other Archbishop. An official representation has been made at the Porte on behalf of these prisoners; but I am sorry to say it has not met with the same success as in the other cases, and perhaps we had not the same strong grounds for making them. However, what I have been able to state will, I hope, not be unsatisfactory.

STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 187.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he wished to propose, at the suggestion of noble and learned Lords, that this Bill should be re-committed pro formâ, in order that Amendments might be made which would bring it into conformity with the Bill of 1891.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 187.)

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD PLAYFAIR LORD PLAYFAIR, in moving the Second Reading, said, there was only one other town in Scotland—Edinburgh—which was a county of a city, though in England there were many such cases. The County of Lanark, in which Glasgow was situated, had a population of 1,100,000, of which that city contained 660,000. The Lords Lieutenant of Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, both being interested in the matter, were quite satisfied that Glasgow should be converted into a county of a city. Two Petitions had been presented against the Bill in that House; but it met with no opposition in the other House of Parliament, where it went before a Hybrid Committee and was passed unanimously in one day. Practically, he believed, notwithstanding the two formal Petitions against the Bill, there would be no opposition in their Lordships' House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought before the Bill was read a second time some explanation was desirable. He had no objection to the City of Glasgow being made a county, and there were, indeed, strong reasons for wishing to put the Local Government of Glasgow, with its large urban population, great business, interests, and wealth, on a more satisfactory footing. He thought this ought to be effected by a private Bill, such as was brought in six or seven years ago, of which he moved and carried the Second Reading after a Division, but which failed upon being referred to a Committee of the House. The decision of that Committee caused considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment. This should have been a Private Bill, as great interests were concerned which should have a full opportunity of being heard. There had been a great deal of secrecy with regard to the present measure, and no means had been taken to make known in Glasgow what was really proposed. It was, in his view, a sham and a fraud to call this Bill a measure for making

  785
  Glasgow a county. It did nothing of the kind. It pretended to do so, but it did not effect that purpose. The points made in the Memorial of the Glasgow Town Council, upon which this Bill was said to be founded, had reference to the extension of the city to the whole urban area of which it was the centre, completing the incorporation of the city and bringing the civil and criminal jurisdiction under one Sheriff, and were not carried out in the Bill, which also omitted all mention of the Sheriff's Court, where there had been a great block of business for years past, owing to the Sheriff having to do the business of the whole of Lanarkshire. It was futile to attempt to pass a Bill for Glasgow which did not deal with the scandal of mercantile men being unable to get their cases tried. There ought to be a separate Sheriff for the whole urban area of Glasgow properly defined. As a county it ought also to have control of police, main drainage, and roads and bridges; but not one of these matters were mentioned in the Bill. The 5th clause in the Bill could not, surely, be seriously intended. It was a most extraordinary clause. The Secretary for Scotland was to be allowed to make whatever Orders he pleased for bringing the Act into operation, and thereby modify any enactment in this or any other Act, whether general, local, or personal. Did anybody ever hear of such a power as that being given to any Government Department? NO safeguard was provided—no attempt whatever was made—to fetter the Secretary of Scotland, in his roving Commission, to enact anything he pleased affecting Glasgow. It was hardly credible that such a clause would be put forward, and that their Lordships would be seriously asked to adopt it. The Bill did not follow the precedent of Edinburgh, as had been urged in its favour, for the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Glasgow was to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. Other things done by the Bill were, on the face of them, done in a wrong way. One was the provision dealing with the appointment of Justices of the Peace. They were told that the precedent of Edinburgh was being followed; but it was certainly not so as regarded the Lord Provost, who, in this, the second city in the Empire, would be superseded by the Lord Lieu-
  786
  tenant. Some further explanation would be required if that was intended. He had no objection to a new Commission of the Peace being formed for Glasgow; but there was no reason why the Justices of Lanark and Renfrew should be placed in a worse position than those of any other county in Scotland: for if that clause were passed, they would be prevented performing the simplest act, such as taking a declaration, or having an affidavit sworn before them in Glasgow. Many of the most prominent men in Glasgow lived in those counties; and if put upon the new Commission of the Peace they would be unable to do the simplest acts which might be done by any other Justices of the Peace in Scotland. That could not have been intended; but, if so, a Bill so drafted should hardly have been brought before that House. It should have been a Private Bill, which would have been carefully examined with the aid of counsel and witnesses, so that all interests might have been heard. If these defects were not cured, and the Bill made a complete measure, so far from being a wise and good step to take, it would stand in the way of reforms for which Glasgow had been long and justly crying out. On those grounds he hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass as it stood. As it bad passed the other House of Parliament, he had, out of courtesy to that House, not given notice to reject it on Second Reading. But, though dealing with matters of private concern, it had been brought in as a Public Bill, and he hoped that steps would be taken to have the Bill thoroughly investigated, in order that those who felt themselves aggrieved by the method adopted might have the opportunity of putting their case before a fair and impartial tribunal.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, this measure was in the anomalous position of being a Hybrid Bill; and, therefore, not only would it go through that House, but, if opposed, and he was informed that it was opposed by two Petitioners, it would be referred to an ordinary Opposed Bill Committee next week, and after it had passed through that ordeal it would return to their Lordships' House. In his opinion, Clause 5 would have to be carefully examined;

  787
  for though it might sufficiently protect Local Authorities, it did not, as drawn, sufficiently protect private individuals.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he entirely concurred in the criticisms made on the 5th clause; hut he hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill with the Amendments they considered necessary, so that Glasgow might become a county as well as a city. The question of boundaries was one of difficulty. However advantageous it might be to include a much larger area within the county of the City of Glasgow than the Bill proposed, that course was not a plain one, but might, in some cases, give rise to well-founded opposition; and he was not prepared to say that the Bill erred in respect of the boundaries it laid down. As for its alleged incompleteness in making Glasgow a county, the difficulties had, he thought, been overrated. They had the example of Edinburgh, and Glasgow would not cease to be a burgh because it became a county. In Edinburgh the county was rarely spoken of; it was always the burgh and the burgh administration. Glasgow was at present equipped with sufficient powers for her own government, and within her own boundaries this Bill would not add much to them. In one respect only, as regarded the Commission of the Peace, it would make a difference. On the erection of the city into a county it must necessarily have its own Commission of the Peace, and the change would, he hoped, be beneficial. A burning question, though not necessarily connected with the subject of the Bill, was the administration of justice, not in regard to the lower, but in the higher Courts, and arrangements for judicial business might have been added to the Bill. In appeals to the Sheriff Principal delays of six or eight months are said to occur in trifling cases, sometimes only upon questions of procedure, rather too long a time in these modern days for cases to be hanging over. But the two questions of the constitution of the Courts and the constitution of the county were quite separable. He should have preferred that there should have been a statutory enactment by the three Estates, providing that the Lord Provost of Glasgow for the time being shall be the Lord Lieutenant of the County of the City. Edinburgh had been created a county of a city by Royal
  788
  Charter at a time when the Constitutional power was entirely vested in the Sovereign; and instead of a series of appointments issuing on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, the Bill ought to provide that the office shall pass from one Lord Provost to his successor in office immediately upon his election. That had been the system, from time immemorial in Edinburgh, and there was no reason why it should not work satisfactorily in Glasgow. Even though it were not in the form he desired, he would rather see the Bill pass subject to those alterations.
  LORD HAMILTON LORD HAMILTON, as this Bill affected his county, felt bound to say it entirely met with his approval. As regarded the Judicial Authorities of Glasgow, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the necessary reforms being carried out in the direction of two authorities being created. There was nothing in this Bill to prevent the creation of one Sheriff's Court for the county and one for the city.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he agreed with the criticisms which had been made. If this, being a Hybrid Opposed Bill, would, in the ordinary course, go before the Opposed Bills Committee, it would, no doubt, be considerably altered, for from the remarks which had been made it was clearly not a perfect measure. That being the case, would it not be better for the Government to withdraw it and bring in in its stead a complete Bill? It was desirable to give to the Corporation of Glasgow full powers over this area; but if their Lordships proposed to alter the Bill it would be unfair to private persons to put them to the expense of appearing before a Select Committee with reference to a measure which they agreed was not a perfect one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I think the proposal of the noble Earl would make matters much worse. This Bill has passed the House of Commons, and it has been before a Committee there. It would be a most unusual course to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl to withdraw that which has already been got into shape, and to introduce a new one for objectors to appear and oppose it. Such a course would not only be unusual, but would do great injustice. I will not go into

  789
  the details of the Bill. The points which have been raised by previous speakers are fitted for Committee, but not for discussion on the Second Reading stage. I should not have risen at all but for the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour), that this ought to be a Private Bill. I can only say that if ever a Bill of this kind appears as a private measure I shall protest against it. A Bill which proposes to create a Commission of the Peace and to make judicial arrangements ought never to be a Private Bill. I have constantly set my face against such a measure being dealt with otherwise than as a Public Bill. I am myself most strongly of opinion that if a Bill of this sort is to be introduced at all, it ought be as this is, in the form of a public measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he entirely agreed that the proposal of the noble Earl opposite would be impossible under the circumstances. As he had himself appointed the Commission to inquire into the boundaries of Glasgow silence on his part might be misunderstood. He had long desired that the districts surrounding Glasgow should be included with the city in one county; and, therefore, he was glad that the Bill had not been refused a Second Reading. But he was not sure that the time had come when Govan, Partick, and all the large burghs around, would be ready to be amalgamated with the City of Glasgow. The Bill seemed, on the whole, to carry out the desires of the Municipality of Glasgow, their wish being, no doubt, that their city should be placed in exactly the same position as Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of which was invariably Lord Lieutenant. How that first came about he had been unable to trace. If that state of things (Could be brought about in the case of Glasgow without interfering with Her Majesty's prerogative, it would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the question. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to have two authorities; one the Lord Provost as the magisterial head, and the other the Lord Lieutenant as the head of the county and city. He would like to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee of that House, when its whole minutiae might be more fully considered. He entirely concurred in the principle of the measure.
  LORD SHANDsaid, he hoped that the Bill would be subjected by the Committee to very careful consideration and searching examination, and that if the Bill came back from Committee in anything like its present shape their Lordships would have no difficulty in rejecting it. The only other instance in Scotland of a county of a city was in Edinburgh, and that he understood was created under a very old Charter of the time of the Stuarts. If Glasgow was to be created a county of a city by Act of Parliament, similar claims would probably be made by Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, and other large cities of growing importance. The House and Committee should, therefore, have it before them that the provisions of this Bill would be used as a precedent. It had been stated that this Bill had passed through its stages in the House of Commons in one day. One would think it had passed through in the shortest possible time, because Clause 5 alone was enough to excite amazement: for by its terms the Secretary of Scotland would have power by a stroke of the pen to destroy the enactments of Acts of Parliament. He hoped the analogous case of Edinburgh would be carefully inquired into and followed, and especially that, as in Edinburgh, the Lord Provost should ex-officio be Lord Lieutenant. As regarded the judicial business, he concurred in every word Lord Balfour had said. He agreed with Lord Watson that it would be difficult to graft an improvement on the Bill in reference to the Sheriff Courts; but sooner or later—and the sooner the better—that matter must be taken up. The delay in the administration of justice in Glasgow was a scandal, arising simply from the fact that the Government only provided one Judge to deal with the cases. That would be remedied by having a Sheriff for the City of Glasgow and another for the County. He hoped the Committee would thoroughly investigate the subject before the Bill was reported to the House, for if it came back in its present shape, or anything like it, he should have no difficulty in supporting a Motion refusing to pass it into an Act at all.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he was afraid this discussion had partly arisen

  791
  from his fault in having purposely made his remarks as few as possible, as he was not aware that anyone wished to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. There were many precedents in England for making counties of cities, though only one existed in Scotland—Edinburgh. The Marquess of Lothian was really the author of this Bill, not, of course, of its details, but it was his Commission which recommended that Glasgow should be made a county of the city. As regarded Govan and other neighbouring districts not being ready for amalgamation, it had been found in England that in the case of large towns, if the step were delayed of making them counties of cities until all the little neighbouring places around joined, it would never be taken at all. If they wished to come in arrangements could be made. As the Bill must go before a Committee he did not think that it was necessary for him to say more with regard to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether, as this was a Hybrid Bill, it would be sent to a Hybrid Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, that the Hybrid Committee was an unknown body in that House, and he had never heard of one being appointed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought, in the circumstances, an opportunity was afforded for inaugurating a new procedure.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Bill would go to an ordinary Bill Committee, and then come back to the House, and go through the stages of a Public Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was one stage through which it would not go; that was where it was thought expedient to refer the Bill to a public Committee. Therefore, this might be an opportunity for adopting a new procedure, and it might be well if their Lordships copied the procedure of the other House.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the difficulty was that two Petitions had been presented in their Lordships' House against the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYaid, then they could be heard.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the matter would be considered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Bill would have to go before the Standing Committee, which would have the opportunity of considering the clauses.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought counsel should be heard upon the clauses of the Bill, which would be impossible in the Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was understood that the noble Lord would take the matter into consideration.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL. (No. 131.)

  THIRD READING.
  Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had some Amendments to propose, in reference to the introduction of the term "nuisance," which, being unknown as a legal term in Scotland, had necessitated a definition. He had consulted the Scotch Office in the matter, and he saw no other way out of the difficulty.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That difficulty was not pointed out at the time the change was made in the Bill. I cannot help thinking it would have been much better to have adopted an expression which would have applied to all three countries.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the difficulty in doing that was that it would reverse the deliberate decision of the House. Lord Balfour having pointed out the difficulty as regarded Scotland, they had referred to the Scotch Office on the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not, of course, wish to press the matter; but, as to reversing what was done on Report, if on consideration of new circumstances on Third Reading the House considered this the better course, it became a question only of what it was wiser and better to do. The noble and learned Lord my predecessor in office thought it better to simply leave the word "nuisance" generally; but now it appears you have to define it as regards

  793
  Scotland, where it would, of itself, have no meaning. But, as we want the law to be the same throughout the Kingdom, had we not better leave it to be interpreted in England, and for Scotland put in these words as a definition of "nuisance "which will be applicable to all three countries?
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in the Public Health Act of 1878 a definition of "nuisance" was given in reference to sanitary matters which would not apply to this Bill. It was, therefore, desirable to have the definition for Ireland also.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved the Amendments.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 2, page 1, line 19, after ("Sheriff Substitute") to insert ("and the expression 'nuisance to a highway' as applied to barbed wire means barbed wire dangerous to persons or animals lawfully using a highway").—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  Further Debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

ADULTERATED BUTTER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Danish Government had proposed a Conference with a view of framing a Convention to deal with the International trade in adulterated butter; and whether there was any objection to lay the Papers on the Table? He said, he wished to protest against the doctrine that had been laid down by the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade in their Lordships' House that a free country could not interfere with the importation of adulterated food stuff, though consigned as "pure," provided it was healthy and pleasant. He denied that the demand for restricting the importation of adulterated better was one for protection under an alias, and that commercial freedom could possibly mean that butter be imported from Hamburg adulterated with 20 per cent. of water. Irish farmers had been convicted at Cork in August last for sending butter so adulterated to market. It was unfair to the honest British farmer and to the honest foreign producer that they should be handicapped in the present competition by the profit arising out of fraudulent adulteration of
  794
  foreign butter. It was unjust to the consumers that they should be exposed to the risk of paying for real butter and obtaining a fraudulent substitute. It was unjust to the retailers that they should be liable to be convicted for innocently selling such adulterated butter as genuine. Under these circumstances, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would favourably consider the proposal which had been made by the Danish Government that an International Convention should be appointed for the purpose of checking this fraudulent trade.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, as far as the question relates to my Department, my part in this matter is a very simple one—namely, to explain that a proposal for the appointment of an International Convention was made by the Danish Government—but owing to the doubts expressed by the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board, Her Majesty's Government did not embrace the proposal with any great alacrity. As regards publishing the Correspondence, inasmuch as negotiations on the subject are still proceeding between the two Governments, it would not be right for me to lay the Papers asked for upon the Table of the House. The noble Lord behind me will answer the question as far as it concerns the Board of Agriculture.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, it was, no doubt, too true that very little could be done for British agriculture by any Body or any Government. He was quite aware of that. But still there were some steps the Board of Agriculture could take to help the suffering agricultural interest, and the noble Duke opposite had pointed out one of them. He hoped the Board of Agriculture would look into the matter, and see whether something could not be done to check this fraudulent trade in adulterated food commodities.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: The noble Earl opposite has opened the larger question, whether the Board of Agriculture is prepared to move in the direction of interfering in the sale of articles which are not what they are represented to be. As regards the question asked by the noble Duke, the Board of Agriculture have considered that question from the point of view of the producer and not of the consumer or dis-

  795
  tributor. I think that the consumer and distributor are in capable hands under the Board of Trade. The Board observe that there undoubtedly exists amongst the home producers of butter a feeling that the existing legislation is insufficient to prevent the sale of margarine, or admixtures of butter and margarine, as butter, and complaint has frequently been made that the Local Authorities, with whom the execution of the Margarine Act rests, are not sufficiently active in the enforcement even of the existing requirements of the law. Certain Members of Parliament have recently formulated the views which have thus been expressed in the Margarine Act, 1887, and Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment Bill; but neither in regard to any of the proposals contained in that Bill, nor in connection with the various representations which the Board have received on the subject, has it been alleged that Parliament is unable to afford a full measure of security against the misrepresentation complained of, if a sufficient case for further legislation were made out. The proposal of the Danish Government for an International Convention appears to the Board to be made mainly in view of the scientific difficulty of detecting the presence of margarine in butter. The Board of Agriculture think the end in view can be much better secured by Parliament than by the philosophic and scientific inquiry recommended. If, however, the Danish Government would submit, as suggested by the Board of Trade, practical suggestions, the Board would be very glad to receive them, and to consider, in conjunction with the other Departments interested, whether it would be of advantage that any such proposals should be adopted in this country with benefit to the various interests concerned.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he was very glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord, but feared that no legislation would be of avail unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enforce it against adulterated butter entering this country from abroad. The only way of dealing with the matter was by getting at the manufacturer himself, if possible, and taking steps at the port of entry. No analysis or inquiry at present was ever made unless information was given to the Board of Trade or Customs that a cargo
  796
  of adulterated stuff was to arrive, and that information, of course, it was very difficult to give. He hoped the Customs and Board of Trade would take steps for having this so-called "butter" analysed, in order that the manufacturers might not continue to feel that they were left entirely without interference at the port of entry. He hoped the noble Duke's question would cause steps to be taken in the right direction.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 133.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 64.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment: and to be read 3a on Monday next.
PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 152.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 177.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
LOCAL, GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 115.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL. (No. 169.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 170.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 168.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 94.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. (No. 83.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.