Sitting of 1 April 1881

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For St. Ives, v. Sir Charles Reed, knight, deceased; for Northampton Borough, v. Charles Bradlaugh, esquire, who, since his election, has vacated his seat in Parliament by sitting and voting in this House without having taken and subscribed the oath prescribed by Law.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—London and South Western Railway.
PUBLIC BILLs—Ordered—First Beading—Local
Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [130].
Report—Inclosure Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* [112]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* [111].
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonakilty, &c.)* [103], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. W. B. BEACH,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a Bill which proposed various projects for the improvement of the South Western Railway system in various parts of the country; but, as most of them were practically unopposed, it was not desirable that he should trouble the House with any detail on the subject. It was sufficient to say that the projects in question were considered essential for the good working of the line in future. But there was one portion of the line which proposed to give increased accommodation between Surbiton, Cobham, and Guildford; and, to a considerable extent, the Bill in that respect would be in competition to the line proposed by another Bill, the second reading of which received the sanction of the House yesterday, and which had been referred to a Select Committee. All that he now asked was that the House would consent to the present Bill being referred to the same Committee, so that there might be a full opportunity afforded for judging of the merits of the measure. The only objection to the second reading

    453
    of the Bill, so far as he was aware, was on account of some interference with a common land. It was pointed out yesterday that it would be extremely difficult to touch the county of Surrey at all without interfering in some way with commons. So far as the present line went, from Surbiton to Cobham and Guildford, it only proposed to interfere with two commons. Goose Green would not be interfered with at all; but Ockham Common, and Great and Little Bookham Common, would be interfered with to a certain extent, although the interference would be very small indeed. There was no act of severance whatever, but the line would merely skirt these commons; and the Company gave an undertaking that the same amount of land that was taken away from the common in one direction should be added to it in another. Therefore, he was bound to say that, as far as this portion of the line went, there was very little substantial objection on the score of the commons. But, with regard to railroad number two, which proposed to go to Leatherhead, there was also, no doubt, some interference with common laud; but the same course was proposed to be taken by the Company who were promoting the Bill. As he had already stated, it would be difficult to make that or almost any other line in the county of Surrey without interfering with common lands to some extent; but, at the same time, there was this to be said in regard to the second part of the scheme, that the common which it was proposed to interfere with was situated on very low land, a great deal of it being upon marshy ground. The portion of the common through which the proposed line would pass was upon land that was of a particularly low and marshy description. That the interference with the common land was not great was proved by the fact that the majority of the inhabitants of the district, and of those who possessed the common rights, had presented a Petition to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in favour of the line being made—because, as they said, it would tend to promote good drainage, and render the rest of the common more useful for other purposes. There was, therefore, a strong feeling in the neighbourhood in favour of the line being made, provided that when the sanction
    454
    of Parliament was given to it, or before that sanction was given, an undertaking was given by the Railway Company that they would abide by the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to the execution of such works in the nature of planting, draining, or providing accommodation for getting from one side of the line to the other, as he, or any other properly constituted authority, might prescribe. Such an undertaking might, he thought, be extended to any other commons which the Railway Company might desire to touch. Such an undertaking would, he thought, render any interference with common land much less injurious than it might otherwise be; and, considering that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood were in favour of the Bill, he did not think the objections which were raised against it, on the ground of its interference with common lands, was an objection of a very valid description. All the promoters asked was that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee upstairs, so that there might be a full opportunity afforded of considering it and deciding it upon its merits. What they desired was that the Committee, to whom a Bill upon the same subject had already been referred, should also have the present measure referred to them. Such a Committee would have an ample opportunity for judging of the merits of the respective schemes, and of arriving at a fair and impartial decision. He begged, without further preface, to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. B. Beach.)
    MR. BRYCE,who had a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months, said, the reason why he had given Notice of a Motion for the rejection of the Bill on the second reading was that the measure proposed to inflict very serious and permanent injury on some of the most valuable Surrey commons. It proposed altogether to interfere with five of them; and as regarded two of the five, it would take no less than 11 acres, and would not only intersect and sever them, but would most prejudicially affect pieces of scenery which were among the most beautiful in the comity of Surrey. The

    455
    case against the Bill in respect of these commons was so strong that, if the matter rested merely on that point alone, he would feel much confidence in asking the House to reject the Bill. He was, however, bound to say that the matter did not rest there. There was another scheme before the House for the construction of a railway in this district. The Guildford, Kingston, and London Railway Bill was discussed yesterday, when the House gave it a second reading, and sent it to a Select Committee. It might be said, with some force, that, under those circumstances, it would be unfair that the rival scheme of the London and South Western Railway Company should not be referred to a Select Committee at the same time; and, therefore, he did not think it right that he should press his opposition to the Bill. At the same time, he believed that the decision of the House yesterday was not arrived at in any spirit of indifference to the preservation of these commons, but because large concessions were proposed to be made by those who brought the measure forward, and because the House believed that if the suggested improvements were made the railway would be useful in the way of opening up the common lands in Surrey for the recreation and enjoyment of the great masses of the people of London. He should certainly insist upon his opposition to the present Bill, if it were not for the fact that the two schemes which had been submitted to the House ought, in fairness, to be heard and tried together. He was fortified by the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. W. B. Beach) in the supposition that the South Western Railway Company were also ready to do something to remove the objections which those who were interested in the preservation of commons took against the Bill. At the same time, he thought he ought to say that if the present measure passed, and came back to the House containing provisions so objectionable as those which now appeared in it, it would be the duty of those who valued these commons for the benefit and enjoyment of the people to offer to the measure the most strenuous opposition on the third reading. He certainly hoped, if the Bill was read a second time now, that such provisions would be inserted
    456
    in it as would render it unnecessary to take that course on a future stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUT-DOOR RELIEF TO WIVES OF PRISONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Daily Express" of 21st March:—
  "At the meeting of the Ballina Guardians on Saturday, 19th March, the relieving officer presented an application from Mrs. Daley, of Crossmolina, the wife of Thomas Daley, who was last week arrested and lodged in Kilmainham. It was shown that she had five children, the youngest being an infant of one month, and that she had fifteen acres of land in cultivation. The clerk said the Act provided for the granting of out-door relief. The Board finally decided on granting 3s. 6d. per week;"
  and, whether, in view of the fact that the family are deprived of the father's help to work their holding, the Government could influence the Local Government Board to take steps to have the grant increased, say to a pound a-week?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the Local Government Board would take care that if the Guardians thought this woman ought to receive extra out-door relief, that the necessary order should be given empowering them to grant it. The Local Government Board had no power to order the Guardians to give out-door relief beyond what the Guardians thought right, and the grant might be given either in food or fuel.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether he was to understand that the Local Government Board had already communicated with the Board of Guardians on the subject?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that his information stated that they had; but there appeared to be some doubt as to whether the Board had power to make the grant. The Local Government Board would take care, if the Guardians had power to give the outdoor relief, so far as the order required was concerned, there would be no difficulty.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY—THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF HERTFORD.
  MR. ABEL SMITHasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the Ordnance Survey of the parishes adjoining the town of Hertford will be completed?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, the Survey had been completed with reference to the parishes in question, and might be obtained in the Survey Department.

  SOUTH AFRICA—SE U U I.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of Sekukuni, and as to the kind of treatment that he has received during his imprisonment at Pretoria?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I regret, Sir, that we, have no information about Sekukuni's life in Pretoria; but as soon as communication with that place is reestablished, we will call for a Report.

  AFGHANISTAN (POLITICAL AFFAIRS) —YAKOUB KHAN AND ABDUR RAHMAN.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether an opportunity will be given to the people of Candahar of expressing their preference between the Ameer Yakoub Khan, now a prisoner in India, and Abdur Rahman, previous to the town and district being handed over by Her Majesty's Government to the latter; and, whether, as Her Majesty's Government have declared their intention of refraining from further interference with the domestic politics of the Afghan people, the imprisoned Ameer, Yakoub Khan, will be forthwith set at liberty and enabled to return to his country and supporters?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, it had been considered proper, at the end of the year 1879, by the then Government of India that Yakoub Khan, upon his abdication, should be transferred to India. He was not, as stated, a prisoner, but was kept there under surveillance. There was no intention of, in any way, assisting in his return to Afghanistan. While the Go-
  458
  vernment had, as stated in the Question, declared their intention, as far as possible, to refrain from further interference with the domestic politics of the Afghan people, they had also declared their intention to assist, if possible, in the restoration of a settled Government in Afghanistan. Certainly they had no intention of taking a step which would have the result of increasing the calamities from which Afghanistan was suffering.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—KILMAINHAM GAOL—THE PRISON FARE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the persons detained in Kilmainham under the Coercion Act have come to a resolution to use only the prison fare; and, if he will give instructions for a better kind of bread to be supplied to them than that of which he has been sent samples?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, with respect to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member, I may say that I did receive a sample of bread; but, as no letter accompanied it, I could not tell who it came from. With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that I have seen a statement to that effect in the newspapers. I do not know whether it is true or not, and it is not my business to inquire. As regards the second part of the Question, all I can say with respect to it is, that if there is reasonable ground of complaint as to the bread, or any other article of food, I have not the slightest doubt that, on its being represented either to the doctor or to the Governor of the Prison, it would be inquired into.

  MUTINY ACTS—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Members of both Houses of Parliament, like all other male subjects of Her Majesty, are liable to corporal punishment, if convicted of committing offences punishable under the 7 and 8 Geo. 4; 14 and 15 Vic.; 24 and 25 Vic.; and 26 and 27 Vic.; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention of repealing those Acts?
  CAPTAIN PRICE,before the Question was answered, wished to know, Whether the punishment of the pillory had not been abolished as a relic of a barbarous age, and whether the proposal to attach a soldier to the tail of a cart was not equally barbarous?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, the right hon. and gallant Admiral had unintentionally added to the labour of answering the Question by not giving any chapters, and so rendering it necessary to refer to many hundreds of Acts of Parliament. He (the Attorney General) supposed the offences punishable under the statutes would be acts of violence, and his answer to the first portion of the Question would be in the affirmative—that Members of Parliament, in common with all other persons, were equally liable to corporal punishment. He was not aware that any Member of Her Majesty's Government had any apprehension that in consequence of the existence of these laws, any Members of Parliament were likely to be subjected to corporal punishment; and he did not understand that there was any intention to repeal them. He did not know whether the putting of the Question had any reference to legislation affecting our soldiers and sailors; but the Government had no intention of repealing the Acts mentioned in the Question, because they did not see any analogy between garotting and the offences against Army and Navy discipline. In reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), he could see no such connection between the pillory and the summary punishment now proposed in the Army as would render the latter a violation of the Act which abolished the pillory.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, Whether it was not a fact that Acts existed for Ireland allowing the infliction of corporal punishment and other barbarous punishments for crimes other than those in the Act referred to?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)suggested that the hon. Member should give Notice to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORthereupon addressed his Question to the latter.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): I understand the hon. Member to ask, are there Acts in force in Ireland providing corporal punishment? Yes; there are.

  AFRICA, WEST—THE GOLD COAST.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any foundation for the statement of the Gold Coast correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian," to the effect that the Lieutenant Governor has demanded from King Mensah an indemnity of 500 ounces of gold in order to recoup to some extent the expenses incurred in the recent war preparations; and, whether it is intended, as stated by the same correspondent, that a demonstration of the Colonial forces shall take place at Prahsue?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, neither of these statements is confirmed by any information which has reached Her Majesty's Government.

  INDIA (FINANCE, &c.)—THE BUDGET STATEMENT.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, What is the estimated rate of exchange for 1880–81 in the recent Budget Statement of the Government of India; and, if he will lay the Budget Statement upon the Table of the House as soon as it arrives from India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the rate of exchange estimated in the present year is 1s. 8d. I may mention that the average price paid for the Secretary of State's Bills during the year which has just expired has been within a very small fraction of that amount. There will be no objection to lay the Budget Statement on the Table as soon it is received.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS).
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the total strength of Her Majesty's Forces of all arms now serving in Natal and the Transvaal; and, whether, in view of the state of affairs subsisting there at present, the Government will consider the advisability of delaying the de-

  461
  parture of troops from thence until the Royal Commission has made its Report?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to inform him that he is entirely in error in assuming, as the second part of his Question does, that we are withdrawing troops from South Africa. When the peace negotiations were concluded, there were in Natal and the Transvaal eight regiments of Infantry, two of Cavalry, and three batteries of Artillery. The number which we have decided to retain there for the present is ten regiments of Infantry, four of Cavalry, three batteries of Artillery, and other branches of the Service, making up a force of above 12,000 men. What we have done in consequence of the conclusion of the arrangemets is to intercept two Infantry regiments on their way from the Mediterranean, one on its way from Ceylon, a battery of Artillery on its way from this country, and some drafts. On the other hand, we have strengthened the garrison at the Cape by another battalion. There will be thus 12 regiments of Infantry, four of Cavalry, and four batteries in the two South African commands, besides Engineers, Army Service, and Army Hospital corps.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked, whether any regiments had been sent from Natal?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have stated that we have intercepted two regiments from the Mediterranean, neither of which had arrived at its destination, one from Ceylon, which had reached Durban a few days after the negotiations had taken place, and a battery of Artillery which had arrived at St. Vincent. But the forces in South Africa have been increased by the regiments I have mentioned.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked, if the intercepted regiments were on their way home?
  MR. CHILDERS: One is on its way home, another is relieving a regiment from the Mediterranean which will come home, and a third has gone back to Ceylon, which is its present station.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked, whether the 7th Hussars were to be brought home?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I forget how many squadrons have actually arrived; but the whole regiment will be retained.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (STATISTICS)—NATIVES AND EUROPEANS.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, having regard to the proposed delimitation of the boundaries of the Transvaal, it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to include in the next issue of South African Papers a map showing the number of Natives and Europeans residing in the several districts of the Transvaal?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that we cannot give such a map in the next South African Paper, which is nearly ready; but we will in a subsequent one give a map which will show what we believe to be the numbers.

  ARMY—MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE TRANSVAAL—DESPATCH OF FORCES.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that certain Regiments which ought to have gone to the Transvaal were not sent in consequence of the notorious incompetency of their commanding officers?
  MR. CHILDERS: I saw this statement in a weekly paper; but I am happy to say that it is absolutely without foundation. I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for asking me the Question.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF JOSEPH B. WALSH.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Under what statute Joseph B. Walsh, at present detained in Kilmainham Prison, could be sentenced, if convicted of the charge of which he is now said to be reasonably suspected, to seven years' penal servitude or three years' imprisonment; and, whether the statute applies to England?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The sentence would be under the statute 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 44, s. 6, if imprisonment were awarded in the punishment of the offence, or under that enactment and the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 3, if it was a sentence of penal

  463
  servitude. The former Act does not apply to England. The latter is, of course, applicable to the whole United Kingdom.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Is the first Act which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one of those known as the Whiteboy Acts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Yes.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to give Notice that I shall, on Monday, ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the offence of which J. B. Walsh is said to be reasonably suspected, and for which he is liable to be detained in Kilmainham Prison for 18 months, would not, if committed in England, come under the picketing section of the Conspiracy Act, and if the maximum penalty for that offence is not three months' imprisonment, and if the Whiteboy Acts, under which J. B. Walsh would be liable to the heavy sentences mentioned by the Attorney General for Ireland be not one of those statutes which, among other barbarous penalties, enforce periodic floggings?

  THE CENSUS, 1881—THE HOUSE-HOLDERS' SCHEDULES.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there is any objection to delivering the Census papers to the enumerators in a sealed envelope; and, what directions have been given to prevent the papers in question being used for the gratification of private curiosity?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, there is no objection to the delivery of Census schedules to the enumerator in a sealed envelope, other than the delay and trouble which the opening will cause. The enumerator, in order to carry out his instructions, must examine the schedules and see that the required particulars are properly entered. Among the illiterate classes, the enumerator, it is found, has himself to fill up 50 per cent of the schedules. With regard to privacy, the apprehension of individuals that the contents of the schedule will become known in the neighbourhood is, I think, unfounded. The enumerator is for this purpose a Government officer, and page 20 of his book of instructions contains this warning to him——
  "You will bear in mind that the householders' schedules are to be regarded as of a
  464
  confidential character, it being expressly stated upon each that the facts will be published in general abstracts only, and strict care will be taken that the returns are not used for the gratification of private curiosity. It will be highly improper, therefore, for any Census officer to give publicity to any portion of their contents, or to allow them to be examined by any unauthorized persons for any purpose whatever."

  CRIMINAL LAW—ARREST OF THE EDITOR OF "THE FREIHEIT."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state under what Law or Statute the editor of the "Freiheit" newspaper was arrested, deprived of his watch, money, bank book, and letters; and under what Law or Statute the police were authorised in forcibly ejecting the compositors from the premises, seizing the keys, and locking up the house?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, the editor of The Freiheit newspaper was arrested under a warrant issued by Sir James Ingham; that warrant was granted upon sworn information that an indictable offence had been committed, and was a perfectly legal warrant. I am informed by the police authorities that upon his arrest the defendant voluntarily divested himself of all property on his person. He was requested to retain possession of it, but declined to do so, wishing a friend to hold the articles for him. The police then took possession of the articles, which are, I believe, with a slight exception, correctly described in the noble Lord's Question. The watch, money (amounting to £2), and a loan, not bank, book have been restored to the accused person. No one was forcibly ejected from the premises. When a person is arrested on a criminal charge the police doubtless would, in the execution of their duty, take possession of any documents or property from which evidence bearing upon the case might reasonably be expected to be obtained. It is necessary for the administration of justice that this should be done. If the police exceed their duty in this respect, anyone injured would have a right of action. The room which was occupied by the accused has been temporarily locked up for the sake of the protection of his property; but the rest of the house and the workshop are occupied.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868, AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACTS, 1879 AND 1880—THE REPORTED BOROUGHS.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked Mr. Attorney General, If he can state what prosecutions he has instituted or intends to institute against persons reported to have been guilty of corrupt practices by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into corrupt practices at the last general election?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he had considered the desirability of instituting legal proceedings upon the Reports of seven of the Bribery Commissions. In the case of Knaresborough it was not suggested that any prosecutions should be instituted. In the cases of Canterbury and Chester, although the Reports were silent on the subject, the Commissioners had reported officially to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and himself that they purposed granting certificates of indemnity to all persons whom they had examined; and as all who were implicated in corrupt practices were examined, everybody was protected from prosecution. In the case of Gloucester, the Commissioners stated that certificates had been, or would be, granted to all, except one or two, who, however, could not be prosecuted. The Boston Commissioners reported that corrupt practices had been committed by certain persons whom they had refused to examine, and, as the evidence appeared sufficient to support a prosecution, proceedings had been instituted against them and also against four persons for perjury. The Macclesfield Commission had reported that two persons, whom they had not examined, had been guilty of corrupt practices, and proceedings would be taken against both. In the case of Sandwich, nine persons were scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices and unprotected by certificates; but the Commissioners had since intimated that two of them, Mr. Wylie and Mr. Ginnell, had been placed in the schedule by mistake, and it was intended to give them certificates of indemnity. The evidence against the other seven persons was under consideration, with a
  466
  view to taking proceedings against such of them as the evidence would justify. Perhaps the House would allow him to give an explanation with reference to a statement that all the persons ordered to be prosecuted in the Boston case entertained one particular political opinion. On reading the evidence he thought that was the fact; but he hoped he might be allowed to explain that the question who should be prosecuted must be governed by the Report of the Commissioners. To the names given by the Commissioners he could not add one, nor had taken one away. He had, practically, but little discretion in the matter, and he was sure the House would believe that the question of the political views of any individual had not in the smallest degree influenced him.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSinquired what course it was proposed to take with regard to those gentlemen who were scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices, and who happened to be justices of the peace?
  MR. ONSLOWasked what course would be taken in the case of aldermen and town councillors reported as having been guilty of bribery?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMEs),in reply, said, that the question, so far as it affected justices of the peace, was peculiarly within the province of the Lord Chancellor, who had already, in the case of two Commissions, had the names of justices of the peace brought before him, and after reading the evidence affecting them, his Lordship thought it right to call upon them to show cause why their names should not be moved from the commission of the peace. As far as he knew, it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to adopt the same course with regard to every scheduled justice of the peace. With regard to aldermen and town councillors, they wore an elected body, and the only way of dealing with members of that body who were scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices was by special legislation.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: In the event of aldermen or town councillors acting as justices of the peace by virtue of their office, will the Lord Chancellor have power to prevent them so doing?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he thought that the only case of the kind

  467
  would be a mayor, who acted as a magistrate for his term of office, and ex officio for one year after; and if it should turn out that such a person was scheduled, he would call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the case; but he doubted his power to interfere in such cases.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SPEECH OF MR. DILLON AT THURLES.
  MR. WARTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following language, reported to have been used by the honourable Member for Tipperary in a recent speech at Thurles:—
  "He warned them to keep up the system of hunting down the land grabber, and pulling down land grabbing—to let the land grabber know that, no matter what Mr. Justice Fitzgerald or Lord Justice Fitzgibbon might say, he would be Boycotted and Boycotted worse than ever he was before Coercion;"
  and, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in respect of such language?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had been furnished with an official report of the language used by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) on the occasion referred to, and he had seen other reports, but no report similar to that given in the Question, which differed very materially from the official report.

  ARMY—HALE-PAY CAPTAINS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case, he would provide that captains who, through their regiment being disbanded or being compulsorily placed on half-pay, had not attained the rank of major, should not be retired at 42 years of age without some special consideration, such as an extension of time equal to that lost by such disbandment or compulsory half-pay, and that the same advantages should be given as have been given to other purchase officers?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I cannot hold out any expectation to my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall be able to make any change in the existing Regulations so far as they affect captains on half-pay who have been placed there
  468
  either permanently or, some years ago, without any right or prospect of re-employment. But there may possibly be some cases of the latter, with which I am not acquainted, deserving inquiry; and, without holding out any hope in the matter, I have directed the subject to be carefully looked into by the committee now sitting.

  CENTRAL ASIA—ADVANCE OF THE RUSSIANS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "République Française" of March 14th, from its correspondent in Central Asia, in which he affirms the accuracy of his previous statements with regard to the rapid advance of the Russian railway from the Caspian towards Herat, and especially to the fact stated by the correspondent that no obstacle now intervenes to prevent its immediate completion throughout the whole of the Akhal region, and that measures are being taken by the Russian commanders to dominate Khorassan and secure the trade of Herat; and, whether under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government will complete the British railway to Candahar, in order to prevent the whole trade of Afghanistan, Norther Persia, and the Turcoman Country from falling to Russia? Before the noble Lord replied to the Question, he would ask permission of the House to read two extracts. ["No, no!"] They were extracts from the article in question, and they were of great interest and importance. ["Oh, oh!"] And if it was necessary for him to obtain the privileges of a Member of that House, he would conclude by making a Motion. [Laughter, and "Oh, oh!"] He would not read those extracts until he obtained a fair hearing. ["Order, order!"] He should conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. The correspondent complained that his statements—[Loud cries of "Order!"]——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes to put the Question of which he has given Notice. He is not entitled to enter into any extraneous matter, excepting so far as may be necessary for making his Question plain.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: That is precisely my object, Sir. These ex-

  469
  tracts are not extraneous, but are made from the correspondent's letter, and they will make the Question perfectly plain. I have refrained from putting them on the Paper, because they would occupy so much space; but I am quite able to read them within five minutes. I am within my right in asking to read them. [Cries of "Name him!" and Laughter.]
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, if any Member of this House is entitled, when he asks a Question, to read an extract from a written document which will occupy five minutes in reading?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to do so, if the extracts are necessary to make the Question clear. I must say, however, that the Question of the hon. Member on the Paper appears to be quite plain, and it requires no elucidation with regard to matter of fact.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: If I understand you, Sir, to rule that I am out of Order in reading these extracts, I shall not do so; but, at the same time, I wish to protest against the way in which, the moment I rose, and before I had the opportunity of saying two words—["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Name him!"]—I wish to protest, Sir, against the manner——
  MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether it is in Order for any hon. Member to protest against your decision?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand the hon. Member to protest against my decision.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am not protesting against your decision, Sir, but against the organized interruption from the other side of the House. [Opposition cheers.] It has been too common of late with the Party opposite. I wish to ask you finally, Sir, whether these extracts, which are very important, and will only take a very short time to read, and which are necessary to illustrate my Question, are out of Order? I wish to ask, distinctly, whether I am out of Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must inform the hon. Member that it appears to me the Question which he has put on the Paper is quite plain. The document which he
  470
  proposes to read seems to me to be unnecessary.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: In deference to your wishes, rather than to your ruling—[Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name him!"]——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he must act upon his own responsibility; but I am bound to tell him that his reference to certain Papers seems to be unnecessary to make his Question clear. The Question is perfectly plain.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I shall not read the extracts then, Sir. What I meant to say was, that I understood you to express a wish rather than a ruling; I did not mean that I would not obey your ruling. I protest, Mr. Speaker, against this organized interruption, which prevents me from enjoying the rights and privileges of a Member of this House. From the first moment that I opened my mouth, and before a word was heard, I have been subjected by the Radical Benches below the Gangway to a deliberate clamour, instances of which have been too common in the House of late. I shall refrain from reading these extracts, not owing to that interruption—for, if necessary, I am prepared to remain here till I am heard—but solely in deference to your wishes. I beg now to ask the noble Marquess the Question which stands in my name.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I regret very much that the hon. Member should not have had an opportunity of reading the statements he has referred to. I am of opinion, however, that the Question which he asks is perfectly plain without them. I think that, on a former occasion, he called the attention of the House to the statements of the correspondent of The République Française, and it is, no doubt, perfectly correct that the correspondent, in a subsequent statement, affirmed the substantial accuracy of the statement he previously made. As to our information on the subject, the information which has been received by the Foreign Office is that The Golos published a telegram of the 8th of February, stating that the railway had been extended in the direction of Akhal a distance of 106 versts, or about 75 miles. I am not aware that there is any obstacle to the continuance of the railway through the Akhal territory; but I am not aware

  471
  that the Foreign Office is in possession of any information which leads us to suppose that measures are being taken by the Russian commanders to dominate Khorassan and secure the trade of Herat. In regard to the latter part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government have not any intention of completing the railway to Candahar for the purpose of preventing the trade of Afghanistan, Northern Persia, and the Turcoman country from falling to Russia.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Mr. Speaker, I shall, at the earliest possible moment, bring this question again before the attention of the House.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—BLOCKADE OF PRETORIA.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS- BEACHbegged to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question, of which he had given him Private Notice—namely, Whether his attention has been called to certain telegrams which have appeared in the morning papers to the effect that "The Boers around Pretoria, having been reinforced by the beseigers of Potchefstroom with the two guns captured at that place, have repulsed a sortie of the British garrison, pursuing them into the fort and inflicting upon them considerable loss?" He wished to ask whether the Government have received any information corroborating that statement; and, if so, whether they will state what instructions have been sent to Sir Evelyn Wood on the subject? If no such information has been received, he would like to know whether the Government will telegraph as to the accuracy of the statement?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, no such information has reached Her Majesty's Government; but I understood from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, that he has to-day received a telegram from Sir Evelyn Wood, who makes no reference to the circumstance reported in the newspapers. Therefore, we assume that he has received no information of the kind; for he surely might be expected to mention such an event, if it was known to him. I presume there will be no difficulty in telegraphing to him to inquire into the matter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask a Question of which I have not given private Notice. It is very desirable, Sir, that the course of the Government in respect to the Transvaal should be discussed in this House on an early day. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) to give Notice of a Motion on the subject; but it would clearly be desirable, before any such Motion was discussed, that the House should be in possession of all the information which the Government can communicate to Parliament. As I understand, the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated last night that the Instructions he is about to address to the Commissioners are likely to contain fuller information than it has been possible to give hitherto by telegram, and will deal with the whole policy of the Government. I wish to ask, When those Instructions will be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will communicate with my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) on the subject. I have to a certain extent discussed the Instructions with him, and, undoubtedly, there are parts of those Instructions which it will not be convenient or desirable, having regard to the interests of the Public Service, to lay before Parliament; but I will confer with him to see what further we can lay on the Table, with the view of giving fuller information to the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked, whether it was expected to receive full despatches from Sir Evelyn Wood of all that had passed from the time he was appointed to the supreme command in South Africa to the date of the preliminaries of peace with the Boer Leaders; and, if so, whether they would be laid at once on the Table of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This, also, has been a matter of communication between me and my noble Friend, and I hope that before the Easter Recess we shall be able to communicate to the House fuller information which will have been received by mail.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked, whether the Government would

  473
  communicate by telegraph with the authorites at the Cape in reference to the reported outrage at Pretoria?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had always been chary of telegraphing to inquire as to the truth of reports in newspapers, of which they had had no official intimation; and in every case but one where he had done so the reports proved to be inaccurate. He had received telegraphic despatches from the General commanding of as late a date as the telegram contained in the newspaper referred to; but the matter had attracted so much attention in the House that he should, within half-an-hour, telegraph to Sir Evelyn Wood for information regarding it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that, on Monday, he would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the accounts in the newspapers of the evictions taking place in the West of Ireland since the passing of the Coercion Act; and, whether, in view of that state of things, pending the introduction of the measure to strengthen the legal position of the Irish tenant, Her Majesty's Government will continue to use the armed forces of the Crown to assist in perpetration of barbarities of that kind?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he would be surprised if the statements referred to by the hon. Member were correct; if so, the matter should be inquired into. He would send the Question over to Ireland to-night for inquiry, and if the hon. Member would put in on Tuesday, he would give as full an answer as he could get.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE LAND LEAGUE MEETING AT MIDDLETON.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any further information as to the riot at Middleton on the 21st ultimo; and, whether he is prepared in the circumstances to forbid a general meeting of the Land League which has been advertised for next Sunday?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, there could be no doubt that on the 21st ultimo there was a disturbance at the
  474
  place alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member; but the report in the newspapers was somewhat exaggerated. As to the meeting, the Irish Government, so far as he was aware, had not got positive information as to whether it was to be held on Sunday or not; and they certainly had not got such information as would warrant them in prohibiting it. He stated yesterday that the borough of Middleton was in a disturbed state, and a special meeting of the Council in Ireland was held to-day for the purpose of proclaiming that barony and the rest of East Cork.

  POOR RATE (METROPOLIS)—GRAY'S INN.
  MR. GRAY (for Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR)asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state what sum was recovered last year by the Honourable Society of Gray's Inn from the tenants of their Inn on account of Poor's Rate, and what amount was paid by the said Society to the parish in which the said Inn is situate for and in respect of the same?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, all I can say in reply to the Question is that Gray's Inn now forms part of the Holborn Union, and that the amount of Poor Rates raised in respect of the property within the limits of the Inn for the year ended March 25, 1880, was £980.

  AFGHANISTAN—GENERAL SIR FREDERICK ROBERTS'S MARCH—VOTE OF THANKS.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, Whether the Government had yet come to a determination to propose a Vote of Thanks to General Sir Frederick Roberts and the Army under his command for their gallant and memorable march from Cabul to Candahar? When he last put the same Question, the noble Marquess said he was only waiting for despatches from India on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I hope very shortly to be able to state what the views of the Government are on this subject; but until I can name a day on which I can bring forward such a Motion, it is no use of giving an answer on the subject.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, whether the Government intended to propose any Vote of Thanks at all?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If the hon. Member will give me Notice of the Question, I will answer it.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to say that I will repeat the Question on Monday.

  FRANCE—THE FORTHCOMING MONETARY CONFERENCE IN PARIS.
  MR. PULESTONasked, Whether it is true that the Government have decided not to send a Representative to the forthcoming Monetary Conference in Paris?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that he was unable to give a positive reply. When he last heard on the subject the question was not closed. The hon. Member knew that the invitation which was sent us entirely pledged us to bi-metallism.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH)—NEW WRIT FOR THE BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON.
  Moved for—
  "New Writ for Northampton Borough,—in the room of Charles Bradlaugh, esquire, who, since his election, has vacated his seat in Parliament by sitting and voting in this House without having taken and subscribed. the oath prescribed. by Law."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that before that question was decided, the House ought to hear from Her Majesty's Government what was their opinion upon that matter. Hon. Members would probably remember that some time ago his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) gave Notice of a similar Motion to that just made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere), and afterwards objected to Mr. Bradlaugh presenting Petitions on the ground that he had vacated his seat by reason of his having sat and voted in that House without having taken and subscribed the Oath or Affirmation required by law. At that time, if his (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) memory served him correctly, the hon. and learned Attorney General stated to the House that the matter was still sub judice, and that although it was true that one of the learned Judges of the High Court of Justice had decided against Mr. Bradlaugh, that as long as it was open to that Gentleman to appeal against that decision to the Court of Appeal, no new Writ could be issued, and that, until it was decided,
  476
  Mr. Bradlaugh must be considered a Member of the House. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General how the position of the ease, as it stood at the present moment, differed from that which it occupied when that statement was made? As he understood the matter, Mr. Bradlaugh had still the right to appeal to the House of Lords, and was indeed appealing, or had expressed his intention of appealing, to that House. It might be said that Mr. Bradlaugh intended to appeal to the House of Lords against one part only of the judgment of the Court of Appeal—namely, that which related to the right of a common informer to bring the action against him for penalties without the consent of the Attorney General, and did not intend to appeal against that part of it which related to his right to make an Affirmation in lieu of taking an Oath. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether an appellant had the power of appealing against one part only of a judgment, without the House of Lords being able to go into the whole of the judgment appealed against? He should like to know from the hon. and learned Attorney General how one point in a cause could still be sub judice, while the decision of the Court was final with regard to another point in it? Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman told him to the contrary, he should believe that the position of Mr. Bradlaugh at the present moment was precisely that which he occupied when the Law Officers of the Crown declared that the matter was still sub judice, at the time the hon. and learned Member for Chatham asked the House not to receive the Petition presented by Mr. Bradlaugh. As matters had turned out, it was a satisfaction to those who had thought fit to object to Mr. Bradlaugh snaking an Affirmation, that the Courts of Law had determined, hitherto, at all events, that their objection was well founded; and he thought that the House should express their acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer -Walpole), who, as Chairman of the first Committee appointed to consider the question, had, against the opinion of several hon. and learned Gentlemen, unhesitatingly given his casting vote in favour of the law as decided by the Courts of Law. In justification of the

  477
  course they had taken, he could not help reminding the House of the Motion brought forward by the hon. and learned Attorney General on the Committee, and supported by the hon. and learned Solicitor General in these terms—
  "In the opinion of the Committee persons entitled under the provisions of 'The Evidence Amendment Act, 1869,' and 'The Evidence Amendment Act, 1870,' to make a solemn declaration instead of the Oath in courts of justice may be permitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of the Oath in the House of Commons."
  That, he presumed, was the expression of the opinion of both those hon. and learned Gentlemen, supported, he would admit, by lawyers of great authority, among them two friends of his own, who had since been appointed Judges, the death of one of whom the House had recently to deplore. An Amendment was proposed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "cannot;" and the Judges had just decided that the word "cannot" ought to be inserted in that Resolution instead of the word "may." They did not stop there. A second Committee was appointed, on which he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) sat himself, and, after a long argument, and a great many votes and resolutions, it was decided by an enormous majority that Mr. Brad-laugh had no right to take the Oath; but the Committee recommended that should he again ask to make an Affirmation, he should not be prevented from doing so. But that was precisely what the Courts of Law now held that he had no right to do. The hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, however, voted in both Committees in favour of the Resolution. The result, so far as the trial had gone, therefore, had amply justified the course they thought fit to take, and showed that they were not so far wrong at that time as many supposed them to be. He did not know what might happen now, until the hon. and learned Attorney General gave them his advice upon the two points which he had just raised. But he thought the House would see that they had got into all that difficulty from beginning to end by the Government not coming forward in the first instance to give the House some advice, because that was really what the Prime Minister absolutely refused to do. He
  478
  (Sir R. Assheton Cross) believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a very firm opinion upon one point only—namely, that, as Mr. Bradlaugh had been elected by the electors of Northampton, he ought to be allowed to take his seat either one way or the other—that was to say, either by affirming or by taking the Oath. That was, that if it was not the law that he could affirm, he ought to be allowed to take the Oath; and if, on the other hand, it was decided that he could not take the Oath, he ought to be allowed to affirm. That would certainly be carrying the principle of local self-government by the people of Northampton a very long way. He was not going to enter upon the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh, holding the opinions he did, ought to be allowed to have a seat in that House, because that would be a matter for future discussion; but the question was, whether any steps should be taken to relieve him, and others holding the same opinions, from the difficulties in which they found themselves placed? It might be that persons holding the same opinions as Mr. Bradlaugh might present themselves at that Table again, openly professing those opinions. He sincerely hoped it would be a long time before that did take place; but if it did take place, as had happened in the case of persons not only holding no religious opinions, but holding religious opinions, the Legislature must take cognizance of the difficulty and deal with it. The Government should have come forward and stated whether, in their opinion, this Gentleman ought to take his seat, or ought not to have a seat. If it required legislation, legislation ought to have been proposed; and though he hoped such legislation never would be proposed—for, if it was, he could promise it his most uncompromising opposition—yet the Government must say one thing or another, when they come to the difficulty again, aye or no should this Gentleman have a seat in the House of Commons. He rose for the purpose of asking for the opinion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, for the guidance of the House, as to how they stood now in a position different from that which they stood in when he himself objected to any question being raised as to Mr. Bradlaugh being a Member of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it seemed to him that in this matter right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were exceedingly difficulty to satisfy. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir. R. Assheton Cross) first complained that the Law Officers of the Crown gave certain advice last year, and now he complained that the Law Officers and the Government had given no advice on the question——
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere), having moved for a Writ, was now entitled to speak upon the subject?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was entitled to speak to the Motion he had proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREresumed, by observing that what had happened in Mr. Bradlaugh's case practically amounted to this—that lawyers differed, as lawyers generally did, the hon. and learned. Attorney General taking one view and the Judges taking a different view. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) complained that hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House had objected to the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), when he urged—he (Mr. Labouchere) might almost say clamorously urged—that a new Writ should at once be issued. At that time, a decision had been given against Mr. Bradlaugh by one Judge. Judgment against him had now been given by three more Judges; and, in all probability, the House of Lords would decide the point of law against him. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know what course Mr. Bradlaugh would take in the matter. He must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to look at the matter from a purely legal point of view. Mr. Bradlaugh had been sued by Mr. Clarke as a common informer. He (Mr. Labouchere) was authorized by Mr. Bradlaugh to say that he fully accepted the law laid down by the Court of Appeal as to his position in that House; but upon the minor issue, whether Mr. Clarke had a right to sue without suing through the Crown, and whether the penalties were to go to Mr. Clarke, Mr. Bradlaugh wished to take the opinion of the House of Lords. Whether or not Mr. Bradlaugh would be obliged technically to submit the whole matter to the House of Lords he
  480
  knew not; but, assuming that Mr. Bradlaugh would be, he (Mr. Labouchere) was authorized by Mr. Bradlaugh to engage that he would in no case raise the point as to his right to sit in that House. That being so, it seemed very desirable to move for a Writ instead of waiting for a year, until the House of Lords had settled the appeal, because, as he understood, hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would oppose Mr. Bradlaugh's sitting and voting in that House during that year. He spoke not only for Mr. Bradlaugh, but also for the electors of Northampton; and he thought it would be most unfair to the electors to deprive them for a year of one of their Members because one of the Gentlemen whom they elected, on being declared to have vacated his seat by one Court of Appeal, chose to appeal to the House of Lords. Let the Writ be issued at once. The people of Northampton claimed that they had a right to be represented by two Members in the House of Commons. If one of those whom they had elected was not entitled to sit, then they demanded the issue of a new Writ. Under these circumstances, he appealed to the Leader of the Opposition—was it necessary to drag the House through another of those unhappy Bradlaugh debates? The election might be got over before the Easter holidays, and then hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen would have an opportunity of considering what course they would take should Mr. Bradlaugh be re-elected. It was not for him (Mr. Labouchere) to express an opinion as to whether he would, or would not be, re-elected.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that, having had some experience in these questions, he hoped the House would proceed carefully in the present resistance, because he was quite sure that, while there was a general desire not to inflict any avoidable hardship upon Mr. Bradlaugh, the House was in danger of being placed in a very complicated position. Mr. Brad-laugh wished to continue his appeal against the penalties he had incurred for having sat and voted in the House without having taken the Oath, or made the Affirmation permitted in some cases in lieu of the Oath. The law declared the penalty to be the avoidance of his seat, he being disqualified. Let the House, then, consider its position, if it con-

  481
  sented to the issue of this Writ whilst an appeal to the House of Lords was pending. What assurance could the House have that the House of Lords would allow Mr. Bradlaugh to raise only the issue relating to the penalty? He (Mr. Newdegate) submitted that the House of Lords could scarcely, was not likely to do so. It seemed impossible to adjudge the penalty without testing the offence. In illustration of what he was saying, perhaps the House would permit him to quote a short extract from an authority which was generally recognized in that House—namely, the work of Sir Erskine May On the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament. Sir Erskine May adduced the case of Baron Rothschild, who remained a Member of the House, without attempting to sit or vote in the House; but, when wishing to attend, sat below the Gangway for several Sessions, and he served on Committees, without rendering himself liable to the penalty. At page 203 of his work, Sir Erskine May used this ex-pression—
  "It is usual for Members, who have not yet taken the Oath, to sit below the Bar, and care must be taken that they do not inadvertently take a seat within the Bar, by which they would render themselves liable to the penalties and disqualifications imposed by the statute."
  Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) held that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who had made this Motion, was not acting fairly by his constituency, if he had not informed them that disqualification followed the penalty, and that, if they elected Mr. Bradlaugh again, he would be still more incapable of taking his seat within the Bar of this House without incurring penalties and disqualifications than before the issue was tried at law. This information might not roach or be understood by the constituency before the Election. In fairness, therefore, as he (Mr. Newdegate) thought, to the constituency of Northampton, the House ought not to issue the Writ while an appeal was pending in the House of Lords on the question which it had pleased Mr. Bradlaugh to raise. The constituency ought not to be placed in the position of being tempted to elect a man who could not sit, and who, it might be, meant to use the Election for the purposes of future agitation. He put it, then, to the House
  482
  whether it was prepared to lend itself, by deciding on the issue of the Writ, to an agitation against the law, when the clear course for Mr. Bradlaugh to take was to await the result of his appeal to the House of Lords? He (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the House would forgive his interposition; because, as one of the oldest Members of the House, he felt that the course proposed, this premature issue of the Writ while an appeal was pending, was a course scarcely worthy of the House of Commons. If Mr. Bradlaugh chose to abandon his appeal, he (Mr. Newdegate) did not see what could prevent his presenting himself again to the constituency of Northampton. The issue which the constituency would have to try in that case would be clear; and he repeated that he hoped that the House would not lend itself to that which appeared to him to be an indirect mode of propagating an agitation; and he, for one, deprecated the idea of the House of Commons lending itself to any such contrivance.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had asked what was the difference in the position of matters now from their position when the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) interfered with respect to the presentation of a Petition by Mr. Bradlaugh, and had given Notice of his intention to move that a Writ be issued for the election of a Member for Northampton. When the matter was before discussed, the decision of the Court of First Instance was that Mr. Bradlaugh was not entitled to sit and vote in that House. But Mr. Bradlaugh claimed the right belonging to every suitor of asking a Court of Appeal to decide whether the judgment of the Court of First Instance was right or not. The House would remember that, in connection with the subject, the example was given of a person, who might have had a decision against him in an action of ejectment and wished to appeal, would not be deprived of his estate until a Court of Appeal pronounced upon the matter. That was the right then claimed on Mr. Bradlaugh's behalf. He had appealed, and the decision of the Court had gone against him; and Mr. Bradlaugh now said that he was satisfied with the decision that had been come to. ["No, no!"] He said he was satisfied

  483
  so far as the decision given as to his right to sit and vote in that House, a matter which was perfectly distinct from the right of the informer to sue. He was willing to give up his seat, and that the judgment of the Court of Appeal should determine the right. The second question which he understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask was, whether, if this case went to the House of Lords upon Mr. Bradlaugh's appeal, the House of Lords could determine only the second part—namely, as to the right of the common informer to sue, or whether the case would not be decided upon both issues. Without hesitation, he (the Attorney General) would say that the House of Lords would be entitled to determine only one point, and could determine only one point—the point appealed against. The question had been raised by two separate demurrers. The first point was raised upon the demurrer as to Mr. Bradlaugh's right to sit in that House; the second point upon the demurrer as to the right of the informer to recover the penalties for Mr. Bradlaugh's sitting and voting. To the House of Lords there would be an appeal upon one point alone, the right of the informer to sue. Mr. Bradlaugh, in giving notice of that appeal, would have to give his ground of appeal, and would have to state that he appealed on that ground only, and the House of Lords would not be entitled to go outside the ground of appeal. He was sure he would have the concurrence of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) when he said that unless Mr. Bradlaugh broke his word and the pledge he had given the House of Lords would only determine one point. They had Mr. Bradlaugh's assurance in the matter, and he hoped the House would agree that they had seen nothing in his conduct while he had been a Member of the House to cause them to believe that be would break his word. That being so, he would ask the House to consider not only the position which the constituency and its Representative, but the position which the House itself would be placed in if they refused to sanction the issue of the Writ. Here was the case of a person who said he accepted the judgment, who did not intend to exercise the right of appeal; and would the House, in those circumstances, take upon itself the responsibility of saying that he
  484
  had the right of appeal; and during the time an appeal to the House of Lords might run, which he thought was one year, but was told by a right hon. Friend was five years, they would not let the constituency be represented, the only alternative being that Mr. Bradlaugh coming to the House, sitting on the Benches, and incurring a penalty of £500 a-day? He asked the House whether he was not bound, in justice to the constituency and to Mr. Bradlaugh himself, to say that the Writ should go? The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), as he understood, indicated an opinion that, because the Act said that the seat would become vacant as if he were dead, Mr. Bradlaugh was, therefore, disqualified from being again elected.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he never made such a statement. What he said was that Mr. Bradlaugh was subject to the disqualification enacted by law.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Ho could not assent to that view. The judgment did not put Mr. Bradlaugh to death. He could sit for any other constituency; and, if he could sit for any other constituency, he could sit for Northampton. He (the Attorney General) would not enter into any acrimonious debate regarding the past, and he did not grudge the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) the Party triumph which he was justified in claiming. He would only say that on the second Report of the Select Committee they came to the conclusion that Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Member, might come to the Table and affirm, and that opinion was justified by the Resolution of the House on the 1st July last. By virtue of that Resolution, Mr. Bradlaugh did affirm and take his seat. He (the Attorney General) had been attacked by the right hon. Gentleman for the opinion which he gave last year. It was quite true that the opinion expressed, not only by himself, but by many learned Members of the House, of eminent ability as lawyers, and whose honesty could not be impeached, was that the Resolution of the House was justified. It was his lot every day of his life to be asked to interpret words upon which different constructions might be placed. That was not the first time that the weight of au-

  485
  thority had been against him, and if the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) were present, they would say that sometimes one was right and sometimes one was wrong. When they were right they did not triumph, and they only regretted when the balance of opinion was against them. He knew that the Judges, at least one of them, had expressed his opinion with the greatest possible confidence. Speaking with all respect of that Lord Justice, he would say he was so good a Judge that whenever he expressed an opinion he was entitled to express it with confidence. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also had a right to say that the course he recommended had been justified. But he was unwilling to enter upon this matter with reference to what might occur in the future, or had occurred in the past. The time of the House would be better occupied in examining what would be the just course to pursue, both to the constituency of Northampton, and also the Gentleman whom it had sent to the House. He would conclude by expressing a hope that the House would agree to the Motion.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was glad that the hon. and learned Attorney General had spoken, because, in doing so, he had made it perfectly clear that the case as it stood now was very different to what it was three weeks ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman scarcely recognized the respect paid to his opinion on that (the Opposition) side of the House. It was true he (Mr. Gorst) said on a former occasion that he would move the issne of a Writ for Northampton; but that was before he had the advantage of hearing the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman why the Writ should not be moved. The difference between the present case and the former was quite clear. It was this—that, in the course which was taken, Mr. Bradlaugh was the supreme judge. He was the guide of the Government and their own familar friend; but he had now come to the conclusion that he must give up his position, that it was useless to fight any longer, and he confessed that he had no right to be a Member of the House. He might remind the Government that they apparently paid no attention either to the decision of their own Select Com-
  486
  mittee, which resolved that Mr. Bradlaugh was not entitled to make an Affirmation, or to the House itself, which had endorsed that opinion by a considerable majority, or to the judgment of the High Court of Justice, pronounced by Mr. Justice Matthew. But, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was not to the judgment of the Court of Appeal that they now paid attention, but to the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh himself, who had advised them throughout in the matter, admitted that he was wrong, and that ever since July 2, when he had taken his seat without subscribing the necessary Oath, he had taken part in the proceedings of the House without having more right to do so than any stranger who might be introduced into the Lobby. He wished to notice the eagerness with which the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his opinion as to the re-eligibility of Mr. Bradlaugh at Northampton. The statement, perhaps, was not quite in order; but it was easy to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been glad to make it. The truth was that it might be useful in "another place" and on another occasion, though, of course, even his hon. and learned Friend was not infallible, and differences of opinion might be found to exist whenever the matter was sub judice. With all possible respect for the legal opinions of his hon. and learned Friend, which he (Mr. Gorst) did not wish to attack, he wished to improve the occasion by pointing out to the House the extreme untrustworthiness of what might be called political legal opinions. It would be remembered that last year, when a Select Committee was appointed, consisting of eminent lawyers from both sides of the House, every Member of that Committee, excepting only the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), gave his opinion in strict accordance with the exigencies of the political situation, the Liberal lawyers asserting, and the Conservative lawyers, with equal confidence, denying, Mr. Bradlaugh's right to affirm. The matter had now come before the Court of Appeal, and an independent non-political Judge, Lord Justice Bramwell, immediately pronounced it one of the clearest cases he had ever known. He ventured to say that no lawyer outside the House had ever had any doubts at all on the subject. To pass to another point,

  487
  to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred—namely, the Resolution of the 1st of July last—he wished to know what would become of that Resolution? A few days after the passing of that Resolution, the late Lord Chief Justice of England had said to him—"I see that in the House of Commons you have been passing a Resolution to allow people to do that which you yourselves have declared to be illegal." Now that the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal had condemned as illegal the course recommended by that Resolution, did the Prime Minister intend to allow the Resolution to remain among the Standing Orders of the House? It was strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have referred to it with some degree of pride, as most people would have expected the Government to be ashamed of it, and to particularly desire it to be buried and forgotten.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, looking at the views expressed, ought to move an Amendment to the effect—
  "That Mr. Bradlaugh was a Member of the House, and therefore this Motion for a New Writ should not be agreed to."
  Were they prepared to do that? If they were not, their conduct was inconsistent, and the only excuse that could be given for it was that the issue of the Writ was now opposed on account of the change in the attitude of the Government. Last Session the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition had supported a Resolution to the effect that Mr. Bradlaugh was not entitled to affirm; and what had happened since? The Courts of Law had decided that the Resolution was right; and now the Government had also adopted that view. He (Mr. Lloyd) had always been of opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh was not entitled to make an Affirmation; and for that reason he had refrained from voting against the Resolution of the 1st July last. In that opinion he differed from many hon. and learned Friends near him, and agreed with hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he was surprised to find that those who supported the Resolution of July should hesitate in supporting the Motion before the House.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had promised to lay on the Table of the
  488
  House the pleadings and the judgment of the Courts in this case; and he (Mr. Lewis) would suggest that, until the House had had time to receive and peruse that document it would be prudent to adjourn the consideration of the question. At present they had no official knowledge of what had been done, for they were still without any authoritative information as to how the judgment of the Court of Appeal had been obtained, or on what points it had been given. On that ground alone the House would have difficulty in coming to a conclusion. No one doubted the assurances given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and his late Colleague; but the notice of appeal to the House of Lords would only take a few days, and the proper course to pursue was not to decide this question until they had the actual Motion on the Table of the House. That would not involve any disfranchisement of the electors of Northampton for five years, and no one would wish for such a thing; but, by adjourning the debate till after Easter, they would be enabled to know the real issues raised on the appeal. A week or two ago they were told to hold their hand because there was the possibility of an appeal; but now there was the certainty of an appeal. The House of Lords might open the whole question, and that would place the House again in a difficult position, for it might involve not only the question of penalties, but the right to sit in that House. He, therefore, put it to the Premier whether it would not be more fair to the House to wait?
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he wished to say a few words in reply to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who had so ungraciously charged those who supported the view of the Attorney General in the Committee with having been influenced by political bias. As a matter of fact, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) voted in the first Committee the same way as the Conservatives, against Mr. Bradlaugh's right to make an Affirmation. In the second Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport was of opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh was entitled to take the Oath, and in that opinion he was opposed to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and other Liberal lawyers, who

  489
  agreed with the Conservative Members on that point. They had thus the hon. and learned Member for Stockport differing from the other Liberal lawyers on both Committees, and voting with the Conservatives on one, but the Liberal lawyers on the second Committee, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, voting with the Conservatives. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham was, therefore, wrong in his facts, as well as ungracious in his imputations, even if the facts had been as he stated them.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not see why the Writ should not be issued. It was important, however, that they should have a clear statement from the Government on the subject, and for this reason—that the course which was taken with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh's right to sit in the House was a course which was taken on the responsibility of the Government. The view that was taken by the great body of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House was that the House was able to assert that Mr. Bradlaugh had not complied with the requisitions of the law, and that, therefore, the seat might be declared vacant. But the Government, in opposition to that view, pressed upon them the necessity for adopting the Resolution which was passed, but of which those for whom he (Sir Stafford North-cote) spoke did not approve, to the effect that Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to affirm, subject to the decision of a Court of Law. That course having been adopted at the suggestion and on the responsibility of the Government, certain proceedings had taken place in the Law Courts, and a certain result had been arrived at. Now, Mr. Bradlaugh's Colleague, speaking on his behalf, declared that Mr. Bradlaugh thought the time had arrived when the matter was practically concluded by the Law Courts, and that a new Writ might issue. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) and those on his side of the House were anxious to know whether the House would be landed in a difficulty by adopting that suggestion. If it should turn out that another Gentleman should be elected for Northampton, and if the House of Lords should afterwards reverse the decision which had been taken on the first of the two questions raised—namely, Mr. Bradlaugh's right to affirm, they would, no doubt, be in a difficulty. But the
  490
  Government had led them in the matter, and were responsible for the position in which the House was placed, and they had now assured the House, through the mouth of their legal exponent, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that they would run no risk in the peculiar circumstances of the case of any such difficulty arising. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) and his Friends perfectly understood and entirely accepted the assurance given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) on Mr. Bradlaugh's part that that Gentleman did not intend to raise his right to sit in that House in his appeal to the House of Lords. A suggestion had been made, however, that it would be possible for the House of Lords to take the whole question into consideration, and to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal on that question of his right to sit in the House. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James) dissented.] He noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite shook his head. He did not say it was so; but, the suggestion having been made, it ought to be stated on authority that it was not so. The hon. and learned Gentleman assured them that there would be no risk of that kind, and that they need not fear that the House would be placed in a position of difficulty. In these circumstances he thought it was desirable to issue the Writ.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as regarded the point raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), he thought the House felt that there was no necessity to see the absolute letter of the documents referred to before they decided this question. Being in substantial possession of the facts, the House appeared generally to think it was not worth while to prolong the turmoil of election proceedings on account of the text of the documents not being before them. He, therefore, thought it might be assumed that the House was prepared to decide the question. Next, he accepted the proposition that the Government were responsible for the position in which the House now stood, and for advising the House, by the mouth of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, to go forward and to issue a new Writ. He might observe that even if there were an imaginable risk in the case, it would be right to

  491
  consider what alternative was before them. The right of appeal to the House of Lords remained open for five years, and it was not possible for Mr. Bradlaugh absolutely to divest himself of his right. Therefore, if the issue of the Writ was to be postponed on the ground that there might be an appeal to the House of Lords, which might conceivably result in a reversal of the judgment of the two Courts below, the logical upshot of that argument would be that the postponement should be for five years. Of course, nobody would accept that proposition. It appeared to him (Mr. Gladstone) that for minds so peculiarly constituted as that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), these questions connected with Mr. Bradlaugh had an astonishing attraction. For his own part, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not find that the subject, although they had been willing to face it as a matter of duty, was one so particularly savoury that they should extend their observations upon it further than the necessity of the case required. He was only going to dispose very shortly of one or two allegations which had been made. It had been complained that the Government ought to have said one thing or another in this matter at the outset. What the Government did was to propose that the matter should be referred to a Committee, and he believed that in so doing they pursued a course which was supported by uniform precedent, and, he thought, by reason also. Then the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had his imagination so stimulated that he introduced into the debate propositions which had no foundation whatever. He said, for instance, that Mr. Bradlaugh had been, throughout the whole controversy, the adviser of the Government. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] That "Hear, hear1" showed exactly what he said, that to some hon. Members this subject was the most catching in the world. One hon. and learned Gentleman made a complaint about it, and another found himself in the same condition. That statement proceeded entirely from the imagination of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All he could say was that he had never, directly or indirectly, had any communication with Mr. Bradlaugh on the subject, nor had any other Member of the Government, unless that might be called a communication, to which no answer
  492
  was required and none made—namely, an intimation given a few days ago that Mr. Bradlaugh was willing, if it were thought best for the public convenience, to make an application for the Chiltern Hundreds. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think also that the Government had great reason to be dissatisfied with the Resolution which had followed upon his (Mr. Gladstone's) Motion adopted on the 1st of July last. The effect of that Resolution had been stated, not quite accurately, by his right hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross). His right hon. Friend had stated that the Resolution was an affirmation of the right of Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm, subject, of course, to the judgment of a Court of Law. If he remembered the Resolution perfectly, it made no affirmation whatever of the right; but it simply asserted a negative proposition that the House would not interfere. Of course, that was a very different thing. If he were asked individually about the Resolution, he should say he was very well satisfied with it. It was not for him to presume to give an opinion whether Mr. Bradlaugh should swear or not. The wisest course to pursue was to leave the matter to a Court of Law. It had been left to a Court of Law, and the principle had been laid down that the result should be left to a Court of Law. With the result he was perfectly satisfied, and he had no doubt that it had been decided according to the law.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he regretted very much that the question had not been postponed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had alluded to the point that it was probable that this matter might be open for five years; but he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did not think that was possible. The appeal to the House of Lords would, I doubtless, be tried as rapidly as it could be tried. After two Courts had decided against Mr. Bradlaugh, now it was quite open to the House of Lords—and he challenged any loyal subject to say otherwise—to give a decision on what was called "Point No. 1," in Mr. Bradlaugh's favour. Point No. 2 had been given up by Mr. Bradlaugh. Their Lordships could go into any question which appeared to them proper in connection with the whole matter affecting their decision. From first to last, he had held the opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh had not a right to sit in that House by taking

  493
  an Affirmation and withholding from taking the Oath; and he thought the House of Lords would maintain the same thing. He could not help thinking it would have been better if the decision upon the issuing of the Writ had been postponed until the information with respect to what had passed in the Court of Law and Court of Appeal was before them. At present they only knew through the ordinary channels that the question was coram judice. Of course, he was not going to move an adjournment upon the matter; but he desired upon the present occasion just to express his own views upon it, and to say that he thought it would have been much more in accordance with the formalities of this House if they had waited for information.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was one of those persons for whom that question, as had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, had an irresistible attraction; and he felt it to be his duty, for the benefit of the Liberal Party, to remind them of what took place last Session. They must remember that they had a powerful Government. Counting the Home Rule vote, the majority of the Government was 168; giving the Conservatives the Home Rule vote, the majority of the Government over the Opposition was 45; but when the question was put to the House, and the vote of the House was unfettered, there was a majority of 45 against the Government—275 to 230, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard). What he wanted to call attention to was this—that the Prime Minister wanted to have that vote reversed, and he brought forward a Resolution, and it had been demonstrated that the Premier was a Leader who did not care for the legitimate expression of the opinion of the House, but carried out his own determined will. For his part, he (Mr. Warton) had no feeling whatever for the constituency of Northampton. They knew what Mr. Bradlaugh was. He did not come before them for the first time. They knew what risks he ran. If that constituency was punished he was not there to regret it. In his opinion, the constituency was one which deserved far more to be disfranchised than other constituencies from which representation had been taken.
  Motion agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired, in the event of the House being able to go into Supply, whether it was the intention of the Government to take as much of the evening as they could for Supply; or, whether they meant to stop the Committee of Supply at any hour in the course of the evening, in order to take any of the Bills on the Paper?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, the Government would confine themselves to Supply.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

BUTTER (SPURIOUS COMPOUNDS).

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL,in rising to call the attention of the House to the effects of the unrestricted importation from the United States of various spurious compounds resembling butter, which exposes British dairy farmers to an unfair competition, and consumers to imposition unavoidable under the present system; and to move—
  "That it is desirable that such steps shall be taken by the Legislature as will insure, as far as possible, that such of these compounds as arc harmless shall only be sold under distinctive names, and that the importation and sale of those which are hurtful or dangerous to health be prohibited altogether,"
  said, he regretted that he should have to bring that subject forward immediately after the debate just concluded, for some hon. Members might think it was not a very important one; and he believed also that there existed outside the House a certain feeling that the subject of butter was not worthy the attention of the House. That morning he had received a cutting from what seemed to be one of the so-called Society journals, in which it was stated that politicians were making merry over the proposed debate in the House of Commons on the subject of butter. Well, he was very glad to have been able to afford any subject for the legitimate mirth of politicians. He did not know what the

  495
  nature of the mirth might be; but he knew that his constituents, who were interested, to a considerable extent, in dairy farming, were inclined to regard it, if as a joke at all, as rather a grim one. But it was not to be supposed that he introduced this subject in the interest of any particular class. He had no desire or intention of posing as the farmers friend. It was quite true that the question did intimately affect the profits which the farmer drew from his occupation; but he felt that he was also acting for a very much larger interest. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) claimed the other day to represent specially the great consuming bulk of the population of this country, those who were, in a literal sense, fruges consumere rati, and so did he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) now, in this matter. But take the lesser interests of the farmers first. It would be admitted that there was no source of food supply more important than the supply of milk and its products. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) the other day quoted the Earl of Derby as saying that the agricultural produce of this country was capable of being doubled. His hon. Friend said he could not agree with Lord Derby, and thought such a statement showed considerable ignorance of fact. Well, he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) agreed with that criticism, so far as arable produce was concerned, and so far, perhaps, as feeding cattle was concerned; but as regarded the dairy produce of the country, it was not only capable of being doubled, but trebled, and multiplied almost infinitely. Not only was that the case on account of the physical capabilities of this country; but there was an enormous demand for dairy produce. He spoke from memory; but he believed that the expenditure of the country upon imported dairy produce during 1879 amounted to no less than £11,000,000. In conversation not long ago with a firm of importers in the City, he was informed that upon consignments from one firm in France they received last year upwards of £5,000 commission. That was to say, that that sum, representing a commission of £5 per cent, showed that there had been imported by one firm alone dairy produce amounting to £100,000. He thought those figures showed that the question was of sufficient importance to merit the consideration of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Taking next the larger ques-
  496
  tion of the consumers of the supply, the Legislature had already recognized the importance of purity and of genuineness in the supply. By the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, powers were given to inspectors of markets and police constables, acting under the authority of the municipal authorities and justices of the peace, to inspect milk in transitu between the purveyor and the purchaser—that was to say, that anyone who sold milk was bound to hand over a sample to the officer who asked for it at any time during business hours. That imposed a very irksome restriction upon our home trade, though he quite recognized the necessity for it; but he wanted to point out that there were no similar powers given for the inspection or testing of similar articles coining from abroad. The terms of the Resolution he had put on the Paper were of the most general kind. All that he asked for was an extension of these regulations which at present affected our home trade, so that they might also affect the foreign producer. It was mainly in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer which he received from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, at an early period of the Session, in reply to a Question in reference to this matter, that he had brought the subject forward that night. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to regard with equanimity and tolerance a state of matters with regard to this traffic which he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) could not but look upon as altogether objectionable and lamentable. He held in Ins hand a drawing or caricature which did not unfaithfully represent the nature of this traffic. It was published as a Supplement to The Provisioner, on the 18th October. It contained two pictures. Ono was labelled "Butter-making as it used to be," and the other "Butter-making as it now is." The former represented a dairymaid, neatly dressed, churning butter in a beautiful dairy all in order, a cow looking in at the window, and a pastoral landscape in the background. "Butter-making as it now is" was represented by a personage who was intended to represent the father of lies, who was stirring up all sorts of compounds—lard, tallow, soap, grease, slush, butterine, fat, and axle grease in a huge cauldron, from which were pouring forth volumes of noxious smoke.

  497
  Well, he did not consider that an exaggeration of this industry. He did not, of course, mean to say that the individual represented in one of the drawings was personally occupied in the manufacture; but he must say his impression was that he might, consistently with his other duties and avocations, preside over that manufacture. The materials of the butter imported from America were not of a genuine character. He believed the trade in dairy produce with America began at the time of the Civil War in that country. The consignments at that time were of prime quality. Since then, adulterations had obtained to a large extent in America as elsewhere. Exception might be taken by some persons to his classifying one of the substitutes for butter, which was imported in large quantities, as an adulterated article, for it was a product of remarkable ingenuity and chemical skill. It was imported either as oleomargarine—that was, in the state of raw oil or extract of fat, or in the ultimate form of butterine or margarine, which he believed were synonymous terms. To such an extent had the traffic increased. in America that the farmers themselves had approached Congress to protect themselves against the injury done by the sale of this article as a substitute for butter. The consequence was that the American Legislature passed a law by which it was rendered illegal to export oleomargarine or butterine except in casks branded with the real name in full. But that order had been evaded. Nothing was easier when the casks were shipped than to erase the brand, and it was found that other names bearing a distinct commercial value in the butter trade were substituted. The penalty inflicted upon persons exporting this substance without branding, or fraudulently exporting it, was so very slight as to make it worth while running the risk of incurring that penalty, and accordingly the risk was run constantly. He might be asked to show the extent to which oleomargarine or butterine was taking the place of real butter in importation from America into this country. It was very difficult for a chemist or au expert to detect the difference between butterine and butter. He had a letter from a gentleman who had been engaged in Glasgow for the last 35 years in the butter trade, and he told him he had practically inspected hundreds of casks of American butter sold
  498
  to his customers, and found that 40 out of every 100 were not genuine. In the casks one or two layers were found of a darker colour than the genuine article. There was no doubt about the enormous consumption of it in this country. The exports from America had largely increased during the last few years. In 1879, taking Glasgow as the nearest port to his own constituency, there were only 274,0001bs. exported from New York to that city; but in the nine months of 1880 there were nearly 1,500,0001bs. imported into Glasgow. The same rate of increase held good throughout all our other ports. Now, he wanted to know whether that was sold as butterine? He must confess he had not seen a advertised as such. They had all seen popular and wholesome articles of food, such as Epps' Cocoa, Horniman's Tea, and Colman's Mustard advertised so much as almost to cause one sometimes to wish the advertisers in the bottom of the sea; but he had never seen anything like—"Try our celebrated rich Oleomargarine," or "No breakfast table should be without butter on a Soapstone basis." His suspicion was therefore aroused, and the facts he had elicited had justified this suspicion—that this article was not sold under a distinctive name, but sold as genuine butter. This nefarious traffic, as he considered it, was encouraged by the action of our carrying system in this country. Oleomargarine was carried from New York to London at the same price that genuine butter could be brought from Liverpool to London. For that, of course, we bad only ourselves to blame. He might be told that if they insisted upon oleomargarine and butterine being sold by their proper names nobody would buy them. He did not think they need show any tenderness for spurious and base articles sold under false names. Then it might be said that the Sale of Food and Drugs Act was sufficient. He knew the good that had been done by that Act; but it did not meet the case, not from any fault in the Act itself, but because the machinery was wanting to carry out that Act in these instances, and its evasion was so easy. Section 6 prohibited any article being sold that was not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by the purchaser. That was comprehensive enough; but, as a matter of fact, it was frequently evaded. Could

  499
  it be expected that a working man, or his child, perhaps, sent to buy half-a-pound of butter, would draw a nice distinction between what seemed to be butter and what really was butter; and if the good wife was the purchaser, would she not be tempted to prefer an article that could he offered her at 4d. or 6 d. per pound cheaper than genuine butter? This compound called butterine was frequently filled into Irish cases. It was made up into rolls of the same size as Irish butter, and he had seen himself in shops quantities of these rolls with really no distinction between the genuine article and what was confessedly the spurious one. Beyond that there was this to consider. Without dwelling on the damage that had been inflicted upon the British producers by this traffic, he might inform the House that last week he had a letter from a gentleman of great experience and standing in the butter trade, stating that whereas last year at this time good Irish butter was selling at 134 s. to 140 s. a cwt., the highest price obtained for the best brand now was only 90 s. a cwt., while 2nd and 3rd qualities could not be sold at all, and this fact was entirely owing to the manner in which the markets were glutted with spurious compounds. An objection which might be raised to interference with this traffic was that oleomargarine was not in itself an unwholesome compound. He was ready to admit that if it could be taken as a scientific fact that raw animal fat could be swallowed without any injury to human constitutions; but what guarantee had they as to the sources from which the fat was drawn? In America so great was the sale of oleomargarine that a sufficient quantity of fat could not be obtained from proper sources to supply the demands of the trade. Of course, the proper fat for the manufacture of this composition was the best caul fat of healthy animals; but statements had been made that fat was taken from diseased animals, and they had no safeguard against that. The manufacture of this compound was not confined to America; it had taken root in this country. He cut from a newspaper the other day some details of a rather interesting trial which took place before the magistrates at Birkenhead. The summons was for a nuisance caused by butterine works, and during the hearing of the case it was sworn by several witnesses that various vapours and sickening smells
  500
  emanated from this establishment; that the residents in the neighbourhood had to leave their dwellings in consequence; that, on one occasion, during the visit of an inspector, a cask of nasty fat was smuggled away from his notice; and the magistrate, being of opinion that the nuisance was fully proved, fined the defendant £5. Well, then, if this article, in favour of which so much had been said as a wholesome, cheap, and economical substitute for butter, was drawn from such sources as that, and went through a process which caused a nuisance to the community, it was not asking too much that the article should be sold under its propel name, and that the public should know that they got butter when they asked for butter, and not oleomargarine. That was all he asked in regard to oleomargarine; but there were two compounds of a quite different nature, with respect to which he asked to have more stringent regulations. Ho could not say that he was practically acquainted with either; but about the first he had made every possible inquiry, and he believed it was made from the fat of pigs, and was called scene. It was not made from cooked fat, but from raw fat; and in the case of the compound, as well as in the case of oleomargarine, he was told. that heat in excess of 95 degrees spoiled the manufacture, as it imported it a tallowy flavour. Therefore, any germs of parasite or poison which might be in the fat of these animals was not subjected to sufficient heat to destroy them. No less than 700,000 swine died in Illinois from hog cholera; and, to show the possible effects of these things, he mentioned the case of one man who died with worms in his flesh, that were actually eating him up, and who was supposed to have caught the disease from eating sausages. He had no wish to make his statement too highly coloured; but this fact was described in a letter to the Home Office from the British Consul at Philadelphia. He had also heard that the winter cholera, which caused so much mortality in Chicago, was attributed by physicians to the use of that sort of butter. He therefore urged that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent the introduction of hog-fat butter into this country. The third substance was of a curious nature. It was called soapstone, and was a mineral which could be ground into the finest impalpable

  501
  powder. It was used for the purpose of adding weight to almost every article of food sold, and could be added in a manner which rendered detection difficult. He asked, in regard to these two substances, suene and soapstone, that steps should be taken entirely to prevent their introduction into this country. It was not alone from America that they received supplies of bogus butter, but from France and other Continental countries. There were also manufacturers of the articles in this country—he knew two or three of them—and he thought some system of inspection and regulation should be carried out in their cases. He bad brought forward the subject in no polemical spirit, but rather to direct the attention of the Government to a matter which seemed to him of great importance, not only to the farming interest, but to the whole community; and he hoped the fact he had adduced would suffice to show that he had not raised it without cause. He was not asking for protection for the farming interest, for the British farmer had already shown himself able and willing to meet all competition fairly brought against him; but he asked that the Legislature would no longer connive at the production and sale of spurious and base articles under false names, articles whose very baseness enabled them not only to compete unfairly with the production of the farmers, but tempted the ignorant and unsuspicious purchaser to prefer them to the genuine article. He could not regard with approval legislation that had for its object the cheapness of our food supply, if it did not take sufficient precaution against the too frequent corollary of nastiness. He would conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. A. MOORE,in seconding the Resolution, said, it would not be easy to bring before the House a matter of greater importance to the agricultural interests of this country and Ireland than that was. They came before the House that night, not asking for protection for a specific interest, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had clearly pointed out, but with a request for, at least, fair play. A few words would give the House an idea of the important interest with which they had to deal. The export of butter from Ireland had been a staple trade for many
  502
  years, the quantity sent over last year from Cork being 400,000 casks; from Limerick, 200,000 casks; and from Tipperary, 200,000 casks, making a total of 800,000 casks from these three places alone, the sum represented by these exportations being from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000 annually. A great deal of this butter was of such high quality that it was absolutely above all competition on the part of spurious vendors; but, at the same time, there were many poor farmers who were unable to produce the high-class butters, and who, in consequence of the unfair competition to which they were subjected, could not dispose of their butter as readily as their neighbours, and who, consequently, required some measure of protection. What they Lad a right to complain of was that the spurious articles that had been spoken of should be sold under false names; and, not only that, but that they should be sold greatly above their value to British tradesmen, to the manifest robbery of the workmen and persons of that class who were induced to purchase them. He might state that he had himself gone among the dealers in the articles, and had purchased what was called butter at 1s. per pound, and the article purchased was not value for the money. Therefore, unless they took steps to prevent that, this spurious article would continue to be sold at a price greatly above its value, and under a false name. Though some of these products were not deleterious to health, they had no possible guarantee that they got an article sound and wholesome, neither could they say what they were going to receive, seeing that these compounds sold under any other name than their own. It was not easy to get information as to the exports of these spurious articles. The British Customs and Board of Trade had not yet got their statistics tabulated under heads that would be sufficient guide. The United States gave no information, and we on this side of the Atlantic had no means of watching the imports of these substances; but he would give the House a few figures he had been enabled to obtain, and they were of a somewhat remarkable character. From the year 1869 to the year 1879, he found that the exports of butter from the United States increased 38 times its original quantity—namely from 1,000,000 to 38,000,0001bs. Butter was the name

  503
  under which these spurious articles wore first exported from America. None of them came from America under the name of oleomargarine. There was also the name of lard. Well, although the export of American butter increased from 1,000,000 to 38,000,000 lbs in 10 years, the cows did not increase in anything like the same proportion. There had been a certain increase in the number of cows in the United States; but, taking the years 1875–6–7–8, the figures showed only a steady and gradual increase among the cattle, and a more rapid increase in the population, the increase in cows being only from about 10,000,000 to 12,000,000, while the increase in butter exports went on by leaps and bounds. Besides this, the statistics only mentioned "cows," they did not specify "milch cows;" so that, in these figures, he had given the American producers the benefit of whatever the difference might be. With regard to the exportation of lard from the United States, the increase had been enormous. In the 10 years he had mentioned, the exports of this article from America had increased from 41,000,0001bs. to 326,000,0001bs. He had obtained these figures from the Report of Mr. Bateman, of the Board of Trade. In 1880 the exports of this article, from the port of New York alone, were 15,750,0001bs., of which 12,250,0001bs. went to Rotterdam, and it was from Holland that the larger portion of the butterine sold in England was imported. They naturally expected during the same period a great increase in the Dutch exports, because it was from Holland that we obtained our principal butter supply; and, accordingly, we found that the imports from that country had jumped at one bound from 28,000,000 kilos, to 36,000,000 kilos, a kilo being about equal to two English lbs. weight. Consequently, we had the means of tracing the sources from whence these products came. Since the Notice of the Motion before the House had been given, he had made it his business to visit some of the poorer districts of the West End of London. He went out one Saturday afternoon, when the wives of the artizans were visiting the provision dealers and grocers to make their weekly purchases, and he found that there was being sold—and he had purchased some
  504
  himself—under the name of butter an enormous quantity of the spurious products that had been spoken of. These substances were on the same counter with the genuine butter, without any label to show the difference. In many places the butter dealer confessed that that was so; but there were no means by which the ordinary customer could obtain any knowledge as to the real nature of what he was buying. The butterine was actually side by side with the genuine butter, and the same wooden knife that was used for severing the one was used immediately afterwards for severing the other. The spurious article was, he found, being sold in large quantities, and at very excessive prices. In his opinion there were not many of the very inferior butters in the shops he visited, the general price being ls. 4d. per lb. for the butter and for the butterine. In some cases where he had made purchases the vendor confessed to him, possibly under the fear of the Adulteration Act, that they were butterine. Some of the samples were very offensive, others were by no means offensive; and to give an idea of how far the competition in this substance was carried, all were beautifully done up, in muslin rolls, and packed in boxes, just as if they had just arrived from Normandy, like the finest French butter. There was an absence of odour in this class of so-called butter, and an absence of definite taste, except that there was a strong taste of salt; but in one shop he saw a cask of most beautiful butterine of perfect fragrance and absolutely indistinguishable from the ordinary butter. The cask, he was told, had just arrived from Holland. Well, then, he thought there was not the slightest doubt that these spurious substances were being sold as butter; and if the Legislature allowed these things to be sold under false names, there was no guarantee to the purchaser as to what sort of article he was buying. This country was being flooded by enormous quantities of these spurious products, of the purity of which there was no guarantee. Some of these substances were not injurious to health; but they were being sold by a class of tradesmen such as the Commercial Manufacturing Company of New York, and who were themselves the loudest in begging for legislation that should provide for the

  505
  enforcement of a distinct brand on the exports from foreign countries, so that the spurious articles should not be mixed up with the genuine, so as to detract from the good names of our dealers or subject them to unfair competition. What was now asked was that butter should be sold under its own name. He held in his hand a circular issued by a Company started in London, offering butter at 50 s. per cwt., which would be about 5½d. per lb. It was simply robbing the working man to allow such a product to be sold except under its proper name, for there was very little doubt that for this material the working man was charged ls. per lb. The gentleman who offered this "butter" at 5½d. per lb was rather drawn out by one of his (Mr. A. Moore's) constituents, who happened to be in the trade, and who wrote to ask on what conditions he could have the oleomargarine, and the answer was—"In reply to your letter, our present price is 50 s. for oleomargarine." The tradesman described the different modes and weights in which the substance was packed, and added—"If you wish to have it packed in Irish firkins it can be done." Unless the Government took some steps to protect the community they would leave no chance to the farmer, who could not produce butter at such a price, nor to the respectable dealer, who was undersold by the man selling a spurious, and perhaps unwholesome, article. It was time for them to be up and doing. He did not ask for what was termed Protection, and if he thought he was depriving the teeming population of this country of one pound of wholesome food he should hesitate to do what he had done in seconding the Resolution; but he thought he had a right to ask fair play, which he did not think the honest producer had at present. He hoped the Board of Trade or the Local Government Board would let the House have all the statistics of the exports and imports of these products, and that the Adulteration Acts would be put in force, so that the substances referred to, if injurious, should be prohibited, and, if not deleterious, should be sold under their proper names. He thought that the name "Butterine" ought to be abolished, as it was misleading to the artizan, who probably thought the substance going by that name had some connection with butter,
  506
  whereas it had none. He thought that the thanks of the House were due to the hon. Gentleman who had brought the question forward. It was one of the greatest importance, and concerned one of the chief staple productions of Ireland. The discussion that had taken place on this subject could not but have a salutary effect, as it must have taught the Irish farmers a lesson that they would all lay well to heart—namely, that the true remedy for the competition to which they were subjected in this particular trade was to be had by setting themselves with renewed energy and redoubled vigour to the task of producing the very highest class of butter.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that stops he taken by the Legislature to ensure that of the spurious compounds resembling butter, which are imported from America, those only which are harmless shall be permitted to be exposed for sale under distinctive names, and that the importation and sale of those which are hurtful or dangerous to health shall be prohibited altogether,"—(Sir Herbert Maxwell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, that he sympathized with the object of the Resolution the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had brought before the House; but it was not so easy of achievement as he seemed to suppose. It would be difficult to strengthen the laws dealing with this question of spurious butter; and one illustration given of the American Government showed that they had found a difficulty in carrying out laws which they had made to put down the imposition complained of. He had been a Member of a Select Committee which sat in 1875 to inquire into the law relating to the sale of food and drugs. Previous to 1872 there had been a considerable stir in the country in regard to the fraudulent sale of articles of food and drugs, and that led to the passing in 1872 of the Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act. That Act, having been in operation for three or four years, was found to have worked most grievous and great injustice, and a Committee was appointed in 1875 to take into consideration the whole of the

  507
  law relating to that subject. In 1875 the Sale of Food and Drugs Act was passed, and by Clause 6 of that Act it was provided that no person should sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or drugs which was not in its nature, substance, or quality the article demanded by such purchaser, under a penalty of £20. Now, anybody who sold butterine or oleomargarine under the name of butter sold an article which in substance, quality, or nature was not the article demanded by the purchaser; and, therefore, if anybody went to a shop to buy butter, and was served with butterine or oleomargarine instead, the seller was liable to a penalty of £20. The Act also provided for the appointment of skilled analysts in every county and borough in England and Ireland, by whom samples of articles could be examined; and there were officers to watch whether the law was carried out or not. By such means the Legislature had done a great deal to check the improper adulteration of food and drugs; and it was scarcely possible, unless they prohibited the sale of those compounded articles altogether, to go any further. He understood that the hon. Baronet, by his Resolution, did not propose altogether to prohibit the sale of butterine and oleomargarine, provided they were sold under their proper names. The whole question was one of considerable difficulty, and he could not well see how they were to amend the law, or to make it stronger than it was at present, without going the length of total prohibition, and it was hardly desirable to go so far as that in the case of articles which were not hurtful to health and were expressly sold under their true names. The more stringent Act of 1872 had to be repealed after three years' working. What the Act of 1875 practically laid down was the principle that nothing should be sold under a false name and character. What, therefore, was sold as butter must be butter; and if it was butterine, the purchaser must be expressly told that the article was a compound. In those circumstances, he hoped that the hon. Baronet would not press his Resolution to a division, but rest content with the discussion he had raised, which might do some good in warning the public.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he also thoroughly approved the object of the
  508
  Resolution; and he believed the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had, by introducing the question, done good service to the poorer classes in this country. Hardly a day passed without the prosecution of some dairy proprietor for mixing water with the milk he sold. They did not so much complain of that; but it was an innocent transaction compared with the selling of adulterated butter, which, as they had heard, was often made of raw and bad pork. He wished the authorities were as zealous in putting down the injurious adulterations of beer as they were the comparatively harmless adulterations of milk. The feeling outside the House was that the beer interest was too great a one for the magistrates to punish; at the same time, they apparently delighted in prosecuting the poor milk sellers. He trusted that, in the interests of the poorest class of butter consumers, the Government would accept the Resolution of the hon. Baronet, and do something to stop the importation of the article.
  MR. O'SULLIVAN,in supporting the Resolution, said, he thought it was really too bad to the farmers of this country and of Ireland to allow such things to be sold. Ho could not imagine what position the Government had taken up in opposing the Motion, which was simply one for inquiry into the matter, and for taking steps to prevent injury by the sale of such stuff. When it was sold as a compound merely, and as long as it was pure and not injurious to the health, there was no harm in it, and there could be no objection to its sale; but it was clearly often sold to deceive, and to make people believe they were buying butter. It was made up, not of butter, but of fat; and now the Americans could not get the price they wanted for their pork, they had lowered the price of the butterine, and increased the quantity they sold. He had drawn attention some time since to the sale of silent spirit as genuine whisky; but the Government of the day protected the persons who sold the silent spirit in working out their fraud, and the result was that the trade in the article was much injured. There was no attempt to interfere with free trade in the matter; the only aim and object of the Resolution seemed to be to detect Land. Let them make and sell the butterine its

  509
  a compound; but what he objected to a large constituency, to show cause why
  was its being called butter. If they allowed a spurious article to come from the United Sates which was made up of lard and beef fat to be sold as butter, they were doing an injustice to the manufacturers of the genuine article, both in this country, in Ireland, and in Scotland. He hoped the Government would not oppose such a Motion, which was simply to detect fraud. There could be no doubt that these compounds now thrown upon the market were highly injurious to the health of the people; and for that reason, as well as to protect the farmers against a most unfair competition, he should vote in favour of the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, as the Representative of a constituency which was largely interested in the making of butter, he rose to join in the appeal to the Government to accept the Resolution of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell), and to return the thanks, not only of the Irish consumers, but of the great mass of the consumers of butter in that country, to him. His hon. Friend the Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown), in opposing the Resolution, had enumerated the provisions of the Act of 1875, and showed that those provisions, if carried out, would have been vary effectual. The fact remained, however, that in spite of the Provisions of the Act, those spurious substances were sold under the name of butter; and that conclusively proved that the hon. Baronet was justified in calling the attention of the Government to the subject, and to ask that the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board should take steps to prevent such substances from being sold as butter. He (Colonel Colthurst) did not think the farmers, either of England or Ireland, would stand up against anything like fair competition; but this was a most unfair competition The farmer had now to compete with an American article which was not butter at all. He hoped the Government would see their way to give the subject the benefit of a Parliamentary inquiry by a Select Committee; and, if not by that, at least by a Departmental inquiry, in order to see how the Act of 1875 was carried out for the object for which it was passed.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he much desired, as the Representative of
  510
  a large constituency, to show cause why the Government should not accept the Resolution of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell). There were two ways of approaching this question, one in which the people have a deep interest. There was the Protectionist way, and the mode applicable to the general system of free imports adopted in this country. It seemed to him that the hon. Baronet had adopted the Protectionist view of the matter. He (Mr. Arnold) had risen for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to an important amendment of the law which he thought it would be necessary to make, and which he hoped would meet, to a considerable extent, the views of those who supported the Resolution before the House. He had himself seen in Holland and elsewhere the manufacture of this oleomargarine butter, and he could only say that the result of his observations of the process of manufacture was not such as to make anyone unwilling that the product should form a part of the food supply of the people of this country. His own opinion was that these products afford the supply to the poor of this country of an article of food which was of very considerable value. The hon. Baronet proposed to deal with the matter at the ports of this country, and in doing so his Motion exhibited, at least, an affinity to that of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) with reference to our supply of meat. There was a dangerous affinity between these two Motions. He (Mr. Arnold) could not conceive that any interference with the imports of this country at the ports could be anything but of a more or less Protectionist character. He yielded to no hon. Member in desiring to protect the consumer in regard to articles of food purchased for consumption. It was, in this matter, desirable that every precaution should be taken in the locality where the article was consumed to protect a person from buying an article which was not butter. He was told that the law was protective as regards real butter. He could show that that was not the case. In the Public Health Act of 1875 butter was not mentioned at all. If sufficient care was taken in the markets of this country to protect the people from buying an article under an assumed name, then, he thought, all that could be done

  511
  would have been done for the protection of the people. But that was not the case at the present moment. He held in his hand a letter from the Superintendent of the Manchester Produce Market, in which it was stated that that market was one of the largest centres for food distribution to the working community in the world. The gentleman in question had turned his attention particularly to the article of butter, and he said in the letter—
  "In 1875, I seized 13 tubs of butter at a wholesale confectioner's bakery. It was the most filthy stuff imaginable, stunk fearfully, and was of many colours. It was admitted for the defence, when I brought the owner before the magistrates, that the stuff was intended for use as food, but that as it was butter, and butter did not come under the heads mentioned in the Act, the case must be dismissed, and the butter returned to the owner. The case was dismissed, the butter was returned to the owner, and I know that it was by him used in his pastry. Tons of this stuff is used by many of the wholesale confectioners in all the large towns. I believe it consists of the scrapings of butter from the grocers' shops, mixed with the inevitable dirt, and such as has become rancid, and altogether too bad to be used in the ordinary way."
  Thus a valuable public servant was unable to interfere, not only in that case, but in others of a similar character. Public officers were unable to deal as they ought to with this question of butter, because in the Public Health Act of 1875 the word butter, in the long enumeration of articles of food, was omitted. He presumed that omission was attributable, perhaps, to the fact that when the Act was framed oleomargarine and substances of that nature were not invented. At all events, the 116th and 117th clauses of that Act—and he would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the fact—dealt with this matter in the following words:—
  "And the person to whom such animal, carcase, meat, poultry, fleck, fish, fruit, vegetable, &c. (no mention of butter), belongs at the time of the exposure for sale, or in whose possession or on whose premises the same were found, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 for every such article so condemned, or at the discretion of a justice of the peace, without the infliction of a fine, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding snore than three months."
  He (Mr. Arnold) had shown that by the simple omission of the words the officer whose duty it was to look after the
  512
  health of the people in matters of food could not apply the law in regard to bad butter. He begged of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), who, he presumed, would take part in the debate, to give his particular attention to this matter; and he would ask him, or anyone representing the Government, whether opportunity would not be taken to introduce such an amendment of the Public Health Act of 1875 as would protect the people's interests in this concern? Instead of adding the word butter to the long enumeration of articles contained in the 117th clause of the Act in question, they should strike out from the clause the whole of the list of articles, and simply insert words making it applicable to any article sold, or exposed for sale, for the food of the people.
  MR. GREGORYthought that the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was worthy of the attention of the Government, as this was a matter which affected the producers and consumers in this country. The farming interest was not fairly treated when this spurious article was allowed to be imported and sold as butter. He should support the Resolution of the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) on the ground that it would be in the interest alike of the producers and the consumers that all articles of food sold should be sold under their proper names. He did not object to the importation and sale of these articles sold as butter as long as they were of pure manufacture; but it was only fair to ask Government to make provision that the people of the country, when purchasing their food, should know what they were buying.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Sir, the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) is naturally alarmed at the competition which British dairy farmers experience by the great development in the manufacture of oleomargarine. This increase arises from various causes, loot especially from two, the first being the greatly increased consumption of butter among our population, and, second, from the improvements made by chemistry in the manufacture of those fatty bodies which are known to us under the name of butter. The increased consumption leads to an increased supply, and the augmented demand naturally stimulated invention as to new

  513
  sources of supply. These alarm the hon. Baronet and others interested in dairy farming. The quantity of butter consumed per head of the population is rapidly growing. Even the consumption of foreign butter increases quickly. Not many years ago the foreign butter imported was only 1½lb. per head of the population; now it is about 6 lb. The exports of butter from Holland were 20,294,000 kilogrammes in 1869; but in 1879 they had increased to 36,451,000 kilogrammes. During that time Holland has been largely importing oleomargarine from America. Her imports of fats were only 9,374,000 kilogrammes in 1869, while in 1879 they amounted to 37,461,000 kilogrammes. I understand that 12,000,000 lbs. of oleomargarine were imported into Holland last year from America; and, in all probability, a good deal of this oleomargarine comes to us in the excellent butter which we get from Holland. This oleomargarine, no doubt, comes to us directly under its own name as a butter substitute, though also in concealed admixture with American, French, and Dutch butters. The acknowledged oleomargarine exported from New York is already half the declared value of butter, though doubtless there is a good deal of concealed oleomargarine in the butter which is imported as dairy produce. The declared value of butter exported last year from New York was $5,179,071, and that of oleomargarine was $2,581,317. But the manufacture is not confined to America, for France, Holland, and England are actively engaged in making oleomargarine. Undoubtedly, this artificial butter is rapidly pushing inferior butter out of the market. But this sort of competition is not new to agriculture or to industry generally. Let me give an illustration. Both Turkey and Holland used to grow large crops of madder as a dye stuff for calico printing. For centuries these crops were most valuable; but a few years ago chemists learned how to make the colouring matter of madder from one of the products of coal tar, and these agricultural crops of Turkey and Holland have greatly fallen off in demand. Yet the hon. Baronet would not think it a fair subject of complaint that the artificial production of alizarine, the colouring matter of madder, should in any way be restricted to favour the agri-
  514
  culturists of Turkey and Holland, who suffered so seriously by the competition of this coal-tar product. I think I shall be able to show that his present complaint in regard to butter is precisely of a similar character, except that, in the present case, the competition is not so severe, because oleomargarine simply consists of butter fats got from an ox, instead of butter fats from a cow, and, therefore, is simply one form of agricultural product interfering with another agricultural product. The fats which constitute butter, for the main part at least, can be got from different sources, and are not even restricted to animals, for such fats are found abundantly in plants as well as in animals. The chief solid fat in butter is the principal ingredient in palm oil, while the chief liquid fat of butter abounds in olive oil: even the soluble aromatic fats which give to butter its peculiar taste and flavour are found abundantly in cocoanut oil. If we could extract butter fats economically from vegetable oil, and give a sound, healthy butter from them at a cheap rate, it would be a matter of indifference to the public whether the butter came from the cow or from the vegetable. Let me give an illustration of my argument. Milk contains 4 lb. of cheese for every 100 lb. of milk. But pease and beaus contain nearly 20 lb. of cheese for each 100 lb. The Chinese, who are a great experimental nation, actually do make cheese from peas, and sell them in their markets. These cheeses are highly esteemed in China; but to our palates are insipid, because they do not contain butter fats. But I look forward to the day when cheeses will be made from beans, peas, and lentils, and after being mixed with good oleomargarine may form palatable and very economical cheeses. Would the hon. Baronet stay the progress of chemical invention, and prevent the manufacture of such cheeses from peas, simply because they would interfere with dairy produce? Now, to come to oleomargarine—that substance is prepared by purifying the more fusible parts of beef suet, and separating from it the less fusible fats and cellular tissue, which exists in all fats. The product consists of true butter fats, with the exception of about 5 per cent of aromatic soluble fats, which give to good butter its delicious flavour. But that 5 per cent makes all the difference as regards

  515
  flavour and taste between good oleomargarine and good butter. The two cannot come into competition any more than inferior American cheeses can compete with our best Cheddar and Cheshire cheeses. The American cheeses do knock our bad cheeses out of the market, and so certainly good oleomargarine will and ought to drive our bad qualities of butter out of the market. Much of the butter sold to the poor is reduced in nutritive value by salt and water, and readily becomes rancid. Such inferior butter ought to be substituted by oleomargarine, which, if carefully prepared, has little tendency to rancidity. Although oleomargarine cannot compete with good butter, yet I am sure it will so thoroughly compete with bad butter that dairy farmers will be compelled to improve the quality of their butter. Unless thorough cleanliness is observed in the treatment of the milk, in the churning, and in the washing of the butter, the aromatic fats, which give superiority to good butter, become the source of rancidity to inferior butter, and render it positively unwholesome. But even when butter is not rank, it is so often brought into the market adulterated with so much salt and water that its nutritive value is much deteriorated. Natural butter may contain from 12 to 16 per cent of water, and from 1 to 2 per cent of salt. But many of the inferior butters contain 20 to 25 per cent of water, and from 5 to 10 per cent of salt. Such butters are a fraud upon the poor, and are far inferior in nutritive value to well prepared oleomargarine, which rarely contains above 12 per cent of water. It is with poor butter of this kind that oleomargarine will and ought to compete. Bad rancid butters are quite as unwholesome as bad specimens of rancid oleomargarine. Only it is rare to see oleomargarine rancid, because it is manufactured on a large scale, and with the care which large operations receive by skilled superintendence. There are other butter substitutes called "suine" prepared from the fat of hogs. I have no personal acquaintance with their mode of preparation, and reserve my opinion in regard to them. The hon. Baronet is afraid they may contain trichinæ; but I do not think that probable, as they lodge in the muscular and not in the fatty tissues. As to the relative wholesomeness of good butter and good oleomargarine, I do not think
  516
  there is anything to choose between them. It has been said that, as oleomargarine is not heated above 120 degrees Fahrenheit, it may contain the germs of disease in the animals; but so may the fats constituting butter which. have not been heated above 99 degrees Fahrenheit in the body of the cow. So far as we know, when the fats derived either from the cow or the ox are not rancid, they are equally wholesome. In both cases, when they are rancid, they are equally unwholesome. Surely, carefully prepared wholesome butter fats called oleomargarine are much better to the poor at 1s. per lb. than badly prepared and dirty butters at ls. 3d. or ls. 6d. per lb. How does the hon. Baronet propose that Government is to carry out his Resolution? The law already provides that an article of food sold under a name to which it is not entitled is punishable at law. Oleomargarine should certainly be sold as an artificial butter, and not as dairy butter. But how are you to enforce the law in this case, when the products of the cow and of the ox only differ in five parts out of the 100? I should be very sorry to decide upon a sample of artificial butter, whether it was from the cow or the ox. And when it is used for admixture with dairy butter the case is still more difficult. Very few chemists would be prepared to swear that a butter made half from the cow and half from the ox was unquestionably an adulterated article. It is not like chicory and coffee, for chicory is chicory and coffee is coffee. But oleomargarine and butter are practically identical, except as to their source and the absence of 5 per cent of aromatic fats, which probably before long may be added from cocoanut oil or other sources. The Resolution goes on to say that such artificial butters as are hurtful or dangerous should be prohibited altogether. Certainly rancid oleomargarine is a nasty and hurtful compound; but not any more so than nasty and rancid butter which abounds in many markets. Both are unfit for human food, although both may be purified by well known processes. The farmer has a much better method than legislation to protect his dairy produce from cheap substitutes for butter. Let him cultivate improved methods of preparation, strict cleanliness, efficient washing of the butter, and fair treatment.

  517
  Let him send such butters to the market without being laden with salt and water to increase the weight; and his superior and well flavoured butter, with little tendency to rancidity, will keep its own position in the markets in spite of the equally salubrious but less well flavoured oleomargarine, which will certainly drive bad butters out of the field, but cannot compete with really good butters.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEthought the House had been rather carried away from the question. The Resolution of his hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was to the effect that it was desirable that such steps should be taken by the Legislature as would insure, as far as possible, that spurious compounds resembling butter should only be sold under distinctive names. That it did not appear to him (Viscount Folkestone) would be a very difficult thing to do. They had been informed that there were Acts which provided for that necessity; but those Acts did not do what was required in that direction. The Resolution went on to say that the importation and sale of those compounds which were injurious to health should be prohibited altogether. It was all very well to say that good oleomargarine, or whatever it might be, was as good or better than bad butter; but that was not the question before the House. The question was this—that the butterman or the shopkeeper who sold oleomargarine or butterine in place of butter should call it by a distinctive name, and not sell it as butter. His hon. Friend who brought this Motion before the House said he did so in favour of the consumers, and he put aside the agriculturists altogether. His hon. Friend, he (Viscount Folkestone) thought, was right in doing so; but this question was of very great interest to the producer of butter. What was happening now in England? On account of bad seasons, bad weather, and for other reasons the agricultural interest was at a very low ebb. It was a curious fact that in the last few years a vast quantity of arable land in this country had been turned into pasture, for, in 1879, there were about 30,000 acres more of permanent pasture than in 1878. He presumed that had been done for the purpose of growing cattle and cows, and of making butter and cheese, and producing milk, and beef, and mutton. He did not be-
  518
  lieve that the increase of butter making corresponded with the increase of permanent pasture. He believed, on the contrary, that the making of butter had decreased in this country. But what was the reason for that decrease? He thought we might fairly say that one reason, at any rate, was the importation of butter, and butter substitutes that were sold as butter, which made it impossible for any agriculturist to compete with the foreign market. The Report of Mr. Bateman, of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, said it was almost impossible to obtain accurate figures of oleomargarine and butterine; but it appeared that the present production of oleomargarine and butterine in the Eastern States was, at any rate, nearly 10,000,000 lbs. per annum. The increase of the production of oleomargarine, in the past year, was owing to the higher price of natural butter. By the supply of the market with these spurious substances, the manufacture of real butter was being gradually driven out. A cry of Protection had been raised against the Resolution by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold); but the hon. Member, though intimating his intention to oppose the Resolution, really used words which supported it. He acknowledged the public needed protection, and that was exactly what the Resolution proposed. He (Viscount Folkestone) claimed the support of the Government for butter against oleomargarine and other compounds like butter in appearance—'tis grease—but living grease no more. In conclusion, he would only say that the majority of the speeches that evening had been in favour of the Resolution, which, he could truly assert, was in the interest of the consumer, as much as of the producer, inasmuch as it left him free to buy, according to his taste, either good butter or the adulterated article.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINthought that, except on a few points, it was not necessary for him to supplement the interesting and conclusive speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair). The hon. Baronet who had moved the Resolution wished to avoid any impression of seeking to re-introduce Protection, and was animated by a desire to protect the consumers of the country against deleterious products, which were being forced upon them. Without in the least doubting his good faith, he must

  519
  say it was somewhat curious to find assurances of this nature coming from those who represented the producers. Within the last few days there had been two or three questions raised, all from the other side of the House, all running in the same direction. There was a Motion that, if accepted, would have led to the absolute prohibition of all imports of live cattle; and there had been questions put pointing in the direction of absolute prohibition of all pork from the United States, and now here was another proposal which would lead to the absolute prohibition of butter imports from foreign countries. How enormous was the trade with which it was proposed to interfere might be gathered from the statement o the hon. Baronet himself that 11,000,00 lbs. of dairy produce were annually imported into this country. Well, that showed the enormous importance of the trade with which he proposed to make so great an interference; and though he declared he was so much interested in the consumer, the noble Lord who had just spoken contemplated with some alarm the effect these productions would have on farming industry. Well, he could not help thinking that he and his constituents were alarmed without reason. There was not the slightest proof that these things had any effect in lowering the price of butter. At present, probably the price of good butter was higher than it had ever been before; and if the price was the only stimulus required for the production of good butter that stimulus existed. Now, as to the nature of the foreign butter products, although the hon. Baronet had given an almost thrilling account of the dangers he apprehended, there was no evidence of any real danger from their use. The hon. Baronet seemed to rely chiefly on a caricature he exhibited contrasting the artificial with the natural production. Mr. Bateman, of the Board of Trade, had shown that, as regarded oleomargarine, it was, at least, as wholesome as butter itself; but, of course, as his right hon. Friend had said, the product was unwholesome when bad, just as bad butter was unwholesome. Mr. Bateman said he had visited the manufactory of the largest Company for the manufacture of the article rather late in the afternoon, so as to see the premises in their least attractive aspect, when the day's work was
  520
  over. Beyond the floor being very slippery in places where oil was spilled, there was nothing to disgust the eye, and all possible care was given to the cleanliness of the plant and manufacture. Scientific witnesses had given evidence in its favour in the United States, where, by the way, the competition of this material with butter had been felt as keenly as in our own country. In reply to an application of the Health Department of New York City, Professor Chandler had said—
  "I have satisfied myself that it is quite as valuable as butter from the cow. The material is fresh suet; the processes of manufacture are harmless, and are conducted with great cleanliness."
  An official Report had also been made to the Legislature of the State of New York that "there was no objection to the manufacture and sale of this substance." He could quote many more passages to the same effect, all of them conclusively proving the wholesomeness and utility of good oleomargarine, and it would be most unjustifiable to interfere with the importation of this article of food of so great importance. Another matter which had been referred to was the substance known as "suine," which was made from the lard of pigs instead of from the suet of oxen. The special danger supposed to attach to pork arose from the presence of a parasite in the muscles of the animal, and not in the fat. At the present time hog's lard was an article of common food to large numbers of the working classes, and sold as hog's lard, and not as butter. In the poorer parts of Birmingham, and in many of the districts around, there were poor people who never saw butter on their tables from one year's end to another. They found hog's lard a good substitute, and bread covered with hog's lard was common food at every meal. Were they to prohibit the importation of lard of all descriptions? ["No, no!"] But the hon. Baronet proposed to prohibit the import of these articles that were injurious. [Sir HERBERT MAXWELL: As butter?] As articles of food. He stated that seine was only hog's lard under another name; but was it injurious as food? It would be monstrous to prohibit this article of food so largely consumed without much more complete evidence than had been offered. There was another substance referred to—butter on

  521
  a soapstone basis. If the hon. Member was of opinion that the Americans were able to manufacture butter out of stone he would find himself mistaken. As he understood it, soapstone or steatite, a very heavy substance, was used to adulterate butter, and to add to its weight. To a certain quantity of genuine butter a certain quantity of this substance was added entirely for the purposes of fraud. This was neither less nor more than akin to the practice which was adopted in this country of sanding the sugar, and it was carried out precisely for the same purpose. But it was not true that soapstone was in any way injurious to health. It was, no doubt, a fraud to pass it off as butter; but Professor Church informed him that if they were going to eat minerals at all they might as well eat soapstone as anything else, and they would not suffer any bad consequences from it. However, the fraud on the purchaser was admitted; but it should not be forgotten that on that subject they had already very stringent laws. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) raised a rather different issue, and seemed inclined to turn the tables upon the agriculturists, and assumed that there was as much adulteration with the natural as the artificial butter, by reason of there being no such power of seizing butter bought for food, as was the case with milk, meat, and other articles of food. He had spoken of what was an undoubted defect in the law, the omission of butter in the Public Health Act, as an oversight; and whenever that Act came up for consideration that omission would probably be supplied; but the hon Member referred to rancid butter, which, though unfit for food, was still butter, and could not be the subject of prosecution as an adulteration; but the Sale of Food and Drugs Act gave every protection. Section 30 prohibited any person from mixing injurious ingredients with any article of food with the intent to sell under a liability of £50 for the first offence, and subsequently he would be liable to be convicted of a misdemeanour, and to a punishment of six months' hard labour. By the 6th section, if anything was sold to the prejudice of a purchaser which was not of the proper substance and quality, the vendor was made liable to a fine of £20. He thought the subject more properly belonged to his right
  522
  hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. But from what he personally knew, he believed the Act had proved efficient when properly put in force. There was thus power to punish fraud in such cases. He thought, therefore, with reference to the first point mentioned by the hon. Baronet—namely, that such compounds as were harmless should only be sold under their proper names—sufficient security already existed. With reference to the second question, which concerned importation and sale, he would say, in the first place, that it was not proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that any of the compounds in question were dangerous to health. There was no evidence to that effect; secondly, the compulsory examination of those articles at the Custom House, in order to determine their character, could hardly be carried out, as they were of a perishable character; and to insist on such an examination would amount to the prohibition of the importation of foreign butter. Such a measure would really be prohibitive; and its effect would be to raise the price of an article of daily universal consumption. He could not, therefore, support the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. PELLsaid, he had hoped that some suggestive comments would have been made by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject before the House. But it appeared that in the Returns of the Board of Trade those articles were not tabulated, and no satisfactory entry was made of the large importation of butterine and oleomargarine. He trusted steps would be taken to tabulate those substances. He thought it was hardly fair to insinuate that his hon. Friend intended his Motion to be of a protective character. His hon. Friend knew, as everybody knew, that an attempt of the kind would be utterly hopeless. He would advise his hon. Friend to make an alteration in his Resolution by leaving out the last two lines, which referred to the importation of these articles. He would be sorry to prevent the importation of all articles that were dangerous to health. In that case many kinds of dyes, drugs, and medicines would be excluded. He would say one word on behalf of butterine. When he was in America, ho had visited a manufactory of butterine. It would have been im-

  523
  possible to distinguish the different processes—all of which were perfectly open to the inspection of anyone—from those carried on in the case of real butter. The compound consisted of 45 per cent of cream, and 55 per cent of animal fat. It was, after mixture, churned, made up into pounds, stamped, and sold as butterine. It was sold under its proper name, and was very popular among the people; and when the price of butter fell ruinously in America towards the close of 1879, butterine maintained its price of 22 cents—11 d. a pound. He should be sorry to see that excellent article excluded from the English market. As to chemical examinations, no analysis would be really efficient where the differences were so subtle. If a chemist were to take a pound of his flesh and analyze it, and then take and analyze a pound of the flesh of the hon. Member for Salford, no such difference would probably be detected as to indicate that one was a Tory and the other a Liberal. He hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would see his way towards practically giving effect to the purpose of the Resolution, and that his hon. Friend would agree to the modification which he had suggested.
  MR. SHAWsaid, he hoped the hon. Baronet would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He did not wonder that the Government had some suspicion of Protectionist tendency in the Motion; but he did not think that the hon. Baronet had any purpose of the kind in his mind. The subject was one of great interest to Irish Members, as butter was a main staple of industry in that country, especially in the South. The value of the butter passing through the Cork market equalled the value of all the butter and butterine which, according to the statements made in the debate, were exported from New York. In that part of Ireland the making of butter was an extensive domestic manufacture, and employed a class of people who would otherwise not be employed. If the Mover of the Resolution acceded to the suggestion which had been made, and omitted all reference to prohibition, he hoped it would be accepted by the Government. Everything should be sold for what it was, and not for what it was not. He knew that in England a large quantity of butterine was being sold as butter,
  524
  and that was a fraud on the consumer. It was all very well to say that there were certain clauses in an Act of Parliament under which this might be prevented; the question was why they were not enforced, and why there was not machinery for detecting the fraud on the consumers? Chemists might find it difficult to distinguish between natural and artificial butter; but there were experts who could do it without hesitation. He had not the slightest fear of American competition. It had been beneficial in cheapening food when prices were becoming exorbitant; but, still, he always told his constituents that if they would produce the best butter, and the best beef and mutton, they could hold their own. In this competition, however, people should be able to know exactly what they were buying.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he thought that the Mover and the debate had scarcely been treated with fairness by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who imported into it the suggestion of Protection, which was not justified by the facts. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed to the Sale of Food and Drugs Act as containing stringent provisions, which were effective so far as they enabled the consumer to require that the retailer should guarantee the genuineness of what he sold subject to penalties. It would be an additional safeguard to the public if the system could be more widely recognized and adopted, and if care could be taken that in wholesale importation oleomargarine and butterine should not be admitted under the name of butter.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: But the Resolution asks us to prohibit importation altogether.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that all lie wished was that only those articles should be prohibited which were injurious to health. He did not say that oleomargarine was injurious to health; what he said was that it should not be sold as butter. He could not see why Government should hesitate to accept the Resolution. These articles should not be imported with a view to defrauding and imposing upon the public.
  MR. PELLsaid, he should desire to move an Amendment to the Resolution when he was in Order.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Resolution was an Amendment, and if the House

  525
  consented to its being withdrawn, another could be moved.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that the country was under a considerable obligation to the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) who had brought forward the Resolution. The subject was one of deep interest to two important sections of the community. It closely affected the great dairy farming interest, which must, together with that of market gardening, greatly develop in this country as the production of corn decreased. It was also of vital importance to the whole of the labouring classes. They were, as it had already been clearly shown, seriously injured in two ways by the pernicious compounds which were sold under the name of butter. In the first place, they paid a price for these articles which was two or three times their worth, because they imagined they were purchasing butter; and, in the second place, they and their families were injured in health by the effects of the deleterious substances. The Government were asked to take a very simple and necessary step—namely, to cause all such manufactured compounds that were not butter to be sold under their proper names, and to prohibit the sale of suine and soapstone, which were pernicious to health. But this the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), most unreasonably, refused to do. In opposing the Motion of the hon. Member for Wigtownshire, the Government had acted as they generally did in their foreign policy—as the friends of every country but their own.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 59: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 177.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ANDERSON,who had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper, which the Forms of the House prevented him from moving—namely:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, a Royal Commission to visit the Technical and Agricultural Schools of France, Belguim, Germany, and Switzerland, and to report upon them, would be of great benefit in bringing before Parliament and the Country, in the accredited
  526
  form of a Blue Book, the great advantages the industries of these Countries are deriving from such schools, and that the House pray Her Majesty to appoint such a Commission,"
  said, the House would recognize that they had already had a very excellent illustration of technical education in the speech of the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair). He was very sorry that he was not able to give the House anything half so interesting; but he wished to bring forward this question of technical education—one in which our country was very greatly interested. and in which its prosperity was very greatly concerned. The idea underlying it was that every career required some special training—that it ought to get whatever amount of knowledge and of science, whatever was best fitted to develop its utmost capabilities in every way, so that it might be able to do the very best work that was attainable. In the old time that was recognized as regarded our learned Professions; but not in others. As regarded industrial art it was not recognized. Those educated like himself in the pre-scientific era got a classical education or nothing at all. It was supposed in those days that a classical education was that which fitted anybody, and that if that did not succeed in bringing out a young man's brains nothing else would do it. It was effectual in cultivating a great many splendid intellects, no doubt; it produced a great many scholars, but also a marvellous crop of dunces; and the strange thing was that a great many of those who in youth were pronounced dunces at the school turned out to be the most capable men in the practical business of life. No doubt, that largely occurred through the fact that the proper chord was never struck—that the right education never was given them to develop the intellect that was waiting to be developed. Well, we were now finding out our deficiencies in this matter, but we were finding them out very slowly; whereas other counties found out their deficiencies much quicker than we had done, and did a great deal more to remedy them. Our education was still, to a large extent, classical. We had our primary schools, our secondary schools, and our Universities; but the latter were all more or less classical, and the result was that young men intended for business life probably dropped out of

  527
  the primary school and got very little other education whatever. In consequence we found our business marts overrun with mercantile men from foreign countries cutting us out of our own trades, and that foreign goods were beating ours not only in the foreign markets, but also in our own. We had foreign engineers, foreign draughtsmen, foreign designers, foreign foremen in our factories; and, on inquiring the reason, we were forced to the conclusion that, whatever the subsidiary causes, the great cause was the superior technical education that was given in those other countries—France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, and America. Whatever difference in detail there might be in these countries, they all had this thing in common—they recognized the necessity of a sound, primary education as the substratum for technical education to be built upon. Those intended for the learned Professions went to gymnasiums and Universities; those for practical life went to practical schools. The training of a young man in this country for business life was to send him to sweep out the office. That was the first beginning of every business man, and it was supposed that there was a great deal of virtue in that training; but, in reality, he was left to pick up a training in any way he could. In Germany, a boy would go to a technical middle school, where he would learn all the arts and sciences bearing on the various trades, probably also to a trade school, where the processes to manipulative skill were taught, and then to the Polytechnic, where the highest science bearing on the industries were taught. Thus the Continental schools played into each other and formed a system. There was nothing of that kind in this country; but he believed we should have to adopt that system. In France and Belgium, which were remarkable for manipulative skill, that had been promoted by the schools; and in France there was one school containing about 1,000 boys who were learning carpentry, carving, gilding, engraving, clock and watch making, and the making of mechanical and philosophical instruments. In that way, the French were able to beat this country in all those articles. Manual dexterity and handicraft skill were greatly in need of encouragement in this country. We had gone in too much for cheapness at the
  528
  cost of quality, and that had tended very much to degrade our handicraft skill. The sub-division of labour had, perhaps, also had the same effect. If a boy was always set to one kind of work, he might attain great skill in that; but he would not become generally a skilled workman. The action of trades' unions also had something to do with it. They had promoted average wages. Average wages meant an average of work, and average of work did not mean excellence of work, but generally mediocrity of work. The breaking down of the apprentice system also tended to degrade handicraft skill. A boy no longer, as in the old time, went to a master who employed few hands and superintended all the work himself, so that the apprentice could become an excellent workman. Now he was, as a rule, sent to a large factory, where there was no such supervision, and he was left to pick up his skill as best he could. When he got out of his apprenticeship he received the average wage; but there was nothing in that to encourage excellence of work. Another cause was the absence of craftsmanship from our educational training. Boys were scorned for having soiled hands, and they thought it more genteel to sell tea, or copy letters, or anything of that kind, than to follow a mechanical employment, although the latter required three times as much brain as the other pursuits did. He should like to see that superstition in favour of genteel employment exploded. He believed it was an open secret that the Prime Minister, for instance, felt more pleasure when he was attacking a tree with his axe than in leading the House of Commons or in translating Homer. Mentioning two or three instances of landed proprietors taking pleasure in handicraft pursuits, the hon. Gentleman suggested the creation of degrees in our schools for such skill, the acquisition of which should entitle the bearers to higher wages than those who had no degrees. In that way, he thought, British work might yet again assert its supremacy over the world—a supremacy it had unfortunately lost, lost at least for a time. On this point he would appeal to the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair), who went to the Paris Exhibition of 1867 to investigate everything there. He reported that there was a singular accordance of opi-

  529
  nion that our country had shown little inventiveness, and had made little progress in the peaceful arts and industry since 1862, and that out of 90 classes there were scarcely a dozen in which preeminence was unhesitatingly awarded to us. The one cause upon which there was the most unanimity of conviction was that France, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland possessed systems of industrial education for the masters and managers of factories and of workshops, while England possessed none. In 1878 there was another Exhibition in Paris, and the same inferiority of British work was shown. A deputation from the Bradford School of Arts went over, and they were obliged to confess that the result of the training workmen received in foreign countries was such that we were defeated on all hands. A short time ago he was in one of the largest shipbuilding establishments on the Clyde, and in one of the departments he saw a large number of American-made machines, which they said they could buy one-fourth cheaper than in this country. That meant that the American machine maker was able to come to this country, buy our steel or iron, carry them across the water, pay 33 per cent for bringing them into America, pay higher wages, and carriage back to this country, and yet undersell our manufacturers. He had gone into different shops to inquire the price of articles, and on one occasion he saw a beautifully worked steel-barrelled gun, which, if manufactured in England, would cost £12, but which could be made at Liége to sell for £4. If it were asked why America and Belgium were able to make things so much cheaper than England, the explanation would be found in the fact that those two countries had very liberal Patent Laws, while we had not. They were thus able to obtain all the best appliances in the world for their manufactures, and we could not. Another reason was that they possessed an excellent technical system of education, which we did not. With a view to showing that our imports of manufactures were diminishing enormously in those very articles which technical education would improve, while, at the same time, our imports of the same articles were increasing, the hon. Member selected, for the purpose of contrast, the years 1872 and
  530
  1879, observing, in anticipation of an objection that he had selected a year of depression, that as he quoted both exports and imports that circumstance did not affect the case. From 1872 to 1879 our exports of British products decreased from £256,257,000 to £191,531,000, or not less than 25 per cent. But the figures, which would best prove his case, were these—

  Cotton manufactures exported—

  1872

  £63,466,000

  1879

  51,867,000

  A decrease of 18 per cent.

  Woollen manufactures—

  1872

  £32,383,000

  1879

  15,871,000

  Decrease, 51 per cent.

  Silk manufactures—

  1872

  £2,190,000

  1879

  1,697,000

  Decrease, 23 per cent.

  Glass manufactures—

  1872

  £1,122,000

  1879

  783,000

  Decrease, 30 per cent.

  Iron manufactures (excluding bars and pigs, and ordinary block material—

  1872

  £13,596,000

  1879

  11,400,000

  Decrease, 16 per cent.

  The aggregate result of these articles was—

  1872

  £112,759,000

  1879

  81,608,000

  Decrease, 28 per cent.

  Then, as to the imports, the figures were these—

  Cotton manufactures—

  1872

  £1,489,000

  1879

  2,286,000

  Increase, 54 per cent.

  Woollen goods—

  1872

  £4,038,000

  1879

  5,637,000

  Increase, 40 per cent.

  Silk goods—

  1872

  £9,429,000

  1879

  12,841,000

  Increase, 36 per cent.

  Glass goods—

  1872

  £1,206,000

  1879

  1,574,000

  Increase, 30 per cent.

  Iron—

  1872

  £158,000

  1879

  £1,721,000

  Increase, 49 per cent.

  The aggregate results were—

  1872

  £17,321,000

  1879

  24,062,000

  Increase, £6,740,000, or 39 per cent.

  Thus it appeared that not only foreigners, but our own people, were becoming dissatisfied with our manufactures. Passing for a moment to the question of agriculture, the hon. Gentleman com-

  531
  plained that whereas in France and in America there were large numbers of schools in which agriculture was taught, we had only two such schools—at Cirencester, and Glasnevin, in Ireland—which were doing good work, but were very inadequate; and he contended that until we adopted some such system, we should not be able to compete with those countries in this respect. In Glasgow they had a very good Weaving Institute. They also had a Mechanics' Institute, which was subsidized by £700 a-year, and they had an endowed school, which it was intended to convert, by a Private Act of Parliament that had been obtained, from an old elementary endowment into a purely technical school; and at present it was half technical and half elementary. At present the people of Glasgow did not recognize the need of technical education. They did not see the advantage of it, and, consequently, did not keep their children at school long enough to render them fit for receiving technical education. Then, again, the Board schools did not turn out their pupils with that amount of primary education that would enable them to take advantage of the first rudiments of a technical school. There was thus a great want in Glasgow, and it was a very unfortunate state of matters that their elementary education was such that it was not sufficiently good to build technical instruction upon it. In that respect they were not better off in England, because the primary instruction of the Board schools was not sufficiently good to enable them to put technical education upon it; and that was one of the things that would have to be considered in introducing any foreign scheme of education. The reason that primary education was better in foreign countries was that, for the most part, it was free. In Switzerland education was free, and in France and Germany it was to a large extent free, while in America education was entirely free. He believed that as long as they had school fees they would have an inferior education. School fees made it to the interest of the schoolmasters to have as many scholars as possible without reference to their capacity for teaching them. That would go on as long as they had fees. He believed London, owing to its magnitude, was the only place in this country where they might hope to find a
  532
  sufficient number of trained scholars to get the benefits of good technical schools. He rejoiced at the efforts the City Guilds were now making, and he hoped they would persevere. It was intended to have a technical University at South Kensington, for which ground, at a nominal rent, was to be given by the Great Exhibition Commissioners. The cost of the building would be £76,000, for which £30,500 had been subscribed by the Fishmongers, Goldsmiths, and other City Companies. Instruction would be given in applied physics, applied mechanics, and applied arts, fitting the students to become technical teachers all over the country. That was a principal object of the College. Leaving the City Guilds Institute to provide the University, and also to manage the technological examinations, for which latter object the subscriptions were likely to be increased to £3,000, he thought that the Government might fairly take up and assist those examinations in some way. It ought not to be expected that that sum of £3,000 would be very greatly exceeded without some Government help if it were found necessary. The Institute had given grants in aid for other useful purposes, its efforts not being confined to London alone, but benefiting, to some extent, the country at large. London was thus about to do a very good work; but it must be remembered that every fourth-rate town on the Continent now did quite as great a work as that. The Swiss town of Zurich, 20 years ago, spent £100,000 on a Polytechnical University, which was kept up at a cost of £18,000 a-year. That was done 20 years ago, and was a larger thing than we were going to do now. In that University at Zurich they had 6,000 students, and in Germany there was a debate about a year ago, the universal opinion being that what had been done up to the present was only the beginning of what ought to be done. If that was only a beginning on the Continent, he would ask what position we were in who had hardly begun the work? Until lately all our education in this country was pretty much voluntary effort, and a great deal of it eleemosynary effort. They had lately taken to make their primary education a national system; but they would have to do a great deal better yet, because. on the Continent, not only

  533
  was primary education national, but technical science was national. They were supported by the States and Municipalities; and unless they copied the Continental system they would not be able to carry out the work as it ought to be done. It was for that reason he had troubled the House with this too long speech; and he felt he had been unable to do justice to this important subject, which was a subject on which the future prosperity of our country depended. The information was in the country, but not sufficiently general; and, therefore, he wished it to be in the accredited form of a Blue Book, in order that the people might be led to understand their future living depended upon something being done in the direction he had indicated.
  MR. COCHRAN- PATRICKhoped the important subject brought forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow would receive the consideration from the Government which its merits deserved. He did not think it would be denied that our national greatness had depended to a large extent in the past, and must depend in the future to a still greater extent, on our national prosperity; and it followed that the Government should do all in their power to assist our commercial and manufacturing classes to keep in the front rank in the contest with other competing countries. One of the most important factors in the element of success was to know what other competitors were doing. It was highly necessary that the attention of the manufacturers in this country should be prominently directed to the progress of foreign industries, and to the causes on which that progress depended. It appeared to him that the Motion of his hon. Friend was exactly calculated to meet the object. The very appointment of a Royal Commission in itself would attract the attention of the country to those important matters; and the evidence which the Commission would have it in its power to put before the House in an accurate, authentic, and authoritative form, would constitute a most perfect basis for consideration, and, if necessary, for future legislation. One of the objects of the Motion of his hon. Friend was to lay before the country, and those who were likely to be benefited by the information, the result of what was being at present done in other
  534
  countries. Some years ago we had an encouraging example in the same direction. In 1867 or 1868 a Member of the House laid before Parliament a very instructive and important Paper on this subject of technical education abroad; and that was followed by a Circular addressed by Lord Stanley to our Representatives in foreign countries. The answers to that Circular formed a very important body of evidence. There was also laid before the House a translation of the highly important evidence laid before a French Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of technical education. These matters stimulated inquiry; and the result was so advantageous that we could not do better than repeat the example at the present time in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Glasgow. The hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) also proposed to get information with regard to the systems of technical instruction which existed in other countries, and which existed very imperfectly, if at all, in our own country. They had a strong argument in favour of this by what was to be seen in other countries, and most notably in Prussia, Austria, and Hungary, which had lately very largely increased their systems, showing that in these countries technical education had been felt to be a practical success. One of the results, especially in Austria, where within the last three or four years a very marked increase had taken place both in the quality and the quantity of the instruction, was shown by the practical result at the Paris Exhibition of 1878. In the reports of the artizans who were sent over by the Society of Artizans, it would be found that Austria, in almost all the chief manufacturing arts, had made a very great increase compared with what her manufactures exhibited at the Exhibition immediately preceding. On the last occasion we had of making international comparisons—namely, the Paris Exhibition of 1878—the general opinion of the Artizans' Committee, and other skilled persons who investigated the subject, was that while great improvement had taken place since 1867 in our artistic taste and skill, our progress in the mechanical and constructive arts had been by no means satisfactory. It would be interesting to ascertain, by means of the Royal Commission, the cause of this state of things. In refer-

  535
  ence to the practical break down of the apprentice system, he said it would be a very important matter for the Commission which it was desired should be appointed to investigate this subject, especially by the light of the experience gained in France, where the same evil was keenly felt some years ago. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would accede to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, and appoint a Commission. He was perfectly certain that the results of such a Commission would be most important, and most interesting, and most valuable in everything relating to the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think I should best consult the convenience of the House if I say that Her Majesty's Government recognize to the full the importance of the subject which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) has brought forward. I confess, however, that I am not able to agree with my hon. Friend in many of the arguments lie has advanced. I do not consider that the question of technical education requires to be bolstered up by any argument directed to show the decadence of British manufactures. For my own part, I do not believe in the inferiority or the decadence of British manufactures. In that respect we stand as well throughout Europe as any other country in the world. The very figures put forward by my hon. Friend are quite sufficient to refute his own pessimist views upon that head, and I will for a moment refer to one or two of them. My hon. Friend took 1872 and 1879 as years of advance and falling off. Our exports amounted to £256,000,000 in 1872, being the largest export trade we had ever experienced; and my hon. Friend contrasted that year with 1879, when the exports fell to £191,530,000. No doubt, a decline from £256,000,000 to less than £192,000,000 shows a great falling off; but, in 1872, prices were at their maximum. Coal, iron, and all the manufactures of the country, reached their maximum price in that year, and the subsequent fall brought about a good deal of depression and a good deal of loss. 1879 may be said to have been the minimum year, seeing that prices were unprecedently low. But, if my hon. Friend would take the quantities, I do not think it
  536
  will be found that there has been any falling off. The falling off was mainly in the difference in price, and I am prepared to maintain that the prices in 1879 were much more healthy prices than the artificial and inflated prices of 1872. My hon. Friend gave a comparison of imports, in order to establish his case, and talked about our manufacturing supremacy having fallen off. Now, I believe that both myself and my hon. Friend have been engaged in industrious pursuits all our lives; and certainly my practical experience does not enable me to bear out the views of my hon. Friend. Take the case of silk. The imports of silk in 1872 were about £9,500,000, and in 1879—this year of depression—they were £12,500,000. In lace, also, my hon. Friend said the British manufacturers were also losing their supremacy; but it is nothing of the kind. The increase of imports arose from a change of pattern, and change of pattern has had very much to do with the fluctuations in most industrious pursuits. I believe that the Yorskhire trade—the Bradford trade—has suffered for many years almost exclusively from change of pattern. The old lustre goods of Bradford material have gone out in favour of soft wool goods, and the trade has been reduced to a point which it had not reached for a great many years. But, apart from this, I think my hon. Friend has advanced arguments which went far to sustain his case. I quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the great importance of the subject, and I believe that a subject of this importance warrants a great deal more interest, and a discussion in a much fuller House, than it attracts at this moment. If there is any nation in the world which has to depend for its progress, and almost for its existence, upon its manufacturing industry and its commercial spirit, it is this country of ours. Our land is limited in extent, and we have had to employ an increasing population for years. We are increasing our population at an enormous extent. The population of England and Wales has increased two and a-half times within the present century, and for what can we look for the support, maintenance, and employment of this rapidly increasing population but our industrial resources? And, while we have great national resources, while we have coals and iron close to-

  537
  gether, while we have a quick and vigorous population, more fertility of invention than any other population in the world, great powers of application, and certainly the largest capital in the world to enable us to develop our resources, yet in the race of competition we cannot afford to lose a single point, and it is of the utmost importance that we should have the necessary knowledge of scientific appliance for the development of these resources, in order that we may maintain our manufacturing and commercial superiority. My hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, spoke of the state of the Patent Laws. I quite agree with him that they are odious, and that they urgently need revision. I hope the time is not distant when the Government will deal with them. My hon. Friend also referred to the strides which foreign nations have made in competition with this country, and to the manner in which that foreign competition was made apparent in 1867. We always have been alarmed whenever foreign nations have showed any signs of advance. We have been so accustomed to have all the world at our feet, and so ambitious to do all the work of the world, that we have been unable to understand any other country than England being able to do anything. But we cannot monopolise all the results of scientific research and modern invention, and we now find that most of the countries of Europe, and especially the active and vigorous race of people in America, are able to compete with us in the markets of the world. I take credit to myself for having been one of the earliest to mention the words "technical education" in this country. But for a long time it was like kicking at a dead horse, and even at this moment the value and importance of technical education are hardly understood and realized by our countrymen generally. It is hardly realized in this House what an important influence it has already exercised upon the manufacturing industry of other nations. I believe that there is considerable progress being made in this respect—a silent progress, which, when I came to look into it, certainly astonished me. My hon. Friend says that the basis of all technical education must be a good primary education—a useful and intelligent foundation. But my hon. Friend also said that the great obstacle was the
  538
  school fees, and he went on to contend that the schools should be absolutely free, and that until they had the schools free they could not hope to make any great progress in technical science. In reply to this, I could point to a country which has made more progress in scientific education and in technical education than any other, but where the schools never have been free, and are not free at the present moment. I refer to Saxony. Saxony has done more, and is doing more, at this moment, in the matter of technical education than any other country of the world, and yet in that country the school fees are paid by the very humblest citizen. It is of no use to generalize. I do not say that this is an argument for free or against free education; but I do say that there is no use in generalizing and saying that the school fees are the hindrance. The apprenticeship system has broken down here and in every other country. The apprenticeship system, where you have a minute sub-division of labour, which is the result of modern science, cannot much longer be maintained. We want something better and higher than the old system of apprenticeship to bring out the intelligence of the very best workmen, and let them be the captains and the lieutenants of the industry in which they are engaged. The idea of giving technical education to the whole of the working classes is an entire mistake. It is an impossibility, and it ought never to be attempted. You can only place technical training within the reach of those who possess the natural talent to use it and apply it. There is a very remarkable pamphlet in the press, which is being published by the City Guilds, and among other useful things I think this will be found one of the most remarkable. I know the author of it. He has had 20 years' experience, gained by residence in a German town, and in simple, plain language, and with great intelligence, he describes the whole system of education adopted in that town, from primary instruction, up to the highest technical education. I will read one or two extracts to show what the views are of those who are advocating this system abroad. The writer says—
  "The old apprenticeship system having become obsolete and gone overboard, and scientific and technical knowledge being now required in all branches of manufactures, institutions like this are becoming an absolute necessity."

  539
  He describes the institutions already in existence at Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, Aix-la-Chapelle, and elsewhere. They are truly marvellous institutions, and fully justify the praise given to them. Last autumn I took the opportunity of visiting some of them. I had seen what Germany was doing 20 years before; but I must confess that I was perfectly astounded at the development which has been made in the last seven or 10 years. My hon. Friend has spoken of what the City Guilds in London propose to do. He spoke of an Institution which is to cost £20,000 or £30,000 to build. There are institutions which have been established within the last four years abroad which have cost as much as £100,000, compared with which there is nothing at all in this country. Even the Polytechnic Institution at Zurich far surpasses anything of the kind in England. I see that at the University of Aix-la-Chapelle they expended last year £60,000 on a laboratory alone. Provision is made in that University for studios in mining, manufacturing industry, mechanics, and all the skilled labour carried on in Westphalia. In that institution there are 23 Professors, with a very large auxiliary staff, and the work they are doing is of far greater usefulness than most hon. Members would imagine. I will not dwell further upon the matter, because I know it is a dry subject; but I will proceed. to tell the House something of what we are doing here. We are receiving evidence which shows that the progress we are making in this country is much greater than my hon. Friend gives us credit for. We must take into consideration what is being done by Owen's College in Manchester, Mason's College near Birmingham, and the Yorkshire College of Science at Leeds—a new institution, with a weaving school, where not only theoretical but practical science is taught. So far as it goes, the studies there are as good as in any school to be found anywhere. There is also a school at Bradford; and Huddersfield has turned its Mechanics' Institution into a school for technical science. In Manchester, a gentleman has, I believe, left a magnificent legacy of £150,000, which is to be devoted to the furtherance of technical education; and generally throughout the country there is much more interest in, and appreciation of, the subject than ever ex-
  540
  isted before. Still, I grant that we should be a great deal better for such information as my hon. Friend asks the House. I think it would do good service if we could have placed before this country, in a reliable form, the great advantages which the industries of France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland are deriving from technical schools; and I think that we should not exclude the advantages derived from the application of art to manufacturing industry. That should be quite as much our aim as the application of science to industry. Let any man take back his mind to the state of art as applied to manufacturing industry at the time of the first Exhibition of 1851. A piece of china, or of carpet, or of furniture such as was produced in those days would shock our senses if we saw it before us in the present day. The productions of 1851, instead of being works of art, were only fitted for the chamber of horrors; and we should all be ashamed to see them exhibited now. I can claim for South Kensington that it has done marvellous service for the country. Compare the state of art in the present day with the state of things in 1851, and I do not think we shall find that any nation in Europe has made greater progress than we have in the art attainments of our students as applied to manufacturing industry. In our design and colouring of carpets, in our iron manufacture, in our textile manufactures, in our china, and in other branches of art industry in all our great towns, and especially in the district which my hon. Friend represents, all the decorative arts are now carried on in a strain of beauty such as they never attained before in our history, and we bear a most favourable comparison with any other nation in that respect. The French, of course, hold their own; but they have not made the same strides we have made, and they are jealous indeed of the progress we are making, and which threatens to catch them up in time. In order to show what we have been doing, I may say that in 1860 the number of science schools under teachers was only 8; in 1870 it was 799; and in 1880 it was 1,391. The number of classes in 1860 was 20; in 1870 it was 2,204; and in 1880 it was 4,932. The number of persons receiving science and art education in 1860 was 386; in 1870 it was

  541
  34,283; and in 1880 it was 60,878. And the work is of a much more thorough character every year. Every year its character is being raised; every year it is becoming much less desultory dilletante work than it was a few years ago; and every year it is assuming a more useful and practical character, and becomes more fitted to be applied to the general industry of the country. We have 37 training colleges, containing 1,663 students, exclusive of the science teaching in the public elementary schools, which I look upon as the first step in art. For art teaching in 1879 there were 733 art night classes, with 29,393 students; 146 schools of art, with 29,191 students, besides the training school at South Kensington; and, in addition, there is art teaching in nearly 5,000 elementary schools to nearly 700,000 pupils. These figures show that we are making real and essential progress. I am glad to say that my noble Friend the Lord President has entered thoroughly into the question with myself, and we have lately been inquiring very carefully into the School of Mines and the School of Science at South Kensington, with the view of making them more useful and practical institutions than they have ever been before, by encouraging the Professors to turn out really trained teachers capable of giving useful technical scientific instruction all over the country.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: May I ask what is being done for Ireland on this subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are doing all they can for Ireland in the matter of technical education; and I can promise him that if we can only get the earnest co-operation of the Irish Members, which I certainly hope to get—[Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Certainly.]—we shall do everything we can to push forward science and art in Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow said that at present we have no evidence before the House of what is being done in this matter—that we have up to a certain date, 1868—but that since that time there has been a complete revolution; and that 1868 must be regarded as an antediluvian period, as compared with the present day. But to whom were we indebted for the information supplied in 1868, and which, at that time, was very good information in regard to what
  542
  had been done? We have, in the volumes which have been laid on this Table, as good a statement of the condition of technical education in Europe in 1868 as it is possible to obtain; and we owe it, in a great extent, to the ability, intelligence, and public spirit of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. B. Samuelson), who forced it upon the attention of the House, and conducted an inquiry in a semi-official capacity, at his own expense, for three months—the result being that he was able to produce a Report that did a great amount of good, and that led to very satisfactory results. I am very glad to find that the City Guilds are now following up his example. But, after all, what are they doing? A mere bagatelle. However, there is no doubt that they are now discharging the functions for which they were originally established. They owe their existence to the industries of this country. Their affairs and their functions are connected with the industries of the country; and if they will only devote their energies and their great wealth to the service of those industries, as they have now begun to do, I am sure we should be willing to forget the past, and should be glad to have the advantage of their co-operation. I want now to tell the House how I propose to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend. I am sincerely anxious that the House and the country should be in possession of the information he asked for. I should like them to realize how important this matter is for the future of the country; and what I propose to do is this. I do not think it is needful for the purpose that we should appoint a Royal Commission to visit the various technical schools all over France, Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland—because, to appoint a roving Commission to travel all over Europe, would be a very expensive and, I think, a needlessly tedious process. If I can induce, and I hope I shall succeed in doing so, some gentlemen who have real technical knowledge to do in the coming year what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury did in 1867—if I could persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury once again to take up this work, and associate with himself two or three other gentlemen representing the various manufacturing industries of the country, I believe that the greatest

  543
  possible advantage to the country would follow their labours. If two or three gentlemen of industry, and possessing scientific attainments, representing the mining, iron, and textile industries; and, if possible, I should like also to see somebody representing agriculture—if such a body of gentlemen were to go together all over Europe and give us a Report, I can only say that they would render a great service to the country. The Foreign Office would be ready to give them all the assistance possible. I can promise them that the Science and Art Department will render them every assistance. We will give them a Secretary. I am sure they would enjoy the work, and they would render a good and patriotic service; and it would not be necessary for them to make any appeals to the Treasury. There would be great advantages in an arrangement of this kind. After all, what Englishmen do for themselves is better done than what a Government does for them. I feel sure that it is only necessary to make this statement to insure applications from 20 or 30 able volunteers from whom the three or four gentlemen we want could easily be selected. I am satisfied that the House and the country would be grateful to them for undertaking the labour; and I am satisfied that I can find men with the right knowledge and the right earnestness who will be willing to do the work. I will engage that it shall be done, and that by this time next year the House shall be in possession of all the facts that are required, and that we shall have before us as complete a statement of what is being done, how it is done, and the advantages which are derived from doing it by Continental nations as we could possibly obtain from the best Royal Commission we could appoint. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance of complete sympathy with the object which he has in view, and that he will withdraw the Motion.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would not detain the House at that hour by making the speech which he had intended to make if he could have obtained an opportunity of addressing the House earlier. He should certainly not have ventured now to interpose at all, if it had not been for the statement on the question of apprenticeship which had been made by so high an authority
  544
  as the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to that subject would be read by a very great number of people, and would be quoted hereafter as an authority upon it. If he remembered rightly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the system of apprenticeship had almost gone out of practice, and that it would have a tendency to become more so in the future, as labour became more sub-divided in the manufactories. That was a statement which he (Mr. Broadhurst) very much regretted to hear; and he could not understand how any hon. Member who was an advocate of technical education could have cheered such a sentiment, as he had heard it cheered, when it was uttered by the right hon. Gentleman. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, if he would give his attention for a moment, what sort of a mechanic he could expect to have produced in an engineering shop unless the man had served some regulated number of years of apprenticeship?
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. BROADHURSTcontinued. He exceedingly regretted that the subject of apprenticeship had not received more attention. A question of greater importance to the future position of the country amongst the manufactories of the world could hardly have been introduced. They were, however, so fond of discussing questions of war and peace that it would appear as if no time was left for discussing the greatest interests of England as a manufacturing nation. He could not allow the discouraging observations of so high an authority as the Vice President of the Council with regard to the system of apprenticeship to pass without offering some remarks in reply. If apprenticeship was gradually to be abolished, how could it possibly be expected that England could compete with the clever, able, and highly skilled manufacturing nations of Europe and America? How was it possible for our skilled moulders in iron and brass to obtain a high and skilled technical knowledge of their trade unless it was by an application to that trade continued for a number of years? Again, with

  545
  reference to the hardware trade. An hon. Member had pointed out that American goods were being bought at the shops in London in preference to English made goods of this class. Whether that statement could be borne out by actual proof he was not in a position to say. No doubt, however, there was something in it, or the hon. Member would not have ventured it in that House. But if it were so, it was because the goods in question were more highly finished and displayed greater artistic taste than the goods produced in this country. If, then, the system of apprenticeship was to be abolished, a decrease, instead of an increase, in taste and finish must be looked for. Then there was the jewellery trade of Birmingham, Sheffield, and other large centres. The very essence of success, as regarded this trade in commanding the markets of the world, was a thorough knowledge and long training to the business. All the great trades he had referred to—the iron trade, building trade, and the furniture trade, the latter having to compete largely with the furniture trade of Belgium and France—required a long apprenticeship to produce efficiency. If, therefore, the system of apprenticeship was to be restricted, our power of competition with other countries would be decreased. He had no hesitation in saying that, if there had been any advance made upon us by other nations in the matter of skilled production, it was due to the rapid and loose system we had, in connection with the skilled trades, of not insisting upon thorough apprenticeship. He held that when apprenticeship was entered upon the employer who undertook the responsibility of teaching should be compelled by law to discharge his duties in that respect. One of the chief sources from which technical education was to be obtained was the early part of the time during which a lad was apprenticed. He had very little confidence in colleges and workshops provided for grown up men. If they wanted to produce a highly skilled class of workmen in any branch of industry, the elementary knowledge which must ultimately develop into the highly skilled and artistic knowledge must be obtained before the age of 20, and ought to be imparted, to a great extent, before the age of 15. He would suggest that this ques-
  546
  tion of technical education formed a part of some other subjects, which he sincerely hoped would command greater attention than they had hitherto. The law of apprenticeship must be amended, and employers must be made responsible for the fulfilment of the contracts entered into by them when they took apprentices into their firms. At present it was no uncommon thing to find a factory or workshop with 10 or 20 apprentices to seven or eight journeymen, the former of whom, instead of being kept at their trade for the first two or three years of their time, were employed in unskilled labour in order to save the grown up labour which was always required to be done in manufactories. He said that the moment a lad was apprenticed and properly indentured to any trade he should be set to work on the rudimentary parts of that trade, and that every opportunity should be afforded him of pursuing his studies in the higher branches while he was working at the practical part of the trade. That, he thought, was the method to be carried on, in order to keep this country abreast of the highly educated people of France, Germany, Switzerland, and America. The deductions to be drawn from the statements of the hon. Member for Glasgow with reference to trade unions were that their practical working was to strike an average wage above which no man could rise, and below which no man was permitted to work. Now, that was altogether a mistake. Trade unionism had struck an average of wage; but it did not insist upon a man not obtaining a higher class of skill in his trade if he pleased. It had certainly never professed itself against a man's being paid a wage above the average in the trade. He ventured to tell the hon. Member for Glasgow that he had never heard of a strike by a trade union demanding a reduction of wage. No such thing had ever happened. Then his hon. Friend went on to say that members of trade unions never received a higher wage than the average fixed by rule. But that was not so. There were highly paid and low paid men in all trades unions, precisely as there were in other professions. He made these remarks for the purpose of correcting a slight misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Glasgow, who, he felt sure, would appreciate

  547
  the spirit in which they were made. It only remained for him to express regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council should have uttered any discouraging words with regard to the apprenticeship system. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would find an opportunity for toning down the effect which those words might have in the country if they wore allowed to go forth as uttered, without a protest.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the House was very much indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow for the introduction of the present question. He was extremely gratified by the businesslike discussion which had taken place upon questions of so much interest to the country; but he was compelled to express his surprise that the Conservative Benches were absolutely empty. He had thought that, in the present state of the farming interest, hon. Members opposite would have been particularly anxious to ascertain what was being done by foreign nations with reference to agricultural schools. There were one or two institutions of the kind in this country; but still we were far behind other nations in this respect. It was, therefore, most important that every possible information should be obtained from abroad which could throw light upon the great question of agriculture. There were some points with reference to technical education which he should have been glad to make some remarks had the time permitted; but at that late hour he would only say they had much to learn, both as to the kind of technical education which should be given, and the best system of giving it. Upon that point, also, information from abroad was most desirable. He trusted his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow would accept the suggestion thrown out by the Vice President of the Council, and that the hon. Member for Banbury would also see his way to assent to the proposal made to him.
  An hon. MEMBER added his testimony to the benefit derived from technical education, by instancing the case of two comparatively uneducated young men of the town which he represented, who had both obtained grants of £50 a-year from the Science and Art Department, and afterwards risen to important positions
  548
  abroad in connection with their respective trades.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he felt gratified at the allusion to the report which he had made; and although he could not agree with all the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Glasgow in favour of appointing a Royal Commission, he believed that the work of such a Commission would be of considerable service to the country. On the other hand, he differed almost entirely from the hon. Member as to the decadence of English manufactures. He had no belief in that whatever. For instance, in naval architecture they were far ahead of all other nations. The Institute of Naval Architects, and the Iron and Steel Institute, both of which would hold their meetings in London within the next six weeks, held the first rank throughout the world in the arts which they represented.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the parishes of Asgarby, Bolingbroke, Boston, Carrington, Chesilborne, Frieston, Hagnaby, Hareby, Hundleby, Heal West, Leverton, Lusby, Mavis Enderby, Milton Abbas, Miningsby, Owermoigne, Reithby, Revesby, Spilsby, Stickford, and Thorpe, and to the townships of Asselby, Balkholme, Barmby-on-the-Marsh, Bellasize, Blacktoft, Cotness, Eastrington, Gilberdike, Kendal, Kilpin, Knedlington, Laxton, Metham, Nether Graveship, Saltmarsh, Skelton, and Yokefleet, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time.[Bill 130.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (56).
SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS,

  QUESTION.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies Questions of which I have given him private Notice—namely, what is the number of troops now under orders to return from South Africa; whether Sir Garnet Wolseley acted on his own responsibility when he sent home a portion of the forces under his command, or under instructions from the Government; and what is the probable force it is intended in the future to retain in South Africa?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In answer to the first Question of my noble Friend I will read a statement of the exact number of troops at present in Natal and the Transvaal, and the orders which have been given. My noble Friend appears to be under some misconception as to troops having been ordered from the Cape, as he will see from my statement that certain regiments on their way have been directed not to proceed, and no regiments have been withdrawn. When the agreement with the Boers was concluded by Sir Evelyn Wood there were in Natal and the Transvaal eight regiments of Infantry, two regiments of Cavalry, and three batteries of Artillery. The numbers we have decided on retaining there for the present are 10 regiments of Infantry, four regiments of Cavalry, and three batteries of Artillery, with other branches of the Service, making altogether a force of about 12,000 men. What has been done in consequence of the conclusion of the arrangement with the Boers is to intercept two Infantry regiments on their way from the Mediterranean, and one on its way from Ceylon—three altogether—and a battery of Artillery on its way from this country. On the other hand, we have strengthened the gar-
  446
  rison at the Cape by one more battalion. There are thus 12 regiments of Infantry, four regiments of Cavalry, and four batteries of Artillery in the two South African commands, besides Engineers, Army Service Corps, and Army Hospital Corps. The answer to the second Question of the noble Lord is that I have not been able since I received his letter to ascertain the precise instructions that were given to Sir Garnet Wolseley; but I feel absolutely certain that he could not have sent home regiments at his own discretion, but must have had the usual orders sent him from home. As it will be interesting to the noble Lord to know what regiments were sent home by Sir Garnet Wolseley, I will read a statement on the subject. There were sent home one regiment of Cavalry—the 17th Lancers—two garrison batteries of Artillery, and 10 regiments of Infantry. Four regiments of Infantry which remained in Natal and the Transvaal, and were there at the time of the outbreak; a Cavalry regiment also remained; but it had been partly, or almost entirely, withdrawn at the time of the outbreak. I think that is a complete statement with reference to all that has been done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What are the dates at which the troops were sent home by Sir Garnet Wolseley?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I cannot tell the exact dates. They were sent home after the Zulu War. The last Question of the noble Lord (Lord Lamington), as to how many troops we may be obliged to retain in South Africa, is one I cannot answer. That must, of course, depend entirely on circumstances, and it would be perfectly impossible for me to give any opinion whatever on the subject at the present time.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— SLAVERY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given him private Notice. He very much regretted that indisposition should have prevented him from addressing their Lordships in the course of the Transvaal debate last night. He wished to know whether his noble Friend could refer to any Parlia-

  447
  mentary Paper, or to any Paper that he proposed to lay upon the Table, which would corroborate the statement he had now twice made during the present Session that the system of slavery has ceased to exist amongst the Transvaal Boers during recent years? On February 21 he might observe that ho called their Lordships' attention to this matter; and he thought that he then laid before them an unbroken chain of evidence that slavery had existed in the Transvaal from the first trekking of the Boers in 1834 down to the year 1877, when annexation took place. He (Lord Brabourne) had quoted from authentic documents which had all been laid before Parliament—he had quoted the solemn Resolutions of the Natal Legislature in 1868, the opinions of British officials as late as 1875 and 1876, and the continuous complaints of the Native tribes—one in December, 1876, only three or four months before the annexation—wherein they said—"The Boers treat us like money, they sell us and our children." No answer had been made to that speech, which lie attributed to no merit of his, but to the fact that he had quoted from authentic documents which it was impossible to answer. On the other side, there stood only the statement of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley), unsupported at present by any reference to any Papers in their Lordships' possession. It was a matter of great importance, for this reason. For several months past certain itinerant orators had been going about the country endeavouring to excite sympathy for the Boers, and advocating the independence of the Transvaal. This he (Lord Brabourne) supposed was what his noble Friend would call awakening the conscience of the country. Hitherto, he believed, they had had comparatively little success; but it might be different if their denial of the existence of slavery among the Boers received the impress of the authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He (Lord Brabourne) was very ready to defer to the opinion of his noble Friend, if that opinion could be shown to be founded upon authentic documents; and, therefore, he asked him, in justice to himself and to all who took an interest in this question, whether such documents did actually exist, and whether he could refer their Lordships to any Papers
  448
  which justified his opinion. He also wished to ask a Question upon another point—namely, whether there was any foundation for the report in the daily papers that the British troops had been driven into Pretoria, and that those who did this were assisted by reinforcements from Potchefstroom, and aided by the two guns captured at that place? He need scarcely say that if this were so it constituted another primâ facie case against the Boers of having violated the conditions of the armistice; but upon this point he would express no opinion until the information was before their Lordships, and he merely asked whether such was in the possession of the Government? He should like to know also whether, upon the re-establishment of the South African Republic, it would be called upon to repay the whole or any part of the £100,000 voted by Parliament when we annexed the Transvaal and found the Exchequer empty; and also whether they would repay any portion of the war with Secocoeni and with the Zulus, which, if not actually undertaken in consequence of the annexation, had, at least, given the Republic its only chance of existence, by subduing its two most powerful enemies?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: As to the Question of what is due from the Transvaal State to this country, that will be considered by the Royal Commission. The question of a contribution by the Transvaal to the Zulu War most certainly will not be considered by the Commission. I think that a demand of a contribution from the Transvaal towards the expenses of that war would be most extraordinary and unjustifiable. With regard to the reported attack on Pretoria, I have seen the Press telegram to which the noble Lord has referred; but Her Majesty's Government have no information whatever on the subject. As to the Question of the existence of slavery in the Transvaal, I can only say that, so far as I know, all the Papers relating to the subject have been presented to the House. I am not aware of the receipt of any other Papers since those which have been laid on the Table. The noble Lord asks whether I can refer to Papers which would confirm the statement made by me last night, that during the last few years slavery had practically ceased to exist in the

  449
  Transvaal Republic? I have before stated to your Lordships that it might have existed in some remote districts; but if your Lordships refer to the Papers of 1875, you will find a very interesting Memorandum, delivered to Lord Carnarvon in Juno of that year by the late President of the South African Republic, who was then in this country. The following is an extract from that Memorandum of President Burgers:—
  "…..However good the intention of the Government, experience soon proved that something more is required in a country than good laws in order to prevent evil practices, and with their best endeavours the Government could not always prevent abuses of the apprenticeship system. As the different parties, however, in course of time gradually amalgamated, and law and order were better established, the cause which produced those unfortunate apprenticeships—namely, war and its evil consequences, gradually became of less force, and the evil subsided in proportion. These facts not being understood or known gave rise to the misapprehension which has thrown the stain of slavery upon the Government of the South African Republic. In a late inquiry made by that Government to ascertain the truth of this accusation, it was found that not a single instance could be named in which slavery was carried on in the Republic with the sanction of the Government. No doubt, as is always the case in new and sparsely populated countries, the intentions of the Government were frustrated, and, in spite of all precaution, the system of apprenticeship in many cases was abused. Since the memorable civil war of 1865, however, in which the Pretorius party finally triumphed, such abuses have been fairly put down."
  Of course, if Lord Carnarvon had considered it necessary to deal with the question of slavery in the Republic, having that Memorandum before him, he would have drawn attention to it; but on the 15th of June, 1875, he wrote this despatch to Sir Henry Barkly—
  Sir,—I enclose a copy of a very interesting Memorandum, which has been prepared at my request by President Burgers, on the present condition of the Natives in the South African Republic.
  "I have received this communication with much satisfaction, indicating, as it does, a disposition to adopt those sound and humane principles of Native government without which the agreement on a common policy would be impossible; but as to which I entertain the hope that a complete and satisfactory understanding may be arrived at in the conference which I have proposed in my despatch of the 4th of May. "I am, &c., "CARNARVON."
  It would appear from that despatch that there was then no question of slavery, and that Lord Carnarvon acquiesced in
  450
  the Memorandum of President Burgers. My noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) shakes his head. I know that there was the system of apprenticeship, and the Government of the South African Republic admitted that there had been abuses of that system; but the same system exists also in the Cape Colony. After the war in the Transkei complaints were made when the late Government was in Office of the way in which it was applied; but I never heard that they asserted that slavery was allowed in the Colony. I maintain that I was quite justified in saying that slavery, in the true sense of the word, had practically ceased to exist in the Transvaal.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Earl to say that he relies on the Memorandum from which he has quoted to prove that slavery did not practically exist in the Transvaal during the later years of the Republic? Is this the only proof he has of that, in contravention of all the facts and testimony on the other side?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What I say is, that the President presented the Memorandum to Lord Carnarvon, who pratically acquiesced in its truth, and that there is no evidence in the Colonial Office during the last few years of the existence of slavery. I have asserted that slavery had practically ceased in the South African Republic, and this assertion has not been disproved.
  LORD BRABOURNEreminded his noble Friend, that when he brought this subject forward on a former occasion he quoted from Reports made by resident British officials in 1875 and 1876, which stated distinctly that slavery did exist.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not say that there were no individual instances of White slavery; but what I do say is, that no system of slavery such as that described last night, when it was said that we were turning hundreds of thousands back into slavery, existed in the later years of the Transvaal Republic.

LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 56.)
(The Lord O'Hagan.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD DENMANreferred to the operation of the 16th and 17th clauses as

451
preferable to the short time in which Parliament dealt with the abolition of the Chiefships and Divisions of Courts, without dealing with the patronage.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the arrangement with regard to the abolition of the Chief Judgeships of the Common Pleas and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice had thus far proved successful, and that the Courts had never been freer from arrears than since that arrangement had been adopted.
Bill reported without amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 14 th day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Thursday the 7th day of April next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Thursday the 7th day of April next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons authorising any inclosure of lands under special report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Friday the 17 th day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Friday the 17 th day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and Published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 58.)
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.