Lords Sitting of 11 June 1894

INJURED ANIMALS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved, on behalf of the Home Office, in lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words, "Police, slaughter of," as being unnecessary upon shortening the title of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved verbal Amendments, which were agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to substitute for "so severely injured as not to be able to," the words, "that it cannot without cruelty be led away."
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDhad no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, in lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words, "at once obtain the opinion of the nearest veterinary surgeon," and insert, "shall at once summon aid"; because in country districts a constable might have to travel a long distance before he could obtain the services of a veterinary surgeon, and the animal would consequently be left to suffer for a considerable period. In London, of course, a veterinary surgeon could always be readily found; but that was not the case in country places.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved, to leave out all the words after "constable," in line 20, in order to insert a proviso that the owner and not the ratepayers should pay all expenses connected with slaughtering the beast and removing the carcase. Under the Bill as originally drafted it was proposed that the owner of the horse or animal injured should pay those expenses, whereas the cost of procuring the services of a veterinary surgeon were to be charged on the rates of the parish where the animal was found. The Local Government Board, whom he had consulted, were strongly averse to imposing any fresh burden on ratepayers, and the Amendment was proposed for the purpose of carrying out that object.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, if that was the noble Lord's view surely it would be better to allow the owner an option whether he would send for a veterinary surgeon or not. In some country places a veterinary surgeon could not be got under 20 miles, and in the case of a donkey worth £4 coming to grief, the unfortunate owner would have to pay the cost of bringing the veterinary surgeon over. It would only be fair that ho should be asked whether the veterinary surgeon should be sent for.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDpointed out that an Amendment had been adopted already in Clause 2, which would meet the noble Marquess's suggestion, that the veterinary surgeon must be found "within a reasonable distance." That Amendment was proposed exactly for this purpose.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the object of the Bill was to enable a police constable in cases of severe accident to call for the opinion of a veterinary surgeon in the absence of the owner. This appeared to be a substantial amendment. Where a donkey (as in the case suggested by the noble Marquess) had merely fallen down in a fit, or something of that kind, if the police constable had obtained a veterinary surgeon and the donkey were to die, the owner would, under any circumstances, be responsible for having the carcase carried off; but supposing, on the other hand, the donkey were to recover and was on its legs again when the veterinary surgeon arrived, the question would arise, who was to pay for his attendance? As the Bill originally

  763
  stood, any expense of that kind would have fallen upon the parish or person inspiring the police constable. Would it now fall upon the owner? It seemed rather hard that he should be obliged to pay any expenses which the police might see fit to incur, and which could be said to be reasonable. The matter certainly deserved further consideration.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, if the noble Earl would bring it forward at a subsequent stage he would be happy to consider it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Bill must go to a Standing Committee.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved to insert, in line 21, the word "consequential."
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthought it was equally doubtful whether the owner should be called upon to pay if the police made a mistake. Clearly the Police Authorities should pay and not the owner.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that in nine cases out of 10 a veterinary surgeon would be an unnecessary luxury, and should only be summoned in extreme cases. As a rule, a police constable would be perfectly competent to judge whether an animal should be slaughtered or not.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsuggested the case of a gentleman out hunting, and his horse being injured. The police would be sent for; they would send for a veterinary surgeon, and the horse would be ordered to be destroyed. It would be very hard upon the parish to make it pay the cost of the veterinary surgeon. He knew a case where a veterinary surgeon called in simply ordered a horse to be destroyed, and charged 10s. for doing so. The matter seemed to require a good deal of consideration.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhad no objection to the Police Authorities paying the expense. All he wished to urge was the hardship upon the owner. If without his knowledge a veterinary surgeon was called in, it was rather hard that he should be called upon to pay for it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that the matter could be dealt with in Standing Committee.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved to insert, in line 6, after "animal," the words "summarily as a civil debt." The words were essential in order to provide means for recovering expenses, which did not already exist in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MONKSWELLproposed to insert "in Ireland" after the Grand Jury cess.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsuggested that that also should remain over for the further stage.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble.
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD moved that this be omitted as unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed, as amended. (No. 100.)

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE EARL OF DENBIGH,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it referred to the important Merchandise Marks Act with which their Lordships were familiar, passed by both Parties during the Government of the noble Marquess. The present Lord Derby, then President of the Board of Trade, in introducing that Bill in their Lordships' House, said it was for the purpose of preventing the fraudulent use of trade marks, and that all sections and classes desired to remove that foul blot upon our trade and to enourage honest trading. The Bill was accepted by the then Opposition, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said their object was to

  765
  "check immorality, which had such a mischievous effect on trade, and that in his opinion it was better to suffer some inconvenience from the severity of the law than not to deal effectively with the evil."
  That quotation would remind the House that the object of both Parties was to stop a system of commercial fraud which was doing immense harm to the manufacturers of this country and to the men in their employ. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1890 to inquire into the working of the Act of 1887, and much evidence was given showing the great good it had done to the manufacturing interests of the country. But certain blots were pointed out and the Committee made recommendations with the view of removing them. Accordingly, the amending Act of 1891 was passed, which had the effect or removing the defects then discovered. But considerable evidence was given about another and more serious blot. While the Act had been most beneficial in stopping fraudulent marking, practically no power existed to deal with goods brought into this country unmarked, then marked here as British goods, and so sold to British customers or exported to our foreign customers as being articles of British manufacture. This Bill was divided into two portions, the first dealing with that fraudulent practice, and the second with the importation of prison-made goods. Upon the first point he acknowledged at once that the Committee of 1890 was hostile to the proposals then made for insisting on marks of origin being borne by all imported goods. It was thought that to do so would restrict trade, and would damage warehousemen, small traders, and the various interests to be considered. Although that Committee did not see their way to adopt the suggestions made by many competent witnesses, the situation had now grown much more serious; and just as between 1887 and 1890 the testimony of Custom House officials showed that the quantity of unmarked goods imported into this country had largely increased, so it had become notorious that from 1890 to the present time, since traders had discovered more and more how they could defeat the object of the Merchandise Marks Act, the importation of goods into this country for the purpose of being fraudulently marked here had enormously increased.
  766
  As a result the feeling of dissatisfaction was becoming very great among all classes of the community. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in accepting the Bill introduced by the late Government, said that one admittedly prevalent kind of fraud was very disastrous—the combination of marks for the purpose of leading people to believe that goods were made by others than those by whom they were manufactured. That particular fraud was exactly what was being practised now—that was really the object of placing British marks on goods of foreign origin. And so long as the law remained in its present state that fraud would continue to increase. This Bill embodied no new proposals, though introduced for the first time in their Lordships' House. Bills had been introduced in another place five or six times in recent years dealing with this subject, but, unfortunately, until the other day, a Second Beading had not been obtained. A Bill similar to this had come up for Second Beading, and though opposed by the late President of the Board of Trade, had received considerable support in the other House, more especially from the Trade Unionists, to the great astonishment, no doubt, of Mr. Mundella. That gentleman had also opposed the proposal when an important deputation waited on him in May, last year. The objections so put forward would no doubt be strongly urged by the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade on this occasion, and he would therefore venture to anticipate them. In the first place, Mr. Mundella declared that the present law was amply sufficient for the purpose of dealing with fraud of this description, and that the Board of Trade were willing and anxious to prosecute, and had in fact prosecuted in some cases with success, more especially in one or two where scissors had been imported from Germany unmarked, and then placed on cards marked "Best Sheffield Cutlery," or something of that sort. In such cases no doubt prosecutions might take place under the present law; but one was rather reminded of the old recipe for "cooking a hare," and it was absolutely necessary to catch the delinquent before he could be prosecuted. It had been found practically impossible to detect these frauds after the goods had once passed the Customs unless a system

  767
  of espionage were adopted in factories and workshops very distasteful to the manufacturing community. Next, Mr. Mundella urged that certain articles could not he marked. No doubt that was the case, and many jocular remarks had been made on that subject. Diamonds, it was said, could not be marked. But these islands could not be said to compete with foreign countries in the production of those gems, although unsuspecting travellers in the East had sometimes reason to know that mines for their production existed in Birmingham as well as, say, Burmah. The noble Marquess the other day asked whether he would be called upon to mark his dog when he returned from the Continent. It would be easy in Committee to insert provisions exempting travellers' personal baggage, or goods not intended for sale—that would obviate any difficulty in connection with the noble Marquess's faithful companion. It was also urged that Lord Onslow's Committee on the subject was still sitting, and was taking evidence with regard to agricultural produce, meat, shell-fish, and fruit; and that Committee were apparently contending as to the best way of marking foreign shrimps. Again, it was asked whether each gooseberry and every apple on old women's stalls in the streets should be marked. Of course, many articles were incapable of being marked separately; but such cases were provided for in the Bill, and it was left to the Regulations, to be framed by the Board of Customs to say what goods were to be marked in piece and what in bulk on the packages or cases in which they were sold. No doubt it would be urged that goods marked in bulk would be distributed unmarked throughout the country; but on the principle "that half a loaf was better than no bread" it would be well to stop frauds in connection with larger articles, even if the smaller ones should evade the law. It might be better to limit the operation of the Bill to manufactured articles, and he would consent to such an Amendment if a separate Bill dealing with meat and agricultural produce were introduced afterwards on lines to be laid down by Lord Onslow's Committee. Then Mr. Mundella insisted that these provisions would provoke foreign Governments to retaliate by demanding the marking of English-made goods.
  768
  But if that were to happen it could hardly be a disadvantage, in view of the fact that English-made goods were run after all over the world. Mr. Mundella further contended that the Bill would harass and restrict trade. It would certainly restrict dishonest trade, but that it would restrict trade in general was much to be doubted. The shipping industry cried out very loudly when the Merchandise Marks Act was passed; but the Committee of 1890, after taking exhaustive evidence, came to the conclusion that there had been no serious diminution owing to that Act in the amount of goods from delay in transit. Possibly there would be a great outcry against the Bill: but it would come from those who profited by fraudulent practices and false marking. Coming next to the portion of the Bill which dealt with foreign prison-made goods, a great amount of feeling had been recently aroused by the discovery of the extent to which German prison-made goods were imported into and sold in this country. A special commissioner sent by The Hardware Journal had visited the prisons at Grossweiler, Cologne, Berlin, and elsewhere, and had given a description of the employment of cheap prison labour by concessionaires, from whom no account of the prisoners' hours of labour was exacted by the authorities. Those prisoners copied from English models in various classes of goods. If such practices were allowed to continue, the steps which had already been taken to restrain the competition of British prison labour with free labour in this country must be rendered futile. The Bill did not raise the question of Protection, but its object was the protection of honest trading. It was supported by thousands of Free Traders all over the country; and, at the last Trade Union Congress a strong resolution was passed condemning the practice of introducing unmarked goods into this country, and subsequently marking them. There was the choice of two evils—either to submit to the vexation and inconvenience of seeing to the marking of foreign goods, or to witness the spectacle of more starving men about the country. Year after year the tendency had been to improve the condition of the working classes in this country, and that tendency had the entire sympathy of their Lordships. Among the circumstances which must

  769
  necessarily tend to raise the cost of production to some extent, were the insistence by great Municipal Corporations like the London County Council of the adoption of Trade Union wages, the condemnation by the late Government of sweating in connection with Army contracts, and the action of the present Government in limiting the hours of labour in the Government factories. If this unfair competition of foreign goods manufactured by means of cheap labour and by men who worked very long hours was encouraged, many working men would be thrown out of employment in this country. All that was asked was that the people should be told what kind of goods they were buying; and therefore he asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time, first of all in the interests of commercial morality; secondly, in the interests of the honest manufacturers of the country; thirdly, in the interests of the consumers of the country; and, fourthly, as important a consideration as any, in the interests of the working men of the country.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, it was important to know what was the present state of the law, as some misapprehension existed on the subject in the minds alike of people in this country and manufacturers abroad. The law on the subject was that if any mark be put on the goods it should be an honest and not a misleading one. A strong feeling existed among producers of goods in this country that they were subjected to unfair competition with those who imported foreign goods. British producers had no objection to fair competition, but they thought that the middleman derived an undue share of profit through buying in a cheap market and selling in a dear market, while the article which he bought in the cheap market was sold as something else. The feeling therefore prevailed that something should be done to protect the consumer from having goods fraudulently passed off upon him. He trusted that the Bill would be read a second time, because there were a large number of interests in the country which were anxiously looking forward for some remedy in the nature of the present Bill.
  770
  At the same time, as a word of warning) it would be well for their Lordships to carefully consider what would be the effect of the Bill on the producers of this country. His belief was that there were a large number of good and cheap articles produced abroad, and if it was announced by the terms of this Bill that such articles were made abroad it was possible their Lordships would find English consumers determining only to take the articles made abroad and rejecting the more expensive goods made in this country. He gave an instance within his own knowledge. Farmers in many parts of the country had been endeavouring to make hay contracts with the forage merchants for this season's crop. The answer that the farmers had received was to the effect that as the farmers had no hay to sell last year the contractors had to go abroad for a supply, and they had been so well treated abroad, and had found the hay so satisfactory, that they had made up their minds to deal with the foreign growers again for hay. He hoped that whatever action might be taken in this matter that consideration would not be lost sight of, or it might turn out that a law of that kind would cause a demand to spring up on the part of the working people of England very far from the wishes of the noble Earl; and it might be found that the working men of this country who produced English goods would call out for protection for the work of their own hands.
  *LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, this Bill must obviously be made part of the Act of 1887, or it could be of no effect. For example it contained no penalty, and no definition of the goods to be marked with the name of the country of origin. Therefore, it was only by construing this Bill as a part of the Act of 1887 that it could have any effect whatever. The purpose of the Bill, however, was altogether different from the Act of 1887. The Act of 1887 was only directed against fraud and wilful misrepresentation, but the noble Lord tried to penalise honest trading here in order to get it within the Act of 1887, as fraud and misrepresentation. In the Preamble of the Bill the noble Lord said—
  "Whereas much fraud and misrepresentation takes place by reason of the importation of foreign goods "

  771
  —by whom?—not by the importers; the noble Lord did not allege that, but—
  "which goods are subsequently sold in the United Kingdom."
  The noble Lord alleged that the fraud and misrepresentation took place when the goods were subsequently sold in the United Kingdom. But if the fraud and misrepresentation took place in the United Kingdom the Act of 1887 provided that any false representation made, any fraudulent trade marks, false representation of selling as English goods what were foreign goods, could be dealt with and punished; and therefore no new Bill was needed. In order to bring this Bill under the Act of 1887, honest trading would be made a fraud and wilful misrepresentation, which of course it was not. Traders might now import a cargo of iron, or of copper wire for electric lighting purposes, and the mark of the place or origin was not needed; but if the articles were represented to be English make, then the representation was fraudulent and punishable under the Act of 1887. Without that Act, which was directed against the forgery of trade marks, this bald Bill would be of no use at all; and it was not right, therefore, to try and make trading from foreign countries with this country a fraud and misrepresentation as the noble Lord was endeavouring to do by his Preamble. What was the real object of the Bill? The noble Lord must candidly admit that he had introduced it in the interests of Protection. It was to handicap foreign produce as against English produce. What was the definition of "goods" that was intended to apply in the present Bill? Under the definition of "goods" in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, every kind of article of commerce, agricultural produce, raw material, and manufactures was included. By this Bill it was intended that every kind of "goods" should be marked with the name of the country of their origin. There was no exception made of agricultural produce or fruit, or indeed any article of commerce, from the operation of this Bill, and if the Act passed without such a reservation being added to the clause as it then Stood very great hardship would be done to the smaller retailers of fruit, such as costermongers and others, who might through want of knowledge of the effects
  772
  of this Act upon that of 1887, subject themselves to a fine of £50, or to a sentence of two years' imprisonment. The Bill might have one excellent result to the minds of educationalists—that of teaching geography to the boys and costermongers, by the marking of packages with the country of origin, but it would not in the least aid in the selling of the apples, oranges, bananas, or other articles. Every small package of almonds or raisins was to be marked in quarter-inch letters—not by this Bill, but by another of a like kind proposed in another place. The Bill also would be very hard upon our fruit-growing colonies. How was the Bill to be worked? In the case of a cargo of deals from Norway, was every board and every portion of the board which might be used in a carpenter's shop for a small repair to be marked? Then, as to prison-made goods, the Bill would apply not only when the whole of the article manufactured was made in prison, but when any part of it was made there. How would that work in the case of matches, the wood for which was split in prison, but which were afterwards dipped in sulphur and phosphorus by matchmakers working outside? The importer would have in many cases, therefore, no means of ascertaining the true place of origin. How was that want of knowledge to affect the case of the legitimate buyer? But there were larger questions involved. This question had been considered over and over again, and a Committee appointed by the late Government in 1890 reported that an alteration of the law in the direction now advocated would inflict a serious injury upon trade and almost destroy certain classes of business. That Committee was presided over by Baron de Worms, and though the arch-Protectionist, Mr. Howard Vincent, voted against, nine members were in favour of the following recommendation:—
  "Your Committee have heard evidence of several witnesses, who were in favour of compulsory marking of all goods with an indication of their origin. They are unable to recommend such an alteration in the existing law, as they are of opinion it would seriously restrict trade, and might destroy the business of warehousemen, commission agents, and small masters."
  Such an enactment would of necessity involve the insertion of a clause in any International Convention, imposing similar obligations, in respect of goods made

  773
  in this country, and sold abroad. If this Bill was adopted, a policy of retaliation against England would be sure to be taken up by other countries, and it was a question of the greatest importance to this country that our goods should have no restrictions placed upon their introduction into those countries with whom we did the greater portion of our commerce. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not permit the Bill to pass the Second Reading. It was not a complete measure, and could not be worked unless it was read in conjunction with the Bill of 1887, and if that were done honest trade would be branded as fraudulent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, two questions are raised by a Bill of this kind. The first is whether your Lordships approve of the object and sympathise with the aim of the Bill; and, secondly, whether you think its provisions do or do not require amendment? I shall not argue in favour of any of the details of the Bill, because I freely admit that a Bill of this character must require very careful examination in Committee. The noble Lord, however, did not go into the details of the measure at all, and his speech was one of a most extraordinary kind. I am afraid that the noble Lord has been lately too much in the society of that distinguished statesman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose practice seems to be, whenever he finds he has no arguments to advance against a measure he wishes to oppose, to shout some popular watchword and to allow that to replace the necessity for argument. In the same way the noble Lord, finding he had no real or even plausible arguments to urge against the Bill, fell back upon the right hon. Gentleman's example and shouted that this was a Bill of Protection. How can it possibly be a Bill of Protection? How can this be treated as a matter of Protection when all the Bill desires is to require that those who import goods into this country should state the truth respecting them? Yet absolutely nothing more is asked for by this Bill than that they should state the place of origin of those goods that they are selling to the public. The noble Lord, finding himself unable to attack the Bill, went off into a diatribe against some Bills which had obviously no connection whatever with the one we
  774
  are now considering, and, as it turns out, he was really arguing against Bills which are still in the House of Commons and not involved in this Bill at all. Then the noble Lord told us of the terrible penalties which might be inflicted upon the costermonger who wanted to sell apples and oranges and bananas under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 as affected by this Bill. But this Bill is not the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, and the effect of this measure would really be to lighten the penalties and save the costermongers from those ills which the noble Lord sees hanging over their heads. If every case containing foreign goods were marked with the place of origin there would be no danger that tradesmen would be tempted—as they are now often tempted, either through ignorance or any less presentable reason—to hide the real place of origin of his goods. The great hardship under the Merchandise Marks Bill is that it exposes men who are ignorant or careless of its provisions to exceedingly heavy penalties for their want of knowledge or their want of care. Now, if the cases of the goods they were selling were fairly marked on the face of them with the name of the place of origin of the goods they contained, surely that danger would be entirely averted. This is a Bill which, according to the statements of the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, would, in fact, tend to make the Merchandise Marks Act a far more tolerable and easier measure than before. The important question is, whether the imported goods can be marked? Of course, we are all familiar with the old arguments about the matches, the needle, and the egg. It is impossible to stamp that class of articles with the name of the place of origin; but the cases containing them can be stamped, and a declaration can be exacted from the importer in which the place of origin would have to be entered. That would do something, at any rate, to make that kind of fraud less possible and less likely than it is now, and the British trader and British producer would be saved from that which everyone must admit is illegitimate competition—namely, the selling of foreign-made goods as English produce. That is the only protection against fraud. How far it is possible,

  775
  and as to how many classes of goods it may be suitable, might be determined by inquiry; but in view of the important considerations which are involved, and of the very serious evils suffered from this illegitimate competition, it would, I think, be a very strong measure to reject this Bill on Second Beading. I should have preferred to invite your Lordships to consider whether it was not possible under this Bill to give the tradesman sufficient protection against fraud, and if it were found that that were possible we should be passing a measure of most salutary legislation. What the difficulties may be, and how you are to cope with them, you cannot tell until you go into the matter in detail; but I think it would be an unwise step if we said we do not sympathise with the tradesman, and that we do not accept the principle of this measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HEKSCHELL): My Lords, I am not going to say a word in relation to this Bill from the point of view of Protection. My objection to the Bill is that' it is absolutely impracticable. It suggests an idea, but provides no means of carrying it out, and it would be impossible to mould the Bill by the ordinary process of Committee into a practicable measure. I do not deny that the object of the Bill might be perfectly legitimate, that the place of origin of goods should be in-indicated provided it could be carried into effect; but it must be borne in mind that the person who imports goods from foreign countries is never deceived as to the place of origin. He knows perfectly well that they come from abroad, and the wholesale purchaser is equally familiar with that fact when he buys foreign goods. Therefore, so far as those persons are concerned, to insist on the place of origin being marked on the goods would simply be to tell them what they already know. Unless you provide for giving that information to those who eventually, in the process of distribution, purchase the goods by retail, you will do absolutely nothing by the Bill. That is what you are aiming at, but that would never be accomplished by this measure at all. It might be possible to mark a bale of cloth with the place of origin, but it would be impossible to mark every yard or every 10 yards of the cloth without destroying the purpose for which it is bought, and it is the same
  776
  with many other kinds of goods. The man who is going to sell the cloth again divides it into smaller quantities, and would be asked nothing about the place of origin. You will, therefore, afford no protection unless you can provide that when the goods are distributed the place of origin shall be indicated. That is not practicable, and the Bill would not work. The noble Marquess says—"Why not take it into Committee and try to make it work?" If this were the suggestion of a new system there might be something to be said for that suggestion, but a Committee of your Lordships' House is already sitting on the question of marking meat and other foreign produce imported into this country. That Committee has reported that as to certain goods it is impracticable to mark their place of origin; while a Committee of the other House, having inquired into the subject, has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to carry out this system of marking. That is not a Committee composed of persons who are mad about Free Trade, but is composed of Members from different political Parties, and, with one exception, the Committee is unanimous that the proposal would interfere with commerce and be prejudicial to the interests of this country. Your Lordships are asked to accept this Bill, which contains no scheme for carrying its provisions into effect, simply in order that English produce shall be sold as much as possible; but even with that object in view it would, in my opinion, be unwise to read the Bill a second time, unless you can see your way to provide some practical means of giving it effect. By reading the Bill a second time I fear you would be holding out expectations which you will be unable to satisfy; and you would seem to be giving something when, in reality, you are giving nothing. But by checking commercial intercourse, by placing difficulties in the way of those who are importing foreign goods, you would be running the danger of checking exports to this country. All those are considerations which should be borne in mind. It would, in my opinion, be dangerous to read the Bill a second time unless we not only saw our way to some scheme by which its proposals could be advantageously carried into effect, but are satisfied that that may be done with-

  777
  out imperilling interests which cannot be touched unwisely without the greatest possible risk.
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking there is a great deal of rhetoric in my noble and learned Friend's statement that no good can be done. The Bill before your Lordships differs from anything previously suggested. I have knowledge myself of one or two Bills enacting that everything imported into this country should be stamped with its place of origin in some indelible manner. The novelty in this Bill, and that which renders it desirable there should be inquiry, is that for the first time some machinery is suggested by which such goods as are capable of being marked should be marked; and it would be for a Committee to determine the articles which could be properly marked. I do not understand the meaning of the very violent language used with regard to the country of origin being stamped on goods which are susceptible of being marked, and on the cases for smaller articles. It may be, when you have done all you can by these means through the machinery of the Customs, you will not entirely exclude fraud, nor insure that the distribution may not be fraudulent; but does it necessarily follow that you may not do something in this direction to prevent misstatements as to origin in the course of the distribution of imported goods in this country? A false description is an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, but the difficulty arises if goods are imported without any marks upon them they may be distributed as being what they are not in reality. All that is desired is to provide against foreign goods being distributed fraudulently; and I think no better machinery for carrying that into effect could be found than the Customs. If a declaration were insisted upon by persons introducing such goods some impediment would be placed in their way, and that could be done if a Bill of this sort were passed. The object of the Bill is to prevent fraud, and your Lordships ought certainly to allow it to be read a second time. The object being good, and the proposition a novel one in respect of the machinery to be employed, it is not desirable that the Bill should be thrown out upon the possibly exaggerated statements which have been
  778
  made by its opponents, of future injury to the trade of this country.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of KIMBEELEY): I do not wish to go into the general argument at all, but I desire to point out a matter of some importance as to how the restrictions which would be involved on the importation of goods from abroad might affect our foreign treaties. I should doubt considerably, though I would not venture to lay down any doctrine positively on the matter, whether the passing of this Bill might not lead to remonstrances by foreign Powers in regard to those restrictions. The provision that goods made in prisons should when imported into this country be so marked cannot, I think, as anybody reflecting upon it will see, be of any use, inasmuch as such marking must necessarily depend on the action of the foreign Governments concerned. Is it expected that we should enter into negotiations with those Governments with the object of ensuring the marking of prison-made goods? If restrictions are to be imposed, why should we not have restrictions upon English goods, and why should not sellers here be compelled to give a guarantee that the goods sold by them are of English origin. Where should we be landed then? Supposing you were to require it, how could you possibly tell whether goods were of English origin or not when they came to be sold in retail? I have often heard that articles known to be made in this country are deliberately sold here on a large scale as if they are foreign goods.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is already provided for under the Merchandise Marks Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No, that is exactly what I wish to point out. The Merchandise Marks Act does not prevent the sale of those goods by retail in the least, and they are constantly sold as "made abroad." Of course, if there are marks a penalty can be inflicted. Though I would not say that this is a Bill absolutely favouring Protection, I assert that it constitutes an endeavour to place foreign goods at a disadvantage in regard to English goods. That, I maintain, is the object of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDthought that the object was precisely the reverse of that which had been stated by the

  779
  noble Earth. The desire of its promoters was to prevent foreign goods from receiving undue advantage in regard to English goods.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 26.
  Resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

UGANDA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANMORErose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—I. Whether, in consequence of the decision of Her Majesty's Government not to take into consideration the question of the construction of a railroad from the East Coast of Africa to Kikuyu, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to place upon the Victoria Nyanza and Lake Albert the steamers recommended by Sir G. Portal to be in that event placed there; and 2. Whether the decision announced with regard to Unyoro involves the abandonment of the forts erected, and the withdrawal of the force stationed, in that country? He said, their Lordships would recollect that when about 10 days ago the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the administration of Uganda the noble Earl dealt largely with negatives. He told the House, amongst other things, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to extend an active protectorate over the States immediately surrounding Uganda; that it was not intended that the stations on the road from Mombasa to Uganda should be under the control of the Commissioner in Uganda; and, above all, that it was not intended to commence the railway from the coast or even to take into immediate consideration Whether such a railway was or was not desirable. It was needless to repeat with what earnestness and reiteration the necessity for making that railroad had been pressed at different times on Her Majesty's Government. That railway was the keynote of the Report of Sir Gerald Portal, who went so far as to assert that he
  780
  "had no hesitation in saying that any organised system of administration or plan for the improvement of this country which may be devised must be in the nature of a makeshift."
  But Sir Gerald Portal either foresaw, or discovered after his return home, that the reluctance of the Government to embark on this enterprise was likely to throw in its way obstacles which might prove fatal to it. He therefore, in view of the possibility that the railway scheme might fail to be carried out notwithstanding all he had said in its favour, suggested in the last few paragraphs of his Report another possible plan, not as an equivalent to the railway scheme, but as a substitute for it if it were found altogether impracticable. That recommendation consisted in increasing the force on the Great Lakes and placing there steamers of a larger size than had been originally contemplated. It was not very safe to trust too much to internal evidence; but, if we might trust to it, one would be inclined to say that those paragraphs of the Report were an addition and an afterthought, and a somewhat hasty afterthought; because when they came to examine it they would perceive that while the scheme for putting larger steamers upon the Lakes as a substitute for the railway would not meet more than a few of the objects that the railway would carry into effect, its initial cost in the first year would be greater than the initial cost of commencing the work of the railway, though no doubt the plan of placing the steamers upon the Lakes would be cheaper in subsequent years than the construction of the railway. Yet the loss on the annual expenditure on the steamers would be one that would go on permanently, year after year without diminution, while the loss on the railway might every year be expected to diminish as the freight upon it and its receipts increased. In these circumstances he did not think that the alternative scheme was one which it was desirable to adopt; nor, after what the noble Lord had told them about the inability of this country to bear the expense, did he think that it was at all likely to be adopted when it was found that the initial cost would be greater than that of commencing a railway. But, still, it would afford a real reason for the rejection of the one scheme by Her Majesty's Government if they

  781
  had accepted the other. It might be a bad reason, but still it would be an assignable reason. Her Majesty's Government, if they adopted it, would be in a position to say, "Our Representative—that is to say, our Commissioner—in Uganda has put before us two schemes; we reject the one and take the other." He did not think it likely that Her Majesty's Government would say that; but if they did, it would afford an explanation of the rejection of the railway scheme. But, if the Government declared that they rejected both schemes the position was very different and rather curious. Everyone who had been connected with the administration of Uganda, or who had had anything to do with it, had urged in the strongest language, backed by the most forcible reasons, the construction of the railway, but Her Majesty's Government said, "No; we will not take either of these schemes. We think that we know a great deal better than any of these people who have been concerned in the administration of Uganda, and we firmly believe that the Protectorate will get on capitally without either railroad or ships." But they had not given for that belief one single reason, nor had they supported it by argument. It was simply the ipse dixit of Her Majesty's Government that Uganda could get on very well without these things. On many points connected with Uganda those who had had to do with it differed, and differed widely, from each other. Experts, so far as his experience went, were rather apt to do so; but on this point they all agreed. There was an unanimous concert of opinion amongst all those who had been engaged in the matter that the construction of this railway was absolutely necessary if the Protectorate was to be of any value whatever. Therefore, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must forgive him if he preferred the opinion of all those who had been practically concerned in the matter, backed by clear and convincing reasoning, rather than the dictum of Her Majesty's Government, backed by no argument at all. He said "backed by no argument at all," for the one argument which had been used as a reason why the railway should not be constructed—the argument of expense—though a very important argument no doubt in itself, was alto-
  782
  gether irrelevant to the question of whether the railway was or was not essential to the administration of the Protectorate of Uganda. It would really almost seem as though Her Majesty's Government were not alive to the vast importance which had been attached to the question of transport. They had been told by everyone who had a right to speak on the subject, that whether they regarded this question of Uganda as an administrative question or as a financial question, or as a commercial question, the question of transport always came to the front. As Sir Gerald Portal had expressed it—
  "All these questions resolve themselves into the all-important and overshadowing question of transport and communication."
  He was the more afraid that Her Majesty's Government had hardly realised the importance of that point from something which fell from the noble Lord the President of the Council the other night. The noble Lord, to his (Lord Stanmore's) astonishment and alarm, said it would be a question for consideration on some future occasion whether it would not be a greater advantage to have a telegraph line to Uganda than a railway. The object in view was not the more rapid transmission of intelligence, but the more rapid transport of men and stores. The construction of an electric telegraph would not facilitate the passage of one ounce of goods from the coast to Uganda nor shorten by a single hour the length of the march, nor diminish the fatigues of that march which had already proved fatal to so many valuable lives. It could not be too often repeated that, although the route through the British sphere of influence to Uganda was shorter, that through the German sphere was easier and cheaper. He had been informed that a large part, if not the greater part, of the last Government stores that were sent to Uganda were sent by the German route, and that we had to pay an ad valorem Customs Duty of 11½ per cent, in consequence. Things were bad enough as they were at present, for even as things were the advantages of the German route would cause it to be preferred; but would they remain as they were? Certainly not. The reason which Her Majesty's Government had put forward for not making the railway was the great expenditure that would have to be

  783
  incurred this year on account of the Navy; but, as the expenditure upon the Navy was to be spread over five years in, he presumed, nearly equal amounts, the same argument would be put forward every year against the construction of the railway. Well, did their Lordships think that all this time, our neighbours in Uganda would remain inactive? Up to the present time the prospect that if Great Britain determined to retain Uganda she would also naturally set about ensuring her communication with the coast had prevented any other enterprise on a great scale being commenced. But that prospect had been removed by the declaration of the Secretary of State, and they would unquestionably see before the five years were over, a railway commenced, and very probably completed, through the German sphere of influence. The consequence would be that by the time we thought about constructing a British line it would be too late. There would not be traffic for two railways, and the one which was begun first would be the one which would probably win the day. The subject was not one which could be put off now and taken up again at pleasure. It was not a matter as to which we might consider at some future time whether it might or might not be desirable. Now was the time. If failure were courted he did not know that Her Majesty's Government could have invented a better method of bringing it about than by establishing this nominal Protectorate without the means of communication with the coast, and by allowing it to be borne down by enormous transport expenses, while losing all the advantages that might be derived from Customs Dues. The Custom Duties would all go to the German authorities, and the trade would all go into the hands of the German traders. This country would find its Protectorate so poor and worthless that probably in the end it would withdraw from it as being no longer able to maintain it. When it was a question as to whether we should go to Uganda at all or not, there were many who might have hesitated to return an affirmative answer, but the late Government had decided that question. At a later period it might still have been possible to withdraw—though he doubted whether it could have been done so without some dis-
  784
  honour or disgrace—but that possibility had been disposed of by the present Government. What could not be done with any credit was to establish a Protectorate and invite another Power, a friendly Power if you will, but still a rival Power, to undertake the enterprise which we had not the courage to undertake ourselves, and to supply those means of communication which would practically make a present to that Power of the revenues and of the advantages which we might derive from the Protectorate. As to his second question, about two years ago a line of forts was erected by Captain Lugard across Unyoro, with the object of preventing raids to the south of the line. Those forts were afterwards abandoned and the garrisons withdrawn. Later, another line of forts not identical with that of Captain Lugard, and to the north of it, but essentially for the same purpose, had been established. Since he had given notice of his questions the subject had been discussed in the other House of Parliament, and if he rightly understood the answer given by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the forts were held to have been put up for the protection of Uganda. It was considered as a defensive measure for the defence of Uganda. That was very natural, and if it were so he presumed they would be maintained, and had consequently nothing more to say. But it was well that the matter should be made clear. It was difficult to make those who had had no personal experience of dealing with savage races to appreciate the dangers of vacillation. But to those who had had that experience, and there were several noble Lords in the House who had, he would confidently appeal to say whether anything was more likely to excite suspicion and distrust in the native mind than the policy of establishing, withdrawing, re-establishing and withdrawing a second time. There was another matter he desired to refer to, though he had not put a question on the Paper with regard to it, because he had nothing to ask, as the statement of the noble Lord had been perfectly explicit. He would merely express his regret that the stations between Uganda and the coast were not to be placed under the authority of the Commissioner in Uganda. On those stations, and the supplies obtained from them, the very existence of

  785
  the settlement in Uganda might depend. According to the scheme now proposed, the only way in which the Uganda Commissioner could remedy any mistake of the Commissioners on the road was by appealing to the Foreign Office, and then eight months must elapse before he received his reply. Finally, he would urge, above all things, the vast importance of the appointment of the Commissioner for Uganda. Even if a man possessing the exceptional qualities which were necessary was appointed, there would always be danger that the ineradicable suspicions of savages might upset the arrangements the Government had made; but if there were not such a man, only the ordinary commonplace official who looked to his appointment merely as a stepping-stone to something better, and who looked to Members of the House of Commons and the London evening papers for guidance, then trouble was absolutely certain. Find your man with care, but, having found him, trust him. Under a man who was not fully trusted, and whom they would try to keep in check from home, there were quite certain to be unpleasant occurrences, possibly disaster of a grave and serious character, such as this country would be happy to escape from without the loss of honour also.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has spoken at great length with respect to the railway, to which his Notice does not refer, and he has said extremely little about the steamers, to which his Notice does refer. I shall not be drawn into a discussion of the railway; but with regard to the steamers all I can say is this—that all the recommendations of Sir Gerald Portal, which are very numerous, are under consideration, but I cannot at present say how far the recommendation about the steamers may be adopted. I am afraid—from the opportunities I have had of judging—that if I were to express an opinion, being only the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would have very little weight with the noble Lord. With regard to his second question, referring to Unyoro, Colonel Colville, the acting Commissioner in Uganda, is authorised to take whatever measures are indispensable for the safety and defence of Uganda; and if Unyoro continues hostile it will be for Colonel Colville to
  786
  judge of the military measures which are necessary for that purpose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What force has Colonel Colville with him?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not think I could tell the noble Marquess off-hand. But it comprises a really useful and valuable force of Soudanese, who are the remnants of one of the regiments of Emin Pasha, and there are also a very large number of armed natives of the country, who have been, as I gather, largely employed in Unyoro. But the most valuable portion of the force is undoubtedly the Soudanese. As to the arrangements for the management of the country between Uganda and the coast, it is simply a question of convenience and administration. If the noble Lord looks into the matter he will see—though the question is not yet absolutely decided—that the management of the transport to the coast can be better done by the Commisssioner at Zanzibar with a Sub-Commisioner under him than by the Commissioner at Uganda. Of course, the former would be in constant communication with the latter and would be aware of what his wishes were.
  [The subject then dropped.]

STRANORLAR AND GLENTIES RAILWAY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government why the light railway projected, and now in course of construction between Stranorlar and Glenties had not been completed? This railway was one of those inaugurated under the scheme of light railways started by the last Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was sure if he could make him understand how slowly this work had been carried out the noble Lord who had to answer the question would be as indignant as he was. He (the Earl of Mayo) knew the country very well, and could assert that for the past two years the work had been done in this way: groups of peasants were to be seen working here and there—nothing further. The railway from Donegal to Killibegs, which had been constructed under difficult circumstances—a bridge having to be built over the River Inver—was finished, and yet the Stranorlar Railway was dragging its weary length

  787
  along. The stations were only made of tin—that was to say, of corrugated iron—and those who took an interest in Donegal were unable to find a reason why the railway had not been finished before this, and trusted that the Government would take care to compel the contractors to complete it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he was informed that the delay in the construction had been due in great part to the difficulties met with by the contractors in getting possession of the necessary land, in addition to the difficulty of construction. Though the progress made by the contractors had not been rapid, the engineers of the Board of Works had given constant attention to the matter, and the Board had not relaxed its efforts to expedite the construction of the line. It was hoped that the railway would be completed by the end of August or beginning of September.
  THE EABL OF MAYOsaid, the difficulty was at the Glenties end of the line. A Judge had made an order in Court giving a year's extension of time. That had long since elapsed, and still the railway seemed to drag its weary length along.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Still, if the railway is completed by the end of August it will be satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: I hope it will be.

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 44.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 47.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 42.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 43.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8.) BILL. (No. 73.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (No. 86.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed amended. (No. 101.)
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Braye to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.