Lords Sitting of 20 April 1899

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  (Petition for additional Provision). The meeting of the Standing Orders Committee (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Monday the 1st of May next.
  YORKE ESTATE.
  Petition for a Private Bill; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to two English Judges.
  PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for additional provision; of the Corporation of Portsmouth; together with proposed amendment and clause annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
  CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  BARTON-ON-SEA WATER BILL [H.L.]
  A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  KEW BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
  Committee to meet To-morrow.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 27th of February last discharged; and Bill committed.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; The orders made on the 27th of February and the 24th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  To be read a second time To-morrow.
  NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL [H.L.]
  The Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  PARISH COUNCILS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read a first time; and referred to the Examiners.
  Church Stretton Water Bill [H.L.]
  Cobham Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Gainsborough Urban District Council (Gas) Bill [H.L.]
  Leigh-on-Sea Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]
  St. Neot's Water Bill [H.L.]
  Hastings and St. Leonards Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Hastings Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  Bexhill and St. Leonards Tramroads Bill [H.L.]
  Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]
  South Essex Water Bill [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely, E. Carnwath, E. Romney, L. Colchester, L. Loch (chairman), L. Wandsworth.
  Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Grosvenor Chapel (London) Bill [H.L.]
  All Saints' Church (Cardiff) Bill [H.L.]
  Skipton Urban District Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Dundee Gas, Tramways, and Extension Bill [H.L.]
  Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Bill Bill [H.L.]
  Llanelly Harbour and Pontardulais Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Wishaw Water Bill [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select

  5
  Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

  E. Clarendon,

  E. Orford,

  V. Bangor,

  L. Wenlock (chairman),

  L. Cranworth;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills, to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Return showing the expenditure from the grant for public education in Scotland in the year 1898, upon annual grants to State-aided schools; the number of schools; the results of inspection and examination during the year ended 30th September 1898.
  TREATY SERIES, No. 7 (1899).
  Exchange of Notes extending to Queensland the provisional modus vivendi between the United Kingdom and Belgium pending the conclusion of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the two countries, 6th February 1899.
  MINES AND QUARRIES.
  Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, for the year 1898.

  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:

  No. 2225. Greece (The Piræus);

  No. 2226. Poland and Lithuania;

  No. 2227. Belgium;

  No. 2228. China (Pakhoi);

  No. 2229. Colombia (Panama);

  No. 2230. Turkey (Trebizond);

  No. 2231. Italy (Lombardy).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (DESERTION OF SEAMEN).
  Reports from certain foreign and colonial ports respecting the desertion of seamen from British ships:
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, for the year ended 29th September 1898.
  CERTIFIED INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES.
  Rules made by the Secretary of State for the domestic management of the certified inebriate reformatory at Brentry, in the county of Gloucester.

  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1882.
  Thirty-fourth Annual Report on alkali, etc., works, by the Chief Inspector, during the year 1898.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  General Report of the Conservators of the River Thames, from 1st January 1898 to 31st December 1898, with a statement of the accounts of the Conservators for the year ended 31st December 1898.
  Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petitions against the sale of, on Sundays;—of the inhabitants of Balshan in the county of Cambridgeshire;—of the inhabitants of Eastbourne in the county of Sussex;—of the inhabitants of Brandon in the County of Suffolk;—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  NEW DAY SCHOOL CODE.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I had given notice to-day to move to resolve, that in the opinion of this House the paragraph introduced at the end of article 37 in the New Day School Code, limiting the number of pupil teachers, ought to be omitted; as also the alteration of article 42 to the same effect. As the whole matter has already been settled, with the consent of the Government, I do not intend. to move this Motion.
  TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME SCOTLAND BILL [H.L.]
  House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

  MONEY-LENDING BILL.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Seeing that my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy is in his place, I should like to ask him if he is in a position to inform the House when it is likely that the Committee stage of the Money-Lending Bill, of which he has charge, will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD): There have necessarily been many Amendments to prepare, but I propose to take the Committee stage on Monday week, if that is convenient to the House.

  ST. ANDREWS BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read third time to-morrow.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."—(The Secretary of State for War.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the only changes in the law which this Bill makes are those contained in clause 4 and the following clauses. Under the present law, the Secretary of State has powers to make orders for the transfer to workhouses and lunatic asylums of lunatic soldiers and their wives and families. He has also power to make orders for the maintenance of soldiers, their wives and families, and their illegitimate children. The change which we propose to make is that of transferring the power of making these orders from the Secretary of State to the general officer commanding the district. We recommend that change as consistent with a policy which we have adopted of transferring to local military authorities, where it is possible to do so consistently with public interests, functions which are now, as we believe unnecessarily, exercised at headquarters. The 5th clause removes doubts which have arisen as to the effect of the Madras and Bombay Armies Act, passed in 1893. Your Lordships may remember that under that Act the powers of the Commander-in-Chief of Madras and Bombay were transferred to lieutenant-generals, who are placed in command of districts. It was intended to transfer to lieutenant-generals of districts the powers possessed by the commanders-in-chief of those districts, but, by an accident, that transfer was not completely made, and the generals of districts have not, under the law as it now stands, power to reduce or commute a sentence, to make orders as to deserters, or to reduce noncommissioned officers. The clause remedies that omission, and restores this power to the general officers of districts. I think these are the only points I need

  9
  explain to your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.
  Standing Orders Nos. 39 and 45 dispensed with.
  Bill read a third time.

  LUNACY BILL.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  On clause 21.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I was unfortunately unable, on account of indisposition, to be present when this Bill was read a second time, but I am very glad to understand that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack held out some hope, in moving the Second Reading, that if objections were taken to the change in the law in respect of pensions and allowances to officers and servants of asylums proposed in this Bill, he would not be unwilling to reconsider the proposal. It will be within the recollection of the noble and learned Lord that last year I ventured to protest against this clause, which provides that the visiting committee of every asylum shall grant superannuations to such of their officers and servants as are engaged in the care or treatment of lunatics, and that it shall be the duty of the county council to confirm the grants so made, and I took a Division upon it. I was not successful, although I had considerable support, but I cannot say that the year which has passed has in any way reconciled either me, or those for whom I act, in regard to the change which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack proposes to make in the law. I confess I fail to understand the wisdom of further restricting the powers of county councils. Already, as your Lordships know, they have a very limited power over a large part of their expenditure, and this clause proposes to impose further restrictions upon them in regard to pensions and allowances to
  10
  officers and servants of lunatic asylums. From 1888 up to the present time county councils have enjoyed the right of determining for themselves whether they will grant pensions or not. I do not know what may be the case in other counties, but in the county with which I have the honour to be connected—namely, the West Riding of Yorkshire—the county council some years ago passed a resolution that they would not grant pensions to their officers, on the understanding that their servants should be paid larger salaries than would be the case if they were to be entitled to superannuations, and they have acted upon that resolution ever since. I am of opinion that this question of granting pensions is one which distinctly falls within the proper functions of a county council. Some county councils may grant these pensions, and others may object to do so, but it will be within the recollection of many of your Lordships that upon the question of principle, when it was discussed last year, the County Councils Association, which, to a great extent, represents the county councils of the country, took exception to this clause, and asked your Lordships to reject it, and to leave county councils in the position they have occupied with reference to this matter since their creation in 1888. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with a Division on this occasion. I reserve any step which I may consider it necessary to take, but I do most earnestly hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw this clause, which is regarded by the majority of the county councils in this country as an infringement of their discretion in withdrawing powers which they have, up to this time, possessed, and which I venture to say they have in no way abused. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider what will be the position in which the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire will be placed if this clause is passed. That county council, as I have said, have for several years past given good salaries upon the understanding that there will be no pensions. That is to say, they have gone into the market, and have given probably higher salaries than they would otherwise have done if the officers were to be entitled at the end of their term of service to a pen-

  11
  sion. If your Lordships pass this Resolution, in what position will you place the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire in regard to their officers and their servants, who have taken employment under these circumstances? You will give them the higher rate of salary which they have obtained, because there were to be no pensions, and you will give them pension as well. I am sure this is not a condition which would be fair either to the county council or to the officers and servants of that council. It might, of course, be possible, in regard to some of these officers, to force upon them a reduction of salary in consideration of the granting of the pension, but that would be a very undesirable step to take, and yet it almost seems that you would force the county council into that position unless they are prepared to spend more of the ratepayers' money than they would be justified in spending. Therefore, I hope the noble and learned Lord who has charge of this Bill will be able to say that this clause will not be proceeded with. I can assure him that the feeling on the subject is, or, at any rate, was last year, very decided, and that if he presses the clause, he must look to opposition both here and in the other House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I am not certain that it was necessary for the noble Marquess to state at such length the objection he has to this clause. I can at once announce that I do not propose to persist in this clause, but it must not be supposed that there is not another side to the question than that stated by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess says his mind has not been altered since last year. Neither has mine. I entertain a strong opinion that the question of the discipline of lunatic asylums and the question of pensions to officials, who should not be employed in these asylums for too long a time, are matters of Imperial concern. I quite feel, after the veiled threat of opposition both in this House and elsewhere which the noble Marquess was able to make, that it would be very undesirable, in what is otherwise a non-contentious Bill, to encounter any opposition, and if the noble Marquess moves to omit the clause, I shall not oppose the Motion.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot help expressing my satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not persevere with this clause. I share entirely the opinion of my noble Friend in his opposition to the clause. With the exception of some subsidies granted by the Government, the whole of the expenses of lunatic asylums are provided out of the rates, and it would be extremely unfair if the persons who bear the cost have not some control over the lunatic asylums. The matter is carried very far indeed already. With regard to pensions and allowances, there is no class of officers whose duties are more onerous than the officers of lunatic asylums, or who are more deserving of generous consideration in the matter of salaries and pensions; but I think the county councils are well able to exercise a wise discretion in the matter.
  Amendment proposed—
  "That clause 21 be omitted."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That clause 22 be omitted from the Bill."
  Motion agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported to the House.

  SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  Read third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LAND CHARGES BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which passed through the House without the slightest opposition last Session, but which was lost owing to there not being time to get it through the other House. The object of the Bill is to amend the law relating to charges on land, by giving fuller effect

  13
  to the policy of the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888, under which purchasers of land are protected from certain risks against which they formerly had no protection.
  Question put.
  Bill read a second time.

  ILLICIT SECRET COMMISSIONS BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this Bill be read a first time."
  *LORD RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to the pernicious practice of the gift and receipt of illicit secret commissions, and having done so, I shall ask your Lordships' leave to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject. I recognise that the responsibility rests upon me of satisfying your Lordships in the first place that this is a serious evil, and that it is of so grave a character as to justify and require a legislative remedy; and, in the second place, I have to satisfy your Lordships that the Bill which I propose for your acceptance, if it does not remove, will, at all events, offer a fair prospect of substantially diminishing the evil at which it is aimed. My Lords, this is not the first, nor the second, nor the third time that public attention has been called to this question. Bills, of a more or less incomplete or drastic character, dealing with the subject, have been introduced. As far back as 1877 "The Times" newspaper published an article, one passage from which I shall ask leave to read, in reference to the correspondence on the matter which had appeared in the columns of that journal, in the course of which it says:—
  "First came solicitors, accused of betraying the trust of their employers, and leaguing with third parties to divide fees to which they had no sort of just claim. Then followed bankers, auctioneers, architects, insurance agents, and accountants. There does not seem, in short, to be any end to the ramification of this canker, which has grown to such a height as to threaten the extinction of honest plain-dealing altogether. It may be traced, indeed, through a much wider ramification than the correspondence we have published has as yet disclosed, and through all shades of question-ableness, from direct bribery of the most cor-
  14
  rupt kind, such as that of the architect or engineer, who receives douceurs from the contractors and tradesmen, whom he is bound to overlook, to the more venial, but still not justifiable, gifts or 'discounts,' or 'half-commissions,' which nominally unpaid agents, such as bankers, may receive from a broker."
  The article then proceeds to suggest that Parliament should deal with the matter by legislation. My Lords, again and again learned judges on the Bench have animadverted on the pernicious character of the evil to which I am referring, and, indeed, what has induced me to pay particular attention to it has been my own personal experience, largely professional, in part judicial, in the matter. Accordingly, I have been at some pains in drafting a Bill, in conjunction with Sir Edward Fry, a man known to this House as one who rendered distinguished judicial service to the country, and who, like a great many others, has been impressed by the necessity of doing something effective at least to mitigate the evil. The first point which I will deal with is whether the evil is really widespread and serious. There is within reach of your Lordships, if not in your Lordships' hands, a Report by the London Chamber of Commerce, whose efforts in this matter, and the trouble it has taken to obtain evidence, under circumstances of extreme difficulty, are worthy of all praise, and I might indeed almost justify my contention on this part of the subject by reading to your Lordships one or two of the conclusions of the Special Committee of the Chamber of Commerce:—
  "Your Committee conclude from the evidence before them that secret commissions in various forms are prevalent in almost all trades and professions to a great extent, and that in some trades the practice has increased, and is increasing, and they are of opinion that the practice is producing great evil, alike to the morals of the commercial community and to the profits of honest traders."
  "Bribes in all forms, including secret commissions, owe their existence sometimes to the desire of the donor to obtain the assistance of the donee; sometimes to the demand expressed or implied of the donee that the bribe shall be given."
  "In the first class of cases your Committee have reason to believe that the bribe is often given unwillingly and with a pang of conscience, as the result of the keen competition in trade, and in the fear, too often well-founded, that unless given, other less scrupulous rivals will obtain an advantage; many cases have

  15
  come before your Committee in which traders have believed (often, though not perhaps always, without reason) that their entire failure to obtain orders has been due to the want of a bribe."
  "The second class of cases are those in which the recipient extorts the bribe from those who have established business relations with his principal. This practice is rendered more effective and oppressive by a combination between the blackmailers. The servant or agent who demands a commission and fails to receive it, not infrequently warns his fellows in the same position in the trade against the honest trader, who thus finds himself shut out from dealings with a whole circle of firms."
  Then the Committee proposed to consider the question of dealing with the matter by legislation, and, although recognising the difficulty of doing so, urge the necessity of adopting legislative measures. I propose to read to your Lordships one or two of the illustrative cases set out in the appendix of this Report. A member of the Institute of Mining Engineers wrote:
  "In some cases architects, engineers, and lawyers, in addition to their professional fees, expect a fee or payment in some form from builders, contractors, and investment companies. They are bound to pay them, or go without further orders. The only way to stop the pernicious practice is for the large professions to prevent their members from accepting these commissions."
  A pharmaceutical chemist stated that:—
  "Secret commissions are given by chemists to medical men on their prescriptions supplied to patients, in some cases amounting to from 25 to 50 per cent on the price charged by the dispensing chemist."
  It was also proved that doctors handed to the sorrowing widow an undertaker's card, and received a percentage of 10 to 20 per cent. on the funeral charges, though I should be sorry if your Lordships were to suppose that I believe this practice is general among medical men. There is no profession which renders more noble and freely gratuitous public service than the medical profession, and it is in the interests of that profession that the black sheep among them should be driven from the flock. A case came before the courts a little time ago, in which a company had been formed for the sale, in part, of some kind of medicated wine, said to be useful for particular diseases, and in which it was shown that founders' shares were distributed
  16
  amongst doctors upon the terms that the doctors were to puff the wares of the company. The Report then goes on to deal with cases of electrical and mechanical engineering, and one witness says:—
  "I have come in contact with several cases most prejudicial to the healthy development of trade generally, chiefly among the London engineers, who specify for particular makes of articles, and that everything shall be to their approval, in order to be able to press the contractors for money. Then there are consulting engineers of the highest standing and above all suspicion, but in whose offices there are men who, unknown to their employers, receive indirectly or directly commissions, and who levy blackmail on the contractors."
  Another case is that of a steward on a large estate who gives particulars of discounts and commissions having been received. In another case, in which a gunsmith supplied the owner of an estate with guns and ammunition, it came to the knowledge of the master that his gamekeepesr had been in the habit of receiving considerable bribes in the shape of commission. He wrote to the gunmaker and expostulated with him. The gunmaker replied that on the terms the owner of the estate suggested he must decline to supply him. The explanation he gave was, that if the servants were not bribed the guns would be represented as unsatisfactory, and objection would also be taken to the ammunition. Then the Report goes on to give illustrations relating to the cutlery trade. In this trade, it is stated that:—
  "The mischievous practice has done a great deal of harm to the proprietors of houses in London especially. The mode of levying blackmail goes right through in some houses, even to the boy who takes in the manufacturer's card to the buyer, their civility and attention having to be paid for by the unfortunate traveller. The mischief is very far spread."
  One witness said he had lost scores of orders through refusing to bribe, and added that the system of bribery that they had to contend against in London existed to an alarming extent, and if it were not stopped it would be impossible for honest men to do business. The system also prevails in regard to tin-plate workers and japanners. A Birmingham merchant wrote, calling attention to the same practice and a large wholesale warehouseman said:—
  "The abuse you are endeavouring to modify, if not eradicate, is a hydra-headed monster, whose operations are conducted underground and difficult to unearth."

  17
  Then I come to a case on which I would ask your Lordships' permission to dwell for one moment. It relates to the trade of dyeing in Yorkshire. One agent writes:—
  "It would not be too much to say that there are firms of very prosperous drysalters whose every account depends on bribery. It so permeates the trade that we cannot stop it. Dyes, which are worse than useless, are palmed upon the manufacturer to make up a respectable bribe to the men."
  A woollen cloth manufacturer and dyer said:—
  "I saw at once that unless I bribed the dyers I could do little or nothing. Dyers simply take the one they are paid secretly the most to use. Dyers, I hear, have 3d. per bag (1 cwt.) off logwood. Anyone who omits this cannot sell logwood. I know two honest men driven out of the trade. The Germans are the worst bribers. I had several vats I was trying for manufacturers deliberately spoilt because I would not bribe the men."
  One of the most painful experiences which I have had professionally was at the. Leeds Assizes, where I had to defend an old man, who had been in business for something like 50 years. He was a member of the local corporation. His son was succeeding him in business. He was charged at the Assize Court with having entered into a conspiracy with Lord Masham's foreman dyer to defraud Lord Masham, who is the head of a silk manufactory in Bradford, by invoicing goods which were never delivered, by invoicing inferior goods and charging the price of higher-class goods, and, occasionally, when they sent the best goods, by charging an excessive price for them. When I saw my client and his solicitor, I said: "If the evidence as on the depositions comes out, the case is hopeless. How could a man holding a respectable position, and so long before the public, be a party to such transactions?" His explanation was a very pathetic one. He said he could not help it; that he was driven to it. It began first with small commissions, but gradually the screw-was turned on, and his trade profit would have disappeared altogether if he had not fallen in with the arrangement. I asked him if he could not have gone to Lord Masham, and told him. He said he could, but the result would have been that the foreman would have been dismissed and another man put in his place, and, if he had not made an
  18
  arrangement with the new foreman, that man, when a vat containing perhaps £220 or £300 worth of stuff was in the process of dyeing, would have put some noxious stuff into the vat, and would have said to Lord Masham, "See the kind of drugs you are using. You will have to change your drug merchant." I do not believe that is at all an isolated case. A number of witnesses drew attention to the prevalence of bribery in the case of buyers for large houses and co-operative companies; also in the calico trade, the publishing trade, and the printing trade. I am sorry to say that the latter is one of the worst cases of all. I have had a letter from the representative of a large firm of dealers in ink, colour, and varnishes. He says:—
  "A certain newspaper in the provinces allowed their machine overseer to order inks, with the result that we had to pay this man 5s. per drum, so as to get the orders. When the price of inks fell, so as to make the 5s. per drum too heavy a, proportion to allow us a profit, the man suggested that we should send smaller drums, as they were not weighed.
  "A machine overseer called last week and said he was going to a new situation, and we must give him £2, as he had lost every penny (we think when drunk), otherwise he would not recommend our inks at his new place.
  "A manager of a large lithographic printers borrowed £20 from our traveller, and gave out orders for printing ink upon which he had 10 per cent. commission till the loan was cleared off."
  "A foreman who used our inks, on which he levied 1d. per pound, which he called "Chapel Money," regretted that he could not now use so much as formerly, as his employer had put in a gas engine in place of a boiler driven by steam, so there was no furnace in which he could get rid of any ink."
  The expression "Chapel money" perhaps needs a word of explanation. The phrase in the printing trade comes down, I believe, from the time of Caxton, who first printed in a crypt of Westminster Abbey. To this day, on the composing staff in a printing office, there is a member who is known as the "Father of the Chapel." The writer of the letter, from which I have just quoted, says that the acceptance of ink or machinery depends, except in cases where men look after their own business, not upon the excellence of the things, nor their price, but upon the amount of the bribes that are given. I have here original demands from over-

  19
  seers for Christmas-boxes, which are to be sent to them privately, and in some of these cases sums amounting to £25 have been paid. The Report also states that the practice prevails in the brewing trade, bribes being given to butlers, also to coachmen, gamekeepers, and even gardeners. With regard to the coal trade, there are in your Lordships' House noble Lords who are coal proprietors, and who, I hope, will give us the benefit of their experience, so that we may know what should be done in that trade to prevent this kind of thing. I had a remarkable experience in a case which at the time attracted a great deal of attention, and which had its grave and tragic, as well as its ludicrous side. I mean the case of the gas corporation in Salford, where the gas manager, having been charged by one Mr. Ellis Lever with such an offence—namely, insisting on bribes—prosecuted Lever criminally for a libel. It was proved at the time that he had taken bribes. It turned out, however, that Ellis Lever was in the best possible position to know that the man had taken bribes, as he had for years given them himself. I will read another passage from the Report of the Special Committee:—
  "At the first meeting of the Committee on the 2nd of February, a member, who is a wholesale merchant, stated that commissions were not so often asked for as expected, and that if the commission or bribe was not forthcoming, the account either diminished or was closed. The difficulty was to prove anything. In the export trade there was the pernicious practice of allowing a so-called trade discount. Frequently two invoices were asked for, and some traders even requested to be supplied with extra blank invoice forms."
  My Lords, I will make allusion also to the case of supplies to large institutions, whether they are hospitals, charitable institutions, asylums, or workhouses, in regard to which there is grave abuse, and a system of pernicious and corrupt bribery prevails. The case of the Grosvenor Hotel is in your Lordships' recollection, and my attention has been called to cases of other hotels quite as bad, and in some respects worse than the case of the Grosvenor Hotel, because in that case the principal person who was said to have benefited by these evil practices was a man largely interested in the hotel. Lastly, there is the case of buyers from wholesale houses. Again and again it has been proved before the
  20
  court that this system prevails. Quite recently, in a case tried before me— Oetzmann's case—it was proved that the wholesale buyer was regularly paid by the wholesale manufacturer, and in this way, and in this way only, were orders secured. There was one thing which has struck me very much in this matter—the host of letters that have been sent to me and to others in this connection, including Sir Edward Fry, through which there runs a very piteous note. Men, confessing themselves to have been parties to this very practice, beg and desire help in the endeavour to be emancipated from it. They hate the practice, and want to get rid of it, but feel tied hand and foot. My Lords, I should be disappointed if I have not said enough to show your Lordships that this is a serious matter, which requires to be dealt with, and dealt with by legislation. I would remind your Lordships that what you are asked to do in the present case is to extend to transactions of the kind that I have been describing the principle which is already on the statute book in the case of public bodies. The Act of 1889, passed at the instance of Lord Randolph Churchill, makes bribes to employees or officials of public bodies a criminal offence, to be dealt with by severe punishment. I desire your Lordships to remove the limitation which restricts that law merely to the case of public bodies. We are dealing with the case of transactions where the commission is illicit, illegal, and could have been recovered by action from the man who received it, and in respect of which a civil action could also have been brought against the man who paid it. Those are the cases in which I seek to make the giving and receiving of commissions a criminal act. I beg your Lordships to bear in mind that anyone who might come under the operation of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, can relieve himself of all dread of punishment under it if only he is open and above board. For instance, if a servant says to his master, "I am getting a commission from the coachbuilder," or from this or that tradesman, and the master consents to it, it is well and good, and so in the case of any other commission. The vice of this thing is its secrecy. I cannot better explain the objects of Bill than I have done in the opening sentence of the Explanatory

  21
  Memorandum which accompanies the Bill, and which says:—
  "The object of the Bill may be shortly stated as an effort to check, by making them criminal, a large number of inequitable and illegal secret payments, all of which are dishonest, and tend to shake confidence between man and man, and to discourage honest trade and enterprise."
  How do I propose to carry out that object by this Bill? In the first place, clauses 3 and 8 declare certain specific transactions are corrupt unless the contrary is shown. I can, I think, explain what I mean by that if I read one clause, the third:—
  "Every valuable consideration given or offered to an agent, by any person having business relations with the principal of such agent, shall be deemed to have been corruptly given or offered, unless it be proved—
  (a) That the principal had given his consent thereto; or
  "(b) That the valuable consideration was not calculated or intended, and had no tendency to corrupt the agent, by inducing him to do or to leave undone something contrary to his duty, or by creating any other undue influence on the mind of the agent."
  What goes to the pith of this matter is that the receipt of these commissions creates a conflict between interest and duty; that is the moral basis for the legislation which I am asking your Lordships to adopt. The clause to which I have referred meets the great majority of those cases. There is, of course, the other class of cases to which I have referred generally, and as to which, no doubt, a greater amount of controversy may be expected—I mean the cases where the advice is given by A to B to deal with C, and C pays A without the knowledge of B, to whom the advice was given. Such cases are those of doctors, undertakers, solicitors, and brokers already mentioned. In some of these cases the practice may be so wellknown that all parties may be taken to have known of and consented to the arrangement, and such a case would be entirely outside the statute. But the best class of professional men, whether in law or medicine, I believe, do not do such things as this Bill is designed to prevent. Another clause is aimed at the giving of false receipts, which is a favourite method for the payment of commissions. The receipt is given for the full amount, and appa-
  22
  rently no deduction at all is credited to the principal, the fact being that it is retained as a bribe by the agent. Then come the penal clauses, which are matters entirely to be dealt with by Parliament having regard to their views of the serious character of the offence. There is one provision which I ought to mention to your Lordships, which has been pointed out as essential by Sir Edward Fry, and by others interested in this question. There is enormous difficulty in getting evidence on these questions, and, therefore, somewhat in analogy to the provisions to be found in the Acts relating to bribery and corruption, there is a provision which would require a witness to give answers to questions, even though the answers might tend to incriminate him, but if he truly answers, then the judge who hears the case shall give him what is practically a certificate of indemnity. Another point is, ought this to be an Act which any person could put in force, or ought there to be in it a provision, as in the Act of 1889, requiring the fiat preliminary of the Attorney-General? My own impression is that the power should be given to the Attorney-General to exercise his power to enter a nolle prosequi if he thinks the case vexatious, or the like power could be given to a judge, if he takes the same view, in order to stay proceedings. That is all I have to say on the subject, of the Bill itself, but there is the further question of public opinion. We recognise that we cannot go much in advance of public opinion, because, if we do, the Act would become to a large extent a dead letter. It is, on the other hand, a curious fact that, while public opinion acts upon legislation, legislation acts upon public opinion; and, again and again it has been found that a man who does a thing before an Act of Parliament condemns it, shrinks from doing it after such an Act is passed. That such is the case is proved by the experience of the operation of the Act of 1889, to which I have referred. There have been few prosecutions under that Act, though there have been some in cases of corruption by employees or agents or representatives of public bodies; but the Act, nevertheless, had wrought a very material and very important change for the good (though there is still great room for improve-

  23
  ment), and in the same way I believe that one important effect of this Bill, if it passes into law, will be that many men will be glad to have this Act as an answer and a means of defence to which they can resort in resisting the attempts of blackmailers to insist upon payments or bribes for orders. My Lords, I am further in a position to inform your Lordships that those best entitled to speak upon this matter have spoken strongly in support of the Bill which I am asking your Lordships to read a first time. I have taken the course of circulating copies of the Bill, as I now present it to your Lordships, to every considerable Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain and Ireland, and in only three cases in their replies have Chambers of Commerce, so to speak, belittled the Bill, saying that the matter was of no great importance, and that, after all, this bribery is of a very trifling character. These exceptional cases are the Chambers of Commerce of Swansea, Cardiff, and Belfast, and in the last-mentioned instance the resolution of the Chamber was published in a local newspaper. Oddly enough, among the mass of letters I have received on the subject came one from a private correspondent in Belfast, telling me not to mind what the Chamber of Commerce said, and assuring me that the Bill was very much needed in Belfast, as it was in many other places. As to the other two places mentioned, my information is that these evil practices are rife in the coal, iron, and shipping trades. I will conclude by telling your Lordships that in the strongest language the Associated Chambers of Commerce have expressed gratification at the attention of Parliament being drawn to this growing reprehensible practice, which is greatly injurious to business, and cannot be too strongly deprecated in the interest of commercial integrity. Amongst the Chambers of Commerce from which I have received communications in this sense are those of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle, Sheffield, Batley, Wolverhampton, Luton, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dublin, and I have received similar communications from the Liverpool Provision Trade Association, and the West Yorkshire Federated Chamber of Trade. The Labour Association for promoting co-operative production, based on the co-partnership of the
  24
  workers, representing one and one-half million co-operators, with a capital of £20,000,000, and an annual trade of £60,000,000, has replied, giving the terms of a resolution which will be submitted to the Congress to be held at Liverpool at Whitsuntide, and which is as follows:—
  "That this Congress expresses its strong approval of the principle of the Bill promoted by the Lord Chief Justice with the object of bringing the practice of giving and taking secret and illicit commissions in trade and commerce under the criminal law, believing that such practices are seriously demoralising to individual character, injurious to industrial and commercial enterprise of every kind, and especially destructive and harmful to all forms of co-operation, and to municipal and public bodies generally."
  I feel strongly on this question, and have been led to detain the House at some length, with the hope that your Lordships will share the strong interest I feel. As a question of money, and as affecting trade, it is important, but that is not the only view presented to my mind. It is a practice that tarnishes the character of lawful commerce; it blunts the sense of honesty in the men engaged in it; it is injurious to the honest man, trying to conduct his business on high and honourable principles, and has a corrupting and degrading influence in ways that I need not formulate or define. I commend the Bill to your Lordships as an honest and a not hastily considered attempt to deal with what I conceive to be, and what, in the opinion of the Committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, is, a great and growing evil.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose there are none of your Lordships who do not heartily concur in the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in censure of the practice referred to. The difficulty, of course, is in the machinery by which the evil shall be put down, and in respect to that we must reserve opinion. Until the Bill is in your Lordships' hands it is impossible to say a priori if the machinery goes too far or not. This is not the first time a proposal of this nature has been before Parliament, and I remember one of the objections against a former Bill was that so stringent were its provisions that it was just possible a man might be liable to two years' imprisonment for giving

  25
  6d. to a railway porter at a railway station, and this objection killed the Bill. But something can be done in the direction the learned and noble Lord desires without going to such extremes, and I only now interpose to say that I heartily sympathise with my noble and learned Friend in the desire to put an end to the practice, and do not believe he has in the slightest degree exaggerated the evils resulting, and, so far as I can, I will aid in the conduct of the Bill in Committee. Over-severity is an error to be avoided, and it must not be assumed that human nature can be changed, or legislation might do more harm than good, and it would be well to consider if it would not be wiser to require some official recognition of a prosecution than to leave it at large to Her Majesty's subjects. A late Lord Chief Justice gave an illustration in point in reference to prosecutions for taking drugs into a brewery, when he said a brewer, if he lived in his brewery, might be fined £500 for having cayenne pepper on his breakfast table. It is necessary to have the law stringent, but it is guarded by the condition that action can only be taken through the Attorney-General. Of course, there is the difficulty of allowing the use of this extreme power to persons who might make trifling or absurd complaints, and to put into the hands of the Attorney-General the power of saying whether such should be made subject to litigation, would get rid of a great deal of the evil. Blackmailers would be likely to proceed, by making use of this Bill, unless the power of action were controlled. With a strong public feeling on the subject, there is a tendency to be somewhat violent in the application of a remedy, and to ask Parliament to give powers to create offences to an extent that would cause a reaction and do harm instead of good. I earnestly hope that my noble and learned Friend will be successful in carrying out a useful Measure, for which he will deserve the thanks, not only of your Lordships, but of the whole country.
  Question put.
  Bill read a first time.

  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Read the first time; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No.49.)

  PARISH COUNCILS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Read the first time; and to be printed. (No. 50.)
  House adjourned at forty-five minutes past Five of the clock.