Sitting of 13 July 1897

MR. W. L. JACKSONamid some cheers, brought up the Report of the British South African Committee.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 17) BILL.
  On the Motion that this Bill be now considered,
  *MR. BROOKFIELDproposed, as an Amendment,—
  "That the Bill be recommitted with respect to an amendment to the Schedule, Article III. (1), page 5, line 39; that all petitions against the Bill presented before Thursday be referred to the Committee, and that such petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their counsel, or agents, be heard against the Bill, and counsel in support of the Bill; that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed on Thursday."
  He said it was not with the slightest wish to deny that an extension of the boundary of Hastings was necessary that he took this action. An important question, however, arose as to the extent to which this boundary should go, and what were the interests involved in making the extension. The original proposal took in a considerably wider area, including the greater part of the parish of Fairlight, where his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings resided, and owned some considerable property. But for some reason the greater part of that parish had been struck out. He was representing on this occasion the interests of the Parish Council of Hollington, where the borough Member did not reside. A meeting of ratepayers of that parish passed, with only two dissentients, a resolution protesting against the proposal to take in the best and richest portion of the parish, as being detrimental to the best interests of the majority of

  5
  the ratepayers, who were chiefly of the working classes, and because such a scheme would add enormously to the rates, and bring no advantage to the parish. The Perish Council were unanimous upon the question. The Hastings Corporation, however, had not been restrained from still fixing their covetous glance on this Naboth's vineyard which he was trying to defend. The Corporation were seeking to include their richest neighbours in the Bill, and his Amendment did not even prevent that. At the Local Government Board inquiry, the Parish Council showed that they did not desire the change, and that it was not desirable in the public interest. The Commissioner himself, and, he thought, everybody else, admitted that the change was not desired by the inhabitants. The Perish Council inquired from him whether it would be possible to oppose the Bill on the Second Reading. On May 12th the Measure was read a First time without their knowledge. The following day an official of the Local Government Board undertook that they should be informed of the date for the Second Reading. But when next he heard from him, it was to the effect that the Bill lied been read a Second time, end that the, time for petitioning against it had expired on the day on which he wrote. The official added that he thought he might possibly have made a promise to keep him informed on this subject, but he had "got somewhat Mixed." through pressure of work. The hon. Member urged that proper notice Of every stage should be given to those concerned. The Local Government Board having recommended the Parish Council to come to some amicable arrangement, the Parish Council represented to the Corporation what they wanted, end asked for some smell concession. But the Corporation, acting under the advice of their Town Clerk, who showed most remarkable ignorance of his duties in this platter, informed them that it was not within the competence of the Corporation to come to any arrangement, because the Local Government Board had fixed the boundary which was to exist. That view was entirely misleading and inaccurate. They could now only appeal to the House of Commons. They did not object to an extension in a fair way. Other parishes had obtained considerable
  6
  concessions. The alternative boundary line which he sketched out was, he submitted, very reasonable. The Parish Council entertained profound mistrust towards the Corporation in connection with certain financial and commercial transactions.
  MR. LUCAS - SHADWELLopposed the Amendment. His hon. Friend had somewhat unnecessarily dragged the perish of Fair-light into the discussion. But Fairlight was content, while Hollington was discontented. He would not go into the difference of opinion between his hon. Friend and the Local Government Board. He might say, it his hon. Friend did not receive any notice, neither did he. The Amendment would have lied more force had his hon. Friend championed the cause of the other perishes which it was proposed to include. The parish of Ore might have lied reason to be aggrieved. Whatever grievance Hollington had, Ore would have had the same grievance. The only reason he could understand for the discontent felt at Hollington was that a certain amount of their rateable value would be taken away. The same argument applied to Ore, and if the hon. Members would refer to the Provisional Order they would see that it made provision for a proper adjustment in the interests of the parishes, in order that they should be fairly treated. The fact was the whole matter had been one of compromise. The original proposal came from the Hastings Town Council, but the present proposal was that of the Local Government Board. A concession had been made to the various parishes. The Local Government Board Commissioner, after full inquiry, and after inspecting the ground, altered the scheme. He would like to remark that in a circular which. had been largely circulated in the House in the interests of the Parish Council of Hollington, it was contended that the Council herd not a fair hearing. With reference to that, he would like to remark that his hon. end learned Friend the Member for East Finsbury gave Hollington the Advantage of his advocacy. He believed it was a fact that notice was not given to the Council, but as a matter of fact there was no reason to believe they were not fully informed of what Rids about to take place. Turning to the objection that the School Board would

  7
  be abolished, the hon. Member pointed out that the School Board of Hastings would have authority over the district. The evidence taken before the Local Government Board Inspector was that there was a small sewage farm in Hollington, and that the effluent from it ran into the Hollington stream; that the Hollington stream, in its course to the sea, ran through a portion of the borough of Hastings, and that at certain times in summer the smell arising from it was offensive. It was extremely desirable also that the streets of Hollington should be properly lighted. Hollington was practically a suburb of Hastings, and had much more of an urban than a rural character. A large number of the working classes who had employment at Hastings lived at Hollington, and they had the advantage of the higher rate of wages in Hastings as well as other advantages. The whole borough was in favour of this scheme, and there was no question of local politics whatever in the matter. As a matter of fact, the majority on the Town Council, with whom the scheme originated, belonged to the Liberal Party. The medical men of Hastings were also in favour of the scheme. It was most important that the borough of Hastings should not be contaminated owing to want of proper precautions in an adjoining district. Another important point was the control of the water-shed. The growth of Hastings had been enormous, and the population was now estimated at 57,000 or 58,000. It must be admitted that the extension of the boundaries should be made, and he hoped the Government would not give way upon the point.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)said this matter had followed the ordinary course. The borough of Hastings desired an extension of its boundary, and an experienced inspector was sent down from the Local Government Board who made a thorough inquiry at which all parties were heard, including witnesses from the parish of Hollington. The report was carefully considered, not only by the permanent officials, but by the President of the Board. The Local Government Board did not fix the day for the Second Reading; that was done by the clerks at the Table, and even if the hon. Member had
  8
  had the fullest notice of the Second Reading, he could not have moved a boundary Amendment at that stage. As no petition was lodged against the Bill, it went before the Committee on Unopposed Bills. If the hon. Member wished to lodge an objection he could do so in the other House, and the whole matter might be raised before a Committee of the other House. It would be manifestly unfair to recommit the Bill because the hon. Member had missed his opportunity of lodging a petition. Moreover, if such a course were taken owing to the Session now being so far advanced the whole order would probably be sacrificed. The borough of Hastings was extending, and its population was growing, and he submitted that it was entitled to a remedy for what it considered was a grievance—namely, that there should be on its outskirts a place which would not adopt the Lighting Act, and would not provide any place in which infectious diseases might be treated. He thought the House ought to allow the Bill to proceed.
  Question, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be Read the third time To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  GRENADIER, GUARDS.
  SIR A ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of men have been transferred from battalion to battalion of the Grenadier Guards during the last two months, and for what purpose; how many recruits have been specially enlisted into each regiment of Foot Guards since 1st January 1897; how many men now on the establishment of the 1st battalion Grenadier Guards are recruits of under nine months' service; and whether recruiting under any other branch of the service has been in any way interfered with in order to obtain recruits for the Guards?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): 42 men were transferred from the 1st to the 2nd battalion, because being in their last six months of service, they will be ineligible for foreign service when the 1st battalion embarks. This is the course adopted with all battalions embarking for foreign service; The special enlistments during the present year for the Foot Guards have been 113 for the Grenadiers, 53 for the Cold-streams and 57 for the Scots; 403 men in the 1st battalion of the Grenadier Guards have less than nine months service. The recruiting of other branches of the service has not been interfered in order to obtain recruits for the Guards.
  SIR A ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War to what extent each regiment of Foot Guards is now below the establishment of 1897–8; what number of men were invited to rejoin the Grenadier Guards from the Reserve under Army Order 59 of 1897, and how many have rejoined: what number of men of the Grenadiers have extended their service from three to seven years in consideration of a bounty of £2, under the same Army Order; and what is the number 4 men of the 1st battalion Grenadier Guards whose service will expire between now and the date of the embarkation of the battalion for Gibraltar?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Grenadier Guards are 172 men below the establishment laid down for the regiment from the date of the 1st battalion embarking for Gibraltar in October next. The Coldstream and Scots Guards are respectively 44 and 62 above their old establishments; but they are 254 and 247 below the establishment which is to be provided by the 1st April 1898, which will include the numbers to be raised in the financial year towards the new battalions; 326 men were invited to rejoin from the Reserves—11 have done so; 6 men in the Grenadier Guards have extended their colour service from three to seven years; the service of 54 men in the 1st battalion of the Grenadier Guards will expire before the date fixed for their embarkation.
  MR. JAMES HOZIER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of
  10
  State for War what the number of recruits of each battalion of the Grenadier Guards is at the depot at present; what the minimum amount of service of men ordered to embark with the 1st battalion for Gibraltar will be; and, whether any of these men will be untrained in musketry and field training; and, if so, whether they are to be trained in musketry and field training at Gibraltar?
  MR. BRODRICK: There are 232 recruits of the Grenadier Guards at present at the depôt. Of these 222 belong to the 1st, four to the 2nd, and six to the 3rd battalion. No man will be sent to Gibraltar with less than three months' service. If the state of the weather or any other special cause should prevent any of the men completing their musketry and field training before embarkation, they will complete it at Gibraltar.
  SIR A ACLAND-HOODasked why the number of recruits in the 2nd battalion was so low, and when it was proposed to make up the proper number.
  MR. BRODRICK: Obviously when the 1st battalion lets to be raised by 170 men in three months, it is necessary that the recruits should be passed to that battalion first. Afterwards the remaining battalions will be made up to their requisite strength.
  MR. HOZIERasked whether it was possible to give the recruits musketry training at Gibraltar.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir. There are ranges up to 1,400 yards for musketry, and up to 1,800 yards for field firing.

  SCIENCE AND ART DIRECTORY.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if in Clause VII. of the proposed Science and Art Directory the term "authority" is intended to include any statutory body at present existing in England or only such joint committees or combinations of the various bodies interested in technical and secondary education as may be formed by voluntary action; and, if in recognising such authorities the Department will take care to reserve the rights of any statutory authorities for secondary education that may hereafter be created?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The clause was suggested by a Departmental Committee and is at present under the consideration of the Committee of Council. They do not understand that by the use of the word "authority" the Departmental Committee intended to recommend the Department to attempt to confer coercive powers upon any statutory body, but only to encourage the various public bodies dealing with secondary and technical education to combine for the purpose of preventing overlapping. Care will be taken to prevent the growth of interests which might interfere with the action of statutory authorities hereafter created.

  RHUABON SCHOOL BOARD.
  *MR. A GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by the Parish Council of Rhuabon unanimously, and by the Rhuabon parish meeting by 125 votes to 20, praying that Rhuabon should be separated from the United School Board district of Rhuabon, Rhos, Penycoe, and Cefn, in pursuance of the powers conferred on parish meetings by the Local Government Act 1893, section 52 (2); (2) whether he is aware that under the Local Government Act Rhuabon has been made a separate parish for all purposes other than School Board purposes; that in Rhuabon parish there is no School Board or site for Board School and that there is ample accommodation in the Voluntary School; that there is no representation of Rhuabon parish on the United School Board, and that further the United School Board propose to raise immediately a loan of £4,000 for increased Board School accommodation at Rhos, the interest on which will be partly charged on the ratepayers of Rhuabon, though they will derive no benefit whatever from it; and (3), whether under these circumstances he will favourably consider the request, and will sanction the dissolution of the School Board so far as the parish of Rhuabon is concerned?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The Committee of Council have announced that they do not propose to sanction the
  12
  dissolution of the United District unless it can be shown that the School Board as well as all the Parish Councils concerned are in favour of the dissolution.
  *MR. GRIFFITH -BOSCAWENasked whether the right hon. Gentleman understood that what he asked for was not the dissolution of the United District but only the School Board of one particular parish, and also that if it was left to the four parishes concerned that would never take place because it was natural that the other parishes would wish to be able to continue to rate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANasked a question arising out of the same matter of which he had given the right lion. Gentleman private notice, whether it was the fact that the Voluntary Schools in the parish of Rhuabon only provided accommodation for 364 out of 605 children of school age in the parish leaving 241 children whose education had to be elsewhere provided for, and whether having regard to section 41 of the Elementary Education Act of 1876 which required that before a School Board was dissolved "the Department must be satisfied that there is sufficient public school accommodation for the district" he would in any case postpone his final decision until further inquiry had been made on the subject?
  SIR J. GORSTsaid the Education Department had no power to suspend the connection of a School Board in a particular parish without the dissolution of the United District. In answer to the Question of the right hon. Baronet the information at present possessed by the Committee of Council did not tally with the suggestion contained in the first part of his Question. He was informed that there was ample accommodation for all the Rhuabon children. As regards the second part of the Question, Section 41 seemed to provide for cases in which it was admitted the accommodation was insufficient.
  LORD CRANBORNEasked whether the Department would really consider on the merits each specific case which was submitted to them in order to see whether the dissolution of a School Board ought to follow?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a general question of which notice should be given.

  PETERBOROUGH STATION (GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY).
  *MR. E. P. MONCKTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the undertaking given by the Great Eastern Railway Company with respect to the improvement of their station at Peterborough, and also considering the continual shunting that takes place over their level missing close to their station, blocking one of the main entrances into the town, to the serious inconvenience and danger of the public, he is aide to state if any report on the existing state of things has been made to the Department by any of then. officials; what steps, if any, have been taken by t he Great Eastern Railway Company in this matter; and when operations will be commenced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE ROARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE, Croydon): I have received a satisfactory letter from the Great Eastern Company with reference to the proposed works for the improvement of the station, which I shall Le happy to show the hon. Member. With regard to the crossing, the company deny that there is any danger at Fletton, or that a bridge is necessary; they are willing to build a bridge, however, if the Local Authority is prepared to hear two-thirds of the cost thereof. Although the Board of Trade cannot compel the company to provide a bridge, they will be happy at any time to offer their good offices With a view to settling the amount of contribution which should be paid by the Local Authority, if that body was disposed to entertain such a proposal.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (PORTSMOUTH).
  MR. HENRY BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a complaint that a staff sergeant-major in the Royal Engineers at Portsmouth has been acting as canvasser for orders for the Easton Steam Saw Mills and Masonry Works at Portland; and whether it is in accordance with Army Regulations that non-commissioned officers should also carry (n business agencies while in the service?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is contrary to regulations that any person while in the service should carry on a business agency. The sergeant-major in question admits that he distributed circulars in favour of an establishment in which his brother was interested; but he denies that he received any payment for doing so, and the firm which he recommended confirms this denial. The serjeant-major acted apparently in ignorance of Regulations, and will be warned to abstain from such courses in future.

  ALDERSHOT REVIEW.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the 17 Staff Officers employed at the Aldershot Review included the whole of the Staff and Acting Staff, or only Acting Staff detached from their own corps; whether the 92 allowed in Germany include both Staff and Acting Staff; and whether he can state the total number of Staff and Acting Staff employed at Aldershot on 1st July?
  MR. BRODRICK: The 17 officers referred to were detached from their own corps for acting duty on the Staff. There were 49 other Staff Officers employed on the occasion of the Review on July 1st, making 66 in all; 92 is the estimated number of Staff Officers who would, under German Regulations, have been employed with a force similarly constituted; how far Acting Staff Officers would have been employed we do not know.

  AERATED WATER BOXES.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why he has extended the overtime exception in Section 53 of the Factory Act, to the making of boxes for aerated water; and (2) whether there is any reason why these boxes should not be made at any time of the year, although they may be more employed in one part of the year than in another?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I granted overtime in this case because I was satisfied that the

  15
  trade was a season trade, liable to sudden and unexpected pressure of work, and closely associated with the aerated water trade in which overtime is already allowed. I made special inquiry into the point raised in the second paragraph of the Question and was satisfied that it was not possible to provide adequately for emergencies by working to stock. The right hon. Baronet will remember that the overtime exception applies only to adult women and that the maximum overtime allowed is only 45 hours in 12 months.

  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet been able to institute the promised inquiry into the allegations made by Dr. E. Berdoe, in regard to the use of curara in the practice of vivisection; and, if so, will he state the result of his inquiry?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, I have made full inquiry into the allegations contained in the letter and statement which the hon. Member forwarded to me, and find that they are absolutely baseless. The experiments referred to were performed on animals under full chloroform anæsthesia; the morphia, to which alone allusion was made in the published account of the experiments, being used in addition. Curara was used, but not as an anæsthetic.

  GIBRALTAR GARRISON.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the prospect of Foreign service on the Rock of Gibraltar has had the anticipated effect in stimulating recruiting for the Brigade of Guards; what is the actual number of recruits raised for the two new Battalions; and, whether the establishment of any of the existing Battalions forming the Brigade has been reduced by the War Office within the last six months, and what has been the extent of the reduction?
  MR. BRODRICK: Recruiting for the Brigade of Guards is brisker than it has been for some time past, and the numbers
  16
  enlisted are higher than at the same period in 1892, which was the last year when the standard was as it is at present; but it is scarcely possible to say at any time to what special cause the fluctuations of recruiting can be attributed. The Cold stream Guards are 44 men, and the Scots Guards 62 men, above their old establishment. The establishment of no existing Battalion has been reduced.

  ALDERSHOT (ESTABLISHMENT).
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will furnish a return giving particulars of the batteries and battalions present at Aldershot on 1st July, showing the number of all ranks present in each battery and battalion, the present establishment, and the number of men and horses which under existing regulations will be left behind in the event of the battery or battalion being dispatched on active service, and the number which will be required to raise each unit to war strength?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Secretary of State is averse to giving figures which might lead to misconception, and the statistics of a particular day would be no guide to the general condition of batteries or battalions at other periods of the year. Any comparative figures to be of value would have to be taken at various periods of the year.

  ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS (3RD MIDDLESEX).
  LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state why the 3rd Middlesex Artillery Volunteers are still described in the Army List as garrison artillery, inasmuch that their armament has for the past three years been that of position artillery; and whether, as long as this anomaly exists, the officers are precluded from attending the school of instruction for position artillery?
  MR. BRODRICK: The corps has been described as garrison artillery, but as they have been provisionally furnished with 9-pounder and 13-pounder guns for instructional purposes, their position will be considered before the next Estimates are framed.

  NEW HEBRIDES.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any understanding has yet been arrived at with the French Government with a view to stopping the sale of spirits and firearms to the natives of the New Hebrides by French traders, a practice that is strictly prohibited in the case of British traders.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): Her Majesty's Government have, since the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on March 29th last, addressed a further representation to the French Government, pressing them for a reply to the note which was addressed to them by Her Majesty's Government in November last. No reply has yet been received.

  CRETE.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any truth in the statement that the Admirals have decided, and have published their decision, that for the future all columns marching in the interior of Crete shall be strengthened, and shall take cannon with them, and that any attack on the part of the insurgents will be visited with reprisals and severe repression?
  MR. CURZON: The British Admiral has reported that while a column of Austrian and Italian troops was marching a short while ago from Canea to Platanea, the insurgents of Alikanu fired upon them more than 100 shots. The European troops did not return the fire. The insurgent leaders subsequently apologised for this act, and stated that the insurgents had mistaken the flags. The Admirals, however, regarded such a mistake as impossible, and accordingly warned the insurgents that if any further attack were made upon their troops, it would be replied to, and that the offenders would be seized. The Admirals also decided that the columns should in future be strengthened, and should if necessary take artillery with them. A subsequent march of the troops was unattended by incidents.
  MR. DILLON: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to asking him another question, that he
  18
  stated to me last week that the Admirals had decided not to continue this route marching in the interior, owing to the protest of the insurgent leaders. Have the Admirals changed that decision?
  MR. CURZON: I have no reason to believe that the march spoken of in the question was what the hon. Gentleman describes as a route march in the interior.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman says 100 shots were fired. How many were killed and how many were wounded?
  MR. CURZON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his important question On the Paper, and I will endeavour to answer it. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  MR. MACNEILL: Important! I assert its importance. [Laughter.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MACNEILL: You will have the question to-morrow, then. What an important and superior person! [Laughter.]
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether on Friday evening last several Christian houses in Candia were set on fire by lighted fuses soaked in petroleum, which were thrown into them by Mussulmans; and, what steps, if any, do the Powers intend to take for the prevent ion of outrages of this character?
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is in receipt of any recent information concerning the state of affairs in Canea and in Candia; and, whether in the former town several Christian houses were set on fire by lighted fuses soaked in petroleum and thrown into them by Mahomedans?
  MR. CURZON: As regards the situation at Candia and Canea Her Majesty's Consul at Canea reported in a telegram dated the 9th instant that at the request of the Governor of Candia, and with the approval of Colonel Chermside, an order had been issued by the Acting Governor General of Crete forbidding the carrying of antis by all persons in the City and district of Candia except those to whom special official permission should be issued. This order was to come into force on the 6th instant; In a further telegram dated the 11th instant, Her Majesty's Consul reported the election by the delegates from the different

  19
  districts of Crete on Apokorona of the officers of the coming General Assembly. The choice made is considered by Her Majesty's Consul to be satisfactory. No information has been received with regard to the alleged incendiarism?
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a provisional tribunal has been constituted at Canea consisting of eight members, six Mahomedans and two Christians; and, if so, whether the Representatives of the Powers, in view of the disturbed condition of the public mind in Canea and other parts of Crete, have sanctioned the establishment of a tribunal on which the majority of the people are to be so inadequately represented.
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government have received no information confirming this report.

  MACROOM UNION.
  MR. MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. HEALY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the late sworn inquiry into the election of Guardians for the Macroom electoral division of Macroom Union, the medical officer of the workhouse, Dr. R. Barrett, J.P., admitted having canvassed several voters and property-owners for their support for his friends; (2) whether this is consistent with the duty of a union official; and (3) whether the Local Government Board intend to take any action in consequence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting a union official from taking part in connection with union elections, but the Local Government Board have always expressed the view that any person receiving a salary from the rates ought not to interfere in such elections beyond the exercise of his rights of voting, and of nominating a candidate. The Board have communicated this view to Dr. Barrett, and requested that he would be good enough to bear it in mind in future.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. FLYNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Waterford (Mr. P. J. POWER), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with the view of encouraging agricultural labourers in Ireland to keep the cottages and land provided for them by Boards of Guardians in good order, will the Local Government Board consider the advisability of allowing boards of guardians, if they so wish, to spend a portion of the rates in giving small prizes for well kept gardens and cottages, the sum so spent not to exceed a small figure for each electoral division, and to be regulated by the Local Government Board?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no statutory authority enabling Boards of Guardians to apply a portion of the rates for the purpose referred to, and it appears to me to be doubtful whether it would be desirable to conifer such power on them. Any such payments made by Boards of Guardians would be disallowed by the Auditor.

  IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. JAM ES GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Pest-master General, whether he is aware that the time between the arrival and departure of the mails in Castletown, Berehaven, has been recently abridged; and, if so, whether he will recommend an alteration with a view to facilitate replies to letters on the same day as they are received?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that the time between the arrival and departure of the mails in Castletown has been recently abridged by 25 minutes. This is owing to the later departure of the night mails from Dublin—an alteration rendered necessary by the later receipt in Dublin of the day mails from the Provinces. Inquiry shall be made with the view of ascertaining whether any longer interval for reply can be afforded at Castletown.
  MR. MACNEILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that English letters arriving at Dundalk at 7.3 a.m. are kept

  21
  in the Post Office till after 9 a.m., when the Scotch Mail arrives, and are not delivered in some parts of the town till 10.30 a.m., with the result that towns farther north, such as Newry and Belfast, get their English Mails delivered sooner than Dundalk; and whether he will consider how this arrangement can he improved upon?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General was not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member. He has, however, ordered an inquiry to be made into the case.

  FAMINE (INDIA).
  SIR. SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the difficulties encountered in the famine relief of the large Province of Chota Nagpore owing to the absence of railway communication over an area of 21,000 square miles, with a population of over four millions; and whether any and what steps are contemplated for opening up railway communication throughout t he Province, both for facilitating famine relief and developing the mineral and agricultural resources of the district?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I am aware that there was at one time some difficulty in connection with the supply of food to Palamow, but I have heard of no other cases of difficulty in connection with the famine administration of Chota Nagpore. There is a line of railway 110W under construction in the Province of Chota Nagpore by the extension southward of the East Indian Railway system from Moghul Serai to Gya, and eventually to Palamow. Proposals are also under the consideration of the Government of India for the creation of branch lines northward into Chota Nagpore in connection with the Bengal and Nagpur Railway Company's system, which already traverses a portion of the Province.

  COLONIAL PREMIERS IN CONFERENCE.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recent conferences with the Colonial Premiers at the Colonial Office are to be
  22
  regarded as permanently or only temporarily confidential; was a record of the deliberations kept, and will the House, in due course, he placed in possession of the decisions or recommendations arrived at?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR E COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The discussions have been for the most part informal and friendly conversations, and, although a record has been kept for private reference, it is not intended to publish any full report. It has been agreed that the address of the Colonial Secretary in opening the proceedings and a statement by the first Lord of the Admiralty shall be published, together with a copy of the conclusions arrived at by the representatives present at the meetings.

  WATER SUPPLY·(CAUSER, IN VERNESS - SHIRE).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the River Nethy, which for many years has formed the water supply of the village of Causer, in the Badenoch district of Inverness-shire, has become polluted owing to certain inhabitants who reside above the village having allowed sewage to discharge into the river; and that, although the local authorities are empowered under Section 8 of The Rivers Pollution Act 1876, to compel the offenders to desist from discharging their sewage into the river, these authorities decline to act; and, having regard to the fact that in consequence of this inaction the public health continues to be imperilled, will he state what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MYRRAY, Buteshire): The position of this matter has already been fully explained to the hon. Member, both by answers by me in tins House and more recently by the Scottish Office in correspondence. The Government cannot give any undertaking to intervene in the matter.

  TIUMPAN HEAD LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Northern Lighthouse Board, instead of inviting tenders

  23
  for the construction of the Tiumpan Head Lighthouse by means of advertisements in the newspapers, have selected a certain number of firms from whom they have invited tenders; and, whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which this course has caused in the trade affected, will steps be taken to invite tenders by advertisement, in accordance with the practice which obtains in other Government Departments?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that no advertisements for tenders for the construction of the Tiumpan Head Lighthouse were inserted in the newspapers, but that, in accordance with the practice of the Commissioners, tenders were invited from ten firms who could be relied on to undertake the special kind of work required. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioners in such matters.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Northern Lighthouse Board propose to employ for the erection of the Tiumpan Head Lighthouse the same firm of engineers who prepared the plans mid superintended the Port Ness Harbour Works?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that they are employing their own engineer, as usual, to carry out the erection of Tiumpan Head Lighthouse.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  *MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War the reason why the Earl of Chester's Yeomanry Cavalry were not represented by an officer and squad at the Jubilee; and, why the request for an answer to that Question by the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division was refused by the War Office?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Earl of Chester's Yeomanry Cavalry forms a part of the 9th Yeomanry Brigade, the officer commanding which was invited to send a limited number of representatives from his several corps to the Jubilee. That officer did not propose that the corps in question should be represented. If the officer commanding the corps is
  24
  dissatisfied with the course adopted he should apply to the officer commanding the Brigade; the letter on the subject from the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division was answered.

  BOMBAY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the other two Members of the Government of Bombay agreed with the Governor in his acceptance of the nomination of Ganguhdar Tilak to the Legislative Council?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I stated yesterday in this House that the Governor alone is responsible for the acceptance or refusal of a nomination to the Legislative Council. Members of the Bombay Council do not share this responsibility, and I have, therefore, no information as to their opinions on the subject of this nomination.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETTasked whether it was not the usual practice in the cases of appointments of this kind for the head of the Government to consult the other Members of the Government?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not know what the practice is; but, as the responsibility rests with the Governor, I think it is undesirable to enlarge that responsibility.

  BRENNAN TORPEDO.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that £265,320 has been expended in connection with the Brennan torpedo, and that out of this sum £110,000 was paid for the invention, will he state whether the torpedo was perfected at the time the invention was purchased; and, if not, how much of the remaining £155,320 has been expended in perfecting the torpedo?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The Brennan torpedo was a perfected invention when the purchase was made, though improvements have since taken place which have involved some comparatively small additional cost.
  MR. WEIR: Will Members of this House be permitted to see this torpedo? [Laughter.]
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member wishes to become closely acquainted with the torpedo, possibly an opportunity might he given to him. [Langhter.]

  PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that. the Board of Works are imposing fresh restrictions on the admission of vans through the Ashton and Castleknock gates of the Phœnix Park, compelling a round of miles to be taken by the high road; and whether he would take the necessary steps to procure permission for vans to traverse the park?
  *MR. HANBURY: There has been no change in the rules by which the traffic in the park is regulated, the principle of which is that passes are not given for traffic to places that call be reached by county roads, the object being to maintain the amenity of the park as a place of pleasurable resort for the public.

  BELMULLET (FEVER OUTBREAK).
  MR D. CRILLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has any report to hand intimating that the epidemic of fever which has been prevailing in the Island of Inniskea has broken out on the mainland in the populous village of Glencastle, close to the town of Belmullet; and if any such report has reached him, would he state the dimensions of the latest outbreak?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Two cases of fever are reported to have occurred near Glencastle, and the necessary steps are being taken by the Medical Officers on the spot to prevent the spread of the disease.
  MR. CRILLYasked whether the Local Government Board would pay for the extra nursing and medical staff which had been called for by the outbreak of fever?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the duty of the Guardians as the Sanitary authority, to deal with the outbreak in the first instance. If they are unwil-
  26
  ling or unable to do so, it would then be for the Local Government Board to intervene.
  MR. CRILLYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's answer would be read with interest in Ireland.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the nature of the latest report as to the condition of the two trained nurses who have been suffering from fever in the Belmullet Hospital, as a consequence of attending the fever-stricken patients in the island of Inniskea?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the condition of one of these nurses continues favourable, and that the condition of the other is improving.

  WRECK (STEAMSHIP "ADEN").
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. H.T. Gaddum, a leading Manchester merchant, whose firm in that city was expecting important documents from the East, inquired on the 6th instant of the Secretary of the General Post Office, London, whether the Aden, the steamer lately wrecked on Socotra, carried mails, and received a printed slip on the 9th to the effect that the matter would have attention, and that on Mr. Gaddum's requesting a reply by wire, on the morning of the 10th, in order that he might advise his friends in the colonies by the quick mail viâ San Francisco on the 10th, he received no telegram: whether, in cases of doubt as to the loss of mails, he will direct that information be published widely with regard to them, and in special cases more prompt attention paid to inquiries; anti whether it is now known at the General Post Office if the Aden carried mails or not?
  *MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that Mr. H. T. Gaddum inquired on the fit h instant whether the Aden carried mails, and that a reply was sent to him on the 8th to inform him that the matter should receive attention. On the same day the postmaster at Manchester was instructed to inform Mr. Gaddum that the Aden was coming from China, and in all probability had no mails on board either

  27
  from New Zealand or elsewhere. Mr. Gaddum wrote a further letter on the 9th requesting that he might receive a telegraphic reply to his question on the 10th, but as instructions had already been given to the postmaster at Manchester to furnish him with the information at the disposal of the department it was not thought necessary to telegraph to him. Mr. Gaddum was informed of the facts by the Manchester office at 11 a.m. on the 10th inst. The Postmaster General, however, much regrets that he should not have received a direct reply from the Department on the 8th, and that a telegraphic answer was not sent to him on the 10th. The Aden was not a mail packet, and in the case of private ships the Post Office has no information whether or not any particular vessel of this kind is bringing correspondence to this country, and is not, therefore, in a position to issue any notices to the public in case of loss of such steamers. It has now been ascertained from the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company that the Aden had no mails on board.

  BECHUANALAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed in the report of a meeting of the Bechuanaland Railway Company, published in the Press, that £700,000 additional capital is to be raised on a guarantee of 5 per cent. per annum from the Chartered Company of South Africa for twenty years; whether the Chartered Company can give such guarantees without the approval of Her Majesty's Government; whether such approval has been given; and, whether, in view of no decision having yet been given in regard to the charter granted to the Company being continued, and the possibility of the charter being revoked, he will notify the Company that this guarantee must not be given by it.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The British South Africa Company are empowered under the charter to give such a guarantee without the approval of her Majesty's Government, and so long as the charter subsists the Secretary of State cannot interfere in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  ZEMINDARS' RIGHTS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received petitions from the Zemindars of Fin,geshwar, Khariar, and ShahaspurLohara, all in the Central Provinces, complaining of certain encroachments made by the local authorities on their ancient rights and titles; if so, whether any decision has been arrived at and any reply been sent to the petitioners; and, whether he will lay Copies of each reply upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, Sir. No such petitions as are described in the question have reached me. When I receive them together with copies of the replies, if any, which have been sent to them, I will consider whether they can be laid upon the Table.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS LOAN BILL.
  *SIR C. DUKE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will state before the end of the Session the course they intend to take as to the introduction of a Public Buildings Loan Bill, to provide for the rehousing of the collections in the South Kensington Museum, and for other similar purposes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I cannot undertake to make any statement on this matter in the course of the present Session. If it is decided to introduce such a Bill, we should state the purport of it on its introduction, but not unless this is done.

  SUPPLY (EDUCATION VOTE).
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, with reference to the supplementary Vote of £7I0,865 for public education, whether ho would give notice before the Vote was brought on, so that there might be proper opportunity for a discussion of the administration of the Department, especially with reference to the formation of the voluntary associations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. a J. BALFOURT,)said he would be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman in

  29
  that respect, but perhaps he would consult with him as to the distribution of the days still remaining for Supply. He was ready to have any allocation of those days that the House generally thought most convenient.

  OUTRAGES AT POONA.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONasked the Secretary of State for India if he would make inquiries into the truth of the specific allegations reported to have been made by Professor Gokhlee, of the Fergusson College, Poona, in the Manchester Guardian of July 2 last, for the authority of which he vouched, that two women were violated by British soldiers employed upon the plague search parties, ono of whom committed suicide afterwards.
  MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)asked whether Professor Gokhlee was the gentleman who addressed a meeting of hon. Members about a week ago on the subject of the plague regulations.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: As soon as my attention was directed to this allegation I thought it necessary, from the gravity of the accusation made and the apparent authenticity with which it was surrounded, at once to telegraph to the Governor of Bombay asking him to make immediate inquiries as to the truth of the charge. His reply is as follows:—
  "Regarding Gokhlee's statement alleging violation of women, from all inquiries I have made I am convinced this is a still more gross and malevolent invention than that about stripping women."
  [Cheers.] In reply to the second Question, I believe my hon. Friend is correct, that this is the same individual who recently addressed Members of this House in one of the committee rooms.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask whether this professor is in receipt of salary from the Government?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: No, Sir, he is a professor of political economy in a college which obtains a grant from the Bombay Government.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Who invited the professor? [A. laugh.]
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. W. E. TOMLINSON (Preston): Is it a Government appointment?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I cannot answer that, but I think the college authorities appoint.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SCHWANNasked what business would be taken on Thursday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think the first Order will be the Third Reading of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill.

  MOTION.
    HONORARY BURGESSES (SCOTLAND).
    Bill to authorise Parliamentary, Police, and other Burghs in Scotland to create Honorary Burgesses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Renshaw, Captain Sinclair, Sir Thomas Sutherland, Mr. Lre, and Mr. John Wilson (Govan); presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—
  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  Further considered as amended in Committee.
  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.
    ARBITRATION.
    The following provisions shall apply for settling any matter which, under this Act, is to be settled by arbitration:—

    (1.) If any committee, representative of an employer;old his workmen exists with power to settle matters under this Act in the case of the employer and workmen, the matter shall, unless either party objects, by notice in writing sent to the other party before the committee meet to consider the matter, be settled by the arbitration of such committee, or be referred by them in their discretion to an arbitrator.

    (2.) If either party so objects, or there is no such committee, the matter shall be settled by a single arbitrator or conciliation board agreed on by the parties, or in the absence of agreement, by the County Court Judge, or if in England the Lord Chancellor certifies that,

    31
    under the circumstances of the particular district, it is not convenient that the County Court Judge should be called upon to act as arbitrator, by a single arbitrator appointed by such County Court Judge.

    (3.) In cases in which the County Court Judge or an arbitrator appointed by him is the arbitrator, the workman or his representative may deliver to the Registrar of the County Court of the district in which he resides a statement of the nature of his claim, with his name and address and that of the employer, and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to give notice of the said claim to the employer, and to make the necessary arrangements for the arbitration, and give notice thereof to both parties, and all such claims may be amended by the arbitrator on such terms as to adjournment or otherwise as he thinks just, in order that the questions in dispute may be disposed of.

    (4.) Any arbitrator other than the County Court Judge shall be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury.

    (5.) The Arbitration Act 1889 shall not apply to any arbitration under this Act; but an arbitrator may, if he thinks fit, submit any question of law for the decision of the County Court Judge, and the decision of the Judge on any question of law, either on such submission, or in any case where he himself acts as arbitrator under this Act, shall, subject to a right of appeal in every such' case by any party to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal, be final; and the County Court Judge, or the arbitrator appointed by him, shall, when sitting as arbitrator, have the same powers of procuring the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents as if the claim for compensation had been made by plaint in the County Court.

    (6.) In any proceedings under this Act no party or other person shall appear or be attended by counsel or solicitor except by the leave of the court or arbitrator, or on any appeal to the Court of Appeal.

    (7.) The costs of the arbitration shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator.

    (8.) Where the amount of connensation under this Act shall have been ascertained, or any weekly payment varied, or any other matter decided, under this Act, either by a committee or by an arbitrator or by agreement, a memorandum thereof shall be sent by the said committee or arbitrator, or by any party interested, to the Registrar of the County Court for the district in which any person entitled to such compensation resides, who shall, on being satisfied as to its genuineness, record such memorandum in a special register without charge, and thereupon the said memorandum shall for all purposes be enforceable as a County Court judgment. Provided that the County Court Judge may at any time rectify such register.

    (9.) The duty of a County Court Judge under this Act shall, subject to rules of court, be part of the duties of the County Court, and the officers of the court shall act accordingly.

    (10.) Any sum awarded as compensation shall be paid on the receipt of the person entitled, and his solicitor or agent shall not
    32
    be entitled to recover from him, or to claim a lien on the amount recovered for any costs except such as have been awarded by the arbitrator.

    (11.) The Secretary of State at the request of any committee, judge, or other arbitrator shall appoint a legally qualified medical practitioner to report on any matter which seems material to any question arising in the arbitration; and the expense of any such medical practitioner, shall, subject to Treasury regulations, be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament.

    (12.) In the application of this schedule to Scotland "Sheriff" shall be substituted for "County Court Judge," "Sheriff Court" for "County Court," and "act of sederunt" for "rules of court." Any award or agreement as to compensation under this Act may be recorded in the books of council and session or Sheriff Court books, and shall be enforceable in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral. Any application to the Sheriff as arbitrator shall be heard, tried, and determined summarily in the manner provided by the fifty-second section of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1876, subject to the declaration that it shall be competent to either party to require the Sheriff to state a case on any question of law determined by him, and his decision thereon in such case may be submitted to either division of the Court of Session, who, if they consider that the point involved is of general importance, may hear and determine the same finally, and remit to the Sheriff with instruction as to the judgment to be pronounced.

    (13.) In the application of this schedule to Ireland the expression "County Court Judge" shall include the recorder of any city or town.

    MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)resumed his speech, interrupted at midnight on. Monday, in support of his Amendment to insert in Sub-section (12) alter the words "either party," to insert the words "on special cause shown." He said that this was a question on which miners and mine-owners, employers and employés were entirely at one. He hoped it would not have been necessary for him to have moved this Amendment, nor would it have been had the Lord Advocate inserted such a clause as he promised at an earlier stage, giving effect to the wishes of the people of Scotland. He very much regretted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had seen fit to depart from that very important clause which prevented lawyers being employed in connection with these cases. The right hon. Gentleman had executed a complete volte face. That clause having now been struck out of the Bill, it became necessary for him to insist that so far justice should be done to Scotland, and

    33
    so prevent the scandal which hall so long existed, of needy and adventurous lawyers threatening employers that if they did not compensate their workmen their cases would be taken to the Court of Session. He had supported this Bill right through, largely in consideration of the declaration of the Colonial Secretary, that this would not be a lawyer's employment Bill, but that its first object would be to avoid litigation. Resolutions had been passed at all the miners' meetings in Hamilton and Fife that in no case should cases be appealed to the Court of Session without due cause being shown, and not only the Miners and employers, but the highest legal luminaries in Scotland had declared in strong terms against trivial, paltry cases being taken into the Court of Session, and thereby involving in costs two or three times the amount of compensation at issue. He quoted the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk in connection with a paltry case in which a mine-owner was dragged into the Court of Session. A man, having met with a slight accident, brought an action in the Sheriff Court for £195 under the Employers' Liability Act.
    *MR. SPEAKERinvited the hon. Membcr to address himself to the question before the House, which was whether a limit should be imposed on the power of stating a case for the Superior Conrt.
    MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)said he wanted to show the vexations nature of the proceedings which might be taken under the Bill if the clause was not altered in the sense he indicated. In this case £195 was demanded, and there was an appeal to the Court to have the case tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the victory cost them £50 for expenses.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That really has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    MR. J. WILSON (Falkirk Burghs)quoted the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk to the injustice of trivial cases being taken from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. In the course of the Debates the Lord Advocate had admitted the great evils connected with this course of procedure, and promised to give effect to a remedy in the clause.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire)said it was exceedingly difficult for him to give any reply
    34
    to most of what the hon. Member had urged without at once being ruled out of order. The hon. Member, he felt sure, would have been ruled out of order much sooner if Mr. Speaker hail been as familiar with Scottish procedure as he was with English. [Laughter.] The point to which the hon. Member had been directing his remarks was that of certain abuses consequent on the removal of cases of small value from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. But that would go on to-morrow just as it did to-day, even if the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried. The only point in the Amendment was whether words should be inserted qualifying the right of a person in an arbitration before the Sheriff to get a point of law stated for the determination of the Supreme Court. The only reason why he resisted the Amendment was because he thought everyone would agree that it was in the highest degree inexpedient to have in a Bill applicable alike to the two countries any differences of between them. Differences of procedure there must, of course, be; and as the House had already determined that the appeal confined to a question of law only was absolute in England, there was no reason why it should he qualified in Scotland.
    MR. ALEXANDER UREsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member, if adopted, would give rise to a discussion before the Sheriff as to whether or not there was a point of law involved worth taking to the Court of Appeal, and accordingly there would be an additional stage of procedure introduced.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved, in Sub-section (12), to leave out the words "if they consider that the point involved is of general importance."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. PARKER, SMITH (Lanark, Partick)moved to add to Sub-section (12),—
    "No action in which a claim is made under this Act shall be removed from the Sherin s Court to the Court of Session except in the manner provided by Section six of the Employers' Liability Act 1880."

    35
    He said that there was a grave abuse in Scotland with regard to the administration of the Employers' Liability Act which was unknown in England. In both countries it was intended under the Act of 1880 that a similar procedure should be adopted—in England the County Court, in Scotland the Sheriff Court. The procedure had worked well in England, but in Scotland a "back door" had been discovered. Under the Judicature Act a method was discovered by which it was possible to remove an action simply on claim that it should be removed, and there was no discretion on the part of the Court of Session to say what was or what was not suitable to remove to the higher Court. There was a power in the higher Court to order that if the action was one which ought properly to have been discussed in the Sheriff Court, the costs should be reduced to the lower scale. A return issued a few years ago—he understood there was another in preparation—showed that in the four years 1888–91 there were in England 711 cases, of which just 27 were moved into the High Court. In Scotland, in the same period, there were 676 cases, of which 184 were removed into the High Court. In Glasgow alone, out of 371 cases, 115 were carried up to the Court of Session. The practice was one which had been spoken of in the strongest terms by the Judges of the Court of Sessions, and he imagined that every Scotch lawyer and every person who was conversant with the working of the Employers' Liability Act in Scotland, in that House and elsewhere, could hold but one opinion about it. Very strong representations had been made in the past; and at the time when the Employers' Liability Bill of the late Government was before the House, the late Home Secretary accepted Amendments which he himself put on the Paper, and which he knew met this defect by preventing cases being carried in this way into the Court of Session. Yesterday the Attorney General spoke very warmly of the low-class agents who in England got hold of unfortunate men and set to work on them simply to run up costs. Now it was a great deal worse in Scotland, for of course there was a richer field in that country. These agents got hold of men who had been hurt—they had no bowels of mercy at all—they had no desire to
    36
    get compensation for the injured men, but simply to run up costs for themselves at the expense of the employer. It actually came to be a question of blackmail. Even though there might be a perfectly good defence to the case, the agent went to the employer and represented to him that it would be a great deal cheaper to settle the claim than to defend it; that to defend the case successfully would involve him in an expenditure of £200 and £300, and that it would be a great deal cheaper to compromise the matter for £100. He need hardly say that there was nothing more irritating to employers, nothing more calculated to anger them, than to be blackmailed in this way, not for the benefit of the men who were hurt, but in order that nine-tenths of the money might go into the pockets of the men who had got hold of them and ran their cases. That, he assured the House, was a matter on which there was a very strong opinion in Scotland, and which had elicited very strong representations from organised bodies. ["Hear, hear!"] There must be some way of dealing effectually with this abuse. They had dealt with various classes of actions under the Employers' Liability Act. They had, for example, cut out a number of cases—they had taken from the workman the power of using the Employers' Liability Act in those cases where he could not allege "actual personal negligence or wilful act." They had said in Sub-section B of the first Section of this Act that the employer should not be liable to pay compensation independently of the Act except in the case of such personal negligence. In that way they had altered the incidence of the Act; and, therefore, he hoped they might consider it within the scope of their present duty to amend the Act in this respect also. The proposal he had down on the Paper was limited to actions in which a claim was made under the Act. Of course it might happen that an alternative claim would be made for compensation under the Employers' Liability Act at common law; and be thought that when they were giving these additional rights they might very well take the opportunity of regulating the conduct of actions in a manner which it was perfectly certain was the intention of Parliament at the time the Employers' Liability Act was

    37
    passed. Such a course, he was sure, would carry universal opinion in its favour in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!] If they did not do it now, the case would be worse than ever; there would be a tendency to carry every action into the Court of Session, because there would be more security for the man's costs. He would never find himself absolutely left in the lurch, because if he failed to establish a claim under the Employers' Liability Act, yet he would get compensation under this Act, and the agent would thus be confident of getting hold of some part of the compensation and thus covering himself in the matter of expenses. He urged that this was a most important practical point. He was certain that it was fur the good of the workman that it should be introduced, and it would do more to reconcile employers in Scotland to the Act than a great many concessions which would be really at the cost of the workman. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid he had admitted from the beginning the great abuse of process in connection with the Employers' Liability Act in Scotland, and he did not go back in any way from that statement. The abuse arose in this way. At the time the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was passed, a provision was made, applying both to England and to Scotland, that the actions should be raised in the County Court and in the Sheriff's Court respectively, with powers to remove to the Higher Courts upon special conditions and on certain special terms as to expenses. The persons who had charge of that Bill at the time forgot that the term "move" did not cover another operation known in the old times as appeal for jury trial, which could be resorted to under the provisions of the 14th Section of the Judicature Act of 1825; and that accounted for the abuse to a large extent. Ho was willing to do anything he could to put that right; and accordingly the hon. Member would not think he was in sympathy with a great deal of what he had said. But he was in this matter in a position in which he confessed he saw no way out. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire approached him on this same matter, with the same object in view. They had put their heads together, and
    38
    he was afraid they had been only able to draw an Amendment which the Speaker had ruled to be out of order. [Laughter.] He had no doubt that the Speaker had rightly ruled, and to his decision he, of course, paid proper deference. He confessed he was not himself without doubt whether he was ill order; but he thought at any rate he would try. [Laughter.] Now the reason that the Amendment was out of order was not, he thought, to be found in any want of skill in the hon. Member for Stirling-shire and himself. [Laughter.] He thought he had made it clear that the real thing they wanted to get rid of was the 14th Section of the Judicature Act. Now he understood the Speaker's view to be that in this Act they could not propose to amend Acts of Parliament which had to do with procedure in common-law actions. These actions were not touched in this Act; consequently no amount of sympathy or of verbal alteration of the Amendment would enable him to go to the root of the matter, because he could not go to the root of the matter without abolishinc, the 14th Section of the Judicature Act. Even the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Partick, which the Speaker had held to be in order because it began, "no action in which a claim is made under this Act shall be removed," would, he was afraid, be inoperative. He was afraid that the objection to it would be somewhat similar to the famous chapter on snakes in Ireland—"There are no snakes in Ireland." [Laughter.] What was provided in Section I. was this—where there was negligence, the party injured should have his option; he should either come under the Bill for compensation, or if he liked he might take such common law procedure as was open to him. When he took common-law procedure, he did not make a claim "under this Act," because all that the Bill said was that if it was found in the common-law action that he had mistaken his remedy, then his action should not be dismissed as it would be dismissed in the ordinary way, but he should recover damages which would not be greater than the compensation to which he was entitled under the Bill. The House. would see that it would be impossible to tell whether the action was removable or not, because there was nothing to show it. The action when

    39
    brought was simply a common-law action, libelling the employer or the person for whom the employer was responsible; and it was only in the up shot, when it was found that the employer had a good defence, that its character was disclosed—and then the workman might come forward and say, "Well, I am a person who, if I had not mistaken my remedy, should have gone to the arbitrator; therefore my action must not be dismissed, and I shall have my compensation all the same." Therefore, although he had every wish to help his hon. Friend, he could scarcely accept his Amendment when he felt absolutely certain as a lawyer that it would have no effect whatever. As he had himself done his best to frame an Amendment, and had not been able to do so, he thought he must ask his hon. Friend to be content for the moment with this expression of opinion. He might also tell him this—that it was the intention of the Department presently to have a Departmental Inquiry into the working of various matters of procedure connected with the Sheriff's Court and the Court of Session; and these matters would have very early attention with a view to legislation. He could assure his hon. Friend and the House that in any form of inquiry as to the necessity for legislation this particular grievance which be had brought before the House and the country would certainly not be forgotten.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman's answer was of course sufficient for the present, but might he ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary whether he would consider the possibility of making some small change even in the present Bill; if not now, then in another place, so as to make some provision against an admitted abuse. In the meantime, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)said that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to say
    40
    one word on behalf of a large section of industrial capitalists in Scotland to emphasise what the hon. Member for Partick had said as to the great need for a change in the law. The grievance was also greatly felt by the working classes, for many of the men were not acquainted with legal forms, and they were easily beguiled into forms of procedure, the effect of which they did not foresee, and the result of which was that the compensation they would otherwise obtain was frittered away and absorbed in costs.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. ALEXANDER UREmoved to insert, "Sub-sections 5 and 8 of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGEmoved an Amendment providing that awards under the Act should be excluded from the operation of the Stamp Act, 1870. He explained that unless a provision of this kind were agreed to a workman who proceeded under the Bill might have to pay as much as 35s. for stamps under the Act of 1870.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid that this was a question of detail of some interest. The idea of the Government had been that these arbitrations would be so informal that stamps would not be necessary, but it was evident, after what his bon. Friend had said, that stamp fees might be charged, and as it was the Government's desire that justice in these cases should be as free as possible, the point raised by the hon. Member certainly deserved consideration. He did not like to accept this particular proposal on the spur of the moment, but he would see whether some Amendment of the kind could not be inserted in the Bill in another place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill to be Read the Third time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—(Bill 312.)

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS, Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chain.]
  Clause 1,—

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.

    PROHIBITION OF IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
    There shall be added to the table of pohibitions and restrictions contained in sector forty-two of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 the following, that is to say:
    Goods proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs by evidence tendered to them to have been made or produced wholly or in part in any foreign prison, gaol, house of correction, or penitentiary.
    MR. T. LOUGHmoved to leave out the words "Commissioners of Customs," and to insert the words "a Police Magistrate." He wished to provide that the character of the goods must be proved before a Police Magistrate. The Commissioners of Customs, he argued, might not be qualified to sift evidence and to decide as to the relative value of conflicting testimony. Difficult cases would probably arise, and with these a Police Magistrate with his legal training would be more competent to deal than the Commissioners. He thought, therefore, that it would he expedient to transfer to Police Magistrates the duties which the Bill as drawn would impose upon the Commissioners.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)said that it would be most unsatisfactory to delay decisions under the Bill until a Police Magistrate could be consulted. If every case was to be argued before a Magistrate the Bill would be of little use. He thought the Commissioners who were accustomed to weigh evidence might be trusted to discharge fairly the duties imposed upon them by the Measure.
    MR. ROBINSON SOUTTARobserved that the Measure might lead to at great deal of legal trouble, and that the proceedings taken under it would, sometimes be of an important character. In his opinion, the Commissioners of Customs were not qualified to decide the cases of difficulty that would arise. The supporters of the Amendment wished to improve the Bill.
    42
    Question put, "That the words 'Commissioners of Customs' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 290.)
    *MR. J. SAMUELmoved to omit the words "by evidence tendered to them." There should be some definition of the evidence required. The Merchandise Marks Committee were strongly opposed to unnecessary interference with importations, and it was absolutely impossible to prevent the importation of these goods unless there was interference with the import trade of the country. The Committee should understand what the value of the evidence was to be upon which the Commissioners of Customs should take action. In his evidence before the Merchandise Marks Committee the Chairman of Customs staed that undue interference was very much affecting the shipping trade or the country. Naturally the prompt dispatch of goods to the importers was of the utmost importance to trade, and if goods were liable to be stopped at the port of landing on the information, true or false, of somebody who suspected the prison origin it would be a very serious matter indeed. The President of the Board of Trade objected to the last Amendment on the ground that inquiry by a Magistrate would greatly delay the dispatch of goods, but the laxity of this clause might lead to detention of goods without any just cause. There had been no explanation as to what was the contemplated operation of this clause. A strong reason for moving, the omission of these words was that they might obtain some definite statement from the Government as to what evidence they proposed to act upon with a view to bringing this Bill into operation.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, in his last observation, that it was the Government that had got to be satisfied.
    MR. SAMUELexplained that he meant the Commissioners of Customs.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that, as the Commissioners of Customs were, by the Act, compelled to be satisfied with regard to the question before the detention took place, it must be for them to express their opinion upon the evidence which was

    43
    tendered to them as to whether it was sufficient to justify them in detaining the goods, and not for the Government. The Government must object to the omission of these words.
    MR. W. S. ROBSONthought a still more important question than the nature of the evidence which was to be taken as sufficient to satisfy the Commissioners, was whether the evidence was to be on oath, or was it to be mere hearsay evidence which might be supplied by any discharged servant or malicious trade rival? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought this was a matter on which they ought to have a definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. It ought not to be left to the Commissioners to say for themselves whether they would act merely on information or whether they would require evidence such as was considered sufficient and necessary in ordinary judicial proceedings.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)said he did not know whether it was worth while to make a serious attempt to amend this Bill. On the Second Reading he ventured to suggest that these words limited the power of the Commissioners, took away from them the initiative and prevented them from taking steps of their own to set the Act in operation. That was a limitation of the Act which he for one thought they should do away with. The hon. and gallant Member who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman, and who was supposed to be the begetter of this Bill put down this Amendment himself. He did not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman had withdrawn it, but he took it that he was in favour of the Amendment, because so far as it would affect the Bill at all it would go to strengthen the Bill. During the Second Reading Debate he asked the right hon. Gentleman across the Table who was to tender this evidence, and his reply was, "The people who have got the evidence." He ventured to say that the people who had got the evidence would in 99 cases out of 100 be the last to tender it, because their knowledge would probably be a guilty knowledge. The Bill was hardly worth the attention of the House. He should support the Amendment.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said that if the Act
    44
    were properly carried out it might do good. But it might be carried out mischievously by the Custom House officials, and the trade of the country considerably interfered with. He was not in favour of taking out these words because he thought they were very useful in limiting the scope of the operations of those who would be likely to interfere with the trade of the country. At the same time he thought they ought to have some guarantee that the evidence was reasonable evidence. He thought the insertion of the word "sworn" before "evidence" or of the words "on oath" after "tendered" would provide such a guarantee.
    MR. SOUTTARcould not regard this as a trivial Measure for two reasons. In the first place they must remember that the Customs House officers, in order to ascertain when prison-made goods came into the country must examine all goods. If the Measure was to be carried out properly it would affect the whole Custom House operations, and they would have greatly to increase the staff. That was the experience in America. They had an Act of this sort there, and they found it absolutely impossible to carry it out. The second reason was that he thought the Committee which inquired into the matter omitted one important class of goods. He thought the words "on oath" would be quite acceptable and would put things right. The absolutely absurd nature of the evidence which might be tendered in connection with this matter was disclosed in the Blue-book embodying the Report of the Committee. More absurd statements sifted by the Committee it would be impossible to conceive. Ono witness declared that 2,000 men had been thrown out of employment in the Brush trade by the goods which were received from Europe, but it was proved without a perhaps or peradventure, that the number of operatives in that trade had increased 45 per cent. within 10 years, and were never more prosperous than at that moment.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is rather treating the matter from a Second Reading point of view. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading has been accepted by the House.
    MR. SOUTTARthought it was exceedingly important that the character of the evidence should be clearly stated.
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid he understood the Amendment was proposed with a view to strengthening the Bill. He did not want to strengthen it, because he regarded it as a very foolish and insincere Measure. He strongly deprecated any revival of a system of Custom House oaths.
    MR. LEONARD COURTNEYconfessed Hint his own feeling with regard to this Bill was that it was purely mischievous. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman opposite would think twice before he pressed his Amendment to a division, because, in leaving out these words, they would simply give the Commissioners of Customs unrestrained discretion as to the operation of the Bill if it became an Act, and would remove the check that the Bill proposed—that there must be some evidence tendered before they could take action. One hon. Member suggested the addition of the word "sworn," but he would remind him that the Commissioners of Customs had no power to administer oaths or to cross-examine. They had better oppose the Bill in a manner more or less rational instead of doing what they could to make it more offensive and more likely to interfere with free trade than it was as proposed by the Government. He must demur to the position taken up by his right hon. Friend that this Bill would not be administered by the Government. The Commissioners of Customs were a department of the Executive Government—["hear, hear!"]—and they did all their work under the direction and control of the Treasury. If any fault were found with, the administration of this Bill on the part of the Commissioners of Customs and that fault found expression in that House, the form of expression would be by a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Treasury would have to review the action of the Commissioners. He urged the hon. Member not to press the matter to a division. If he did he should unfortunately find himself unable to support him.
    MR. LOUGHthought they had some cause to complain of the only answer given by the Government up to the present, and he agreed with all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. He believed the object of his hon. Friend who moved the
    46
    Amendment was to obtain some expression of opinion from the Government as to what they meant by these important words. They had not received that expression of opinion yet. If anyone had risen from the Government Bench in response to the appeals just made it would not have been necessary for him to have troubled the Committee. The traders of the country and the Commissioners of Customs had dealings with one another every day and it was of the greatest importance that the relations between the two should be pleasant. His hon. Friend was entitled to a better answer than the very brief reply he had received from the President of the Board of Trade. The Members on the Opposition Benches regarded the Bill as one of great importance, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be too cursory towards their efforts to make the Measure a little less bad than it was.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he had not the slightest doubt his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was correct in his definition of the relations between the, Government, the Commissioners of Customs, but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to observe that what he said was that it was for the Commissioners of Customs and not the Government to be satisfied.
    MR. COURTNEY: The aggrieved person can always appeal to the Treasury.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that that might, be the case; but clearly the question was in what way the Commissioners, were to be satisfied. He had no particular fancy for the words in question, but they were inserted to satisfy the Commissioners. of Customs—["hear, hear!"]—and he certainly would not be a party to their omission without consulting the Commissioners. It was impossible for him to say what evidence the Commissioners would be satisfied with; they must judge for themselves what would satisfy them. Neither could he accept the words "on oath," as the Commissioners had no power to administer oaths in such cases.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was the fact that the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue were bound by every order and every direction of the Treasury, and in the last resort in this matter it would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who would have to decide whether a

    47
    brush was made in a prison or not. It would be most inadvisable that this Amendment should be pressed. An enormous new duty was about to be cast on the Commissioners of Customs—namely, that of ascertaining the origin of goods. In this case the duty was much snore difficult than that which was cast upon the Prize Courts, for the Commissioners of Customs had not only to ascertain in what country goods originated but in what budding. ["Hear, hear!"] The late Lord Stowell, the President of the Prize Court, would have been appalled if he had had such a duty cast upon him. If the Commissioners were to have this duty cast upon then the more conditions that were imposed to regulate the exercise of the duty the better. As to the general question, were the House aware of the ready and easy going manner in which Commissioners were satisfied? Anything would satisfy a Commissioner if he wanted to be satisfied, and nothing would satisfy him if he did not want to be satisfied. That was the nature of a Commissioner, whether of Inland Revenue or Customs, and there had been far too many things left by statute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of Commissioners already. The Committee ought certainly not to add to them.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was obvious that the Committee went discussing this Bill under most disadvantageous circumstances, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had said the Measure was one for the administration of which he would not Ito responsible. The only Member of the Government who could tell theta what they wanted to know was not present. What they wished to ascertain was on what principle and in what way the Bill would be administered. To such information they were fairly entitled in view of the fact that the Bill would certainly interfere with the present system of freedom. of trade. As regarded the Amendment now before the Committee he joined in the appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw it. Without the words proposed to be omitted they might have all sorts of inquisitorial investigations into all goods simply on the chance of their being prison made.
    MR. EDWARD MORTONsaid it seemed to him that the proper
    48
    answer to the question why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present was that the right hon. Gentleman had too much sense to be here. [Laughter.] All the discussion upon this Amendment had proved to him, beyond the power of contest, what probably every Member of the Government knew perfectly well—namely, that the Bill could not be carried out in practice, and what was more, that it was not intended to be carried out. It was part of the whole tactical policy of the present Government.
    *THE CHAIRMAN or WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman is now making a Second Reading speech. [Laughter.]
    MR. MORTONsaid that as it seemed to him the only sort of speech worth making at all was a Second Reading speech he would resume his seat. [Laughter.]
    *MR. J. SAMUELsaid he bad no intention of pressing the Amendment. He simply moved it for the purpose of eliciting information, and now he begged leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. LOUGHmoved to leave out the words "or in part," so that the Bill should read "produced wholly in any foreign prison." Not only was this a bad Bill, it was the worst Bill that could possibly be produced. Under the Bill a whole consignment would be implicated by one prison-made brush. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yarns might be made in a prison—[laughter]—but if these were mixed with other yarns—[laughter]—the whole would have to be excluded. He was willing to omit "wholly" as well as "or in part."
    MR. RITCHIEbelieved that it would be inexpedient to accept the Amendment. Whether it be good or bad, the principle of the Bill was to prevent the importation of prison-made goods to compete with the free labour of this country. [Cheers.] According to his information, to accept this Amendment would be to lead to a larger importation of goods made in foreign prisons. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. H. DALZIELdesired to put a case. In Argentina bags were made in prisons. Having received a good deal of wheat from Argentina, he asked whether, under this Bill,

    49
    the wheat in those bags would not have to be kept out?
    MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not.
    MR. DALZIELsaid this showed the singular position they were in. If the prison-made goods were allowed in one case, why not in all? If they kept out the brushes, why admit the bags?
    MR. SOUTTARsaid he came from a part of Scotland where they received many boats from Norway and Sweden, the boats being caulked with prison-made oakum. Would they have to reject the boats? They went to Scandinavia for these boats because there was so much timber there, and it would be a very serious thing for the fishing industry if the boats could not come in because they were caulked as he described. The Bill was full of defects. ["Hear, hear!]
    MR. RITCHIEsaid hon. Members might wish to defeat the Bill, but he rusted they would not proceed with these trivial Amendments such as they had just heard. The hon. Member must know that although the caulking was made in the prison, the boats were not, and they would come in as before.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that under the Customs Consolidation Act the bags could be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. They would not destroy them, they would "otherwise dispose" them, and every one of those bags would be an acquisition to the Revenue of the United Kingdom. [Laughter.]
    MR. MORTONsaid if the bags were stopped and the grain put into other bags that would enormously increase the cost of delivery of the wheat.
    MR. T. R. LEUTYdid not believe that this Bill would in the least defend their industries. There was a great pretence, but it was not genuine. They all knew something of the competition English trades had to undergo from German schools, from industries abroad and American inventions, and, for anything he knew, all other great industries might depend for their very lives in the future on the protection afforded them by this Bill. He was very grateful to the Government that they were going to do the heroic in sins matter. But, while he congratulated the Government, he felt free to vote for an Amendment limiting the Bill to importations wholly made in foreign prisons; and he did so on this ground—that he did not think it
    50
    made a straw of difference to the trade of the country whether this Bill passed or not. [Laughter.]
    Question put, "That the words or in part ' stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 109. (Division List, No. 291.)
    MR. LOUGHin whose name the next Amendment stood on the Paper—namely, to leave out the word "foreign"—said that that word being retained in the title of the Bill, he presumed he would not be in order in moving the Amendment. He proposed, therefore, to move to insert the words "and colonial" after "foreign." He did not think that we ought to impose on friendly nations rides and regulations which were not enforced in regard to the Colonies. He contended that they ought to exclude prison-made goods altogether, and that there was no reason why they should admit goods that were made in prison in India, Burma, or any of the colonies. He had asked for a return of prison-made goods brought from India and sold in our own or other countries, and it appeared from that return that from every part of India there was a trade of more or less importance done in prison-made goods. He begged to move his Amendment.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he was for once in agreement in principle with the hon. Gentleman. If they were to exclude prison-made goods coming from foreign countries he did not see why they should admit them from our colonies. But the word "foreign" in this Act, as. in the original Act, included "colonial."
    MR. H. H. ASQUITHasked what was the section in the original Act?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said it was the 42nd Section. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at that section he would see that the word "foreign" was obviously used as denoting anything outside the United Kingdom, and the Customs had invariably acted on that view.
    MR. WARNERmoved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, that the words "and Indian" should be added, so that the words in the clause might be "foreign or colonial and Indian."
    MR. SOUTTARsaid he was strongly opposed to the addition of these words.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he doubted very much whether the original Amendment was in order after the explanation which had been given.
    MR. SOUTTARpointed out that there was an immense amount of work done in the prisons of India and of the native States, including the making of superb carpets. If the right hon. Gentleman included India he would do India a very great injustice.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that, in addition to the advice of the Solicitor General, he had had the advice of the solicitors to the Customs with regard to this matter, and he had been informed that the words in the Bill would include any part outside the United Kingdom. They had had a correspondence with the Indian Government on the subject, and the Indian Government stated that they had made inquiries of all the local Governments and Administrations, and that from the information at present before them they saw no ground for objecting to legislation against the importation of prison-made goods if Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable, and they added that they presumed that such a prohibition would not apply to goods not intended for sale.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid the Bill included all goods, whether for sale or riot. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. DALZIELsaid it was evident from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that there was some doubt as to the interpretation of the word "foreign." He did not understand that the Amendment had been ruled to be out of order. The great difficulty which the Committee was under in dealing with this Bill was the way in which it was made to hang upon an existing Act. He could not understand why the Government should not accept the Amendment unless their object was to get the Bill through without a single Amendment.
    MR. PARKER SMITH·confessed it was a new light to him that "foreign" should include "colonial," because primâ facie that would not be the case. [" Hear, hear !"] The position of Indian prison-made goods was absolutely different to that of any other
    52
    prison-made goods which they were considering. The goods made in the prisons of India were not of low-class workmanship, but, on the contrary, of the very highest class. Some of the finest Burmese carving was executed in the gaol of Benares, some of the finest Indian carpets were made in the gaols of Lahore and Benares, some of the finest furniture was made in the gaol of Agra, some of the best work in copper and brass in the gaols of Rangoon and Mandalay. The Government of India assumed that the Bill only applied to goods that were sent to this country for sale, but he did not think the Bill did anything of the kind. [" Hear, hear !"] The actual things that were sent from the gaols to be sold in England were very few, but almost every travelier in India bought some of these prison products and brought them home with him. What the Bill was intended to do was surely to prevent articles being introduced into this country which would compete with the struggling industries of this country. [" Hear, hear "] He hoped that, whatever might be the opinion of the Government in regard to European prison-made goods, they would at least exclude Indian goods of that character from the purview of the Bill.
    MR. COURTENAX WARNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the Government should have obtained from some one connected with the Customs some information as to how the Bill was going to be enforced in the case of prison-made goods from India.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the President of the Board of Trade had raised a new and a large point. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government of India had no objection to the Bill, provided there was no prohibition of the importation of prison-made goods that were not for sale. He believed that was an entirely new interpretation of the Customs Act. Under that Act there was nothing about selling. It instructed the Customs authorities to seize and destroy certain goods; and the object of the Bill was that there should be added to the table of restriction the goods described in the Bill. Prison-made goods from India would, therefore, be stopped, even though they were not intended for sale.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid it was perfectly true that the 46th Section of the Customs Act would apply to those

    53
    goods, but at the same time it was the mischief of the importation of prison-made goods for sale against which the Bill was levelled.
    MR. LOUGHthought the Committee were placed in a rather worse position by that explanation than they were before. They were now told that if this Bill were passed, the goods, even though not for sale, would not be allowed to come in This showed the difficulty of dealing with a subject which had been placed hurriedly before them.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not see how that point can be raised by the Amendment before the Committee. It will require a separate Amendment.
    Amendment to the Amendment withdrawn.
    MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    SIR. HOWARD VINCENTobjected.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES, speaking on the Amendment, said the Indian Government were under the impression that their goods would not be prohibited if they were not for sale; but it was not clear whether that would be so or not.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAS AND MEANS: I have just pointed out that that question really does not arise on this Amendment. It will require a separate Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESthen asked whether the Government had made any inquiries as to the views of the Colonies in regard to the Bill; and whether they had got a similar answer to that from India, that if the Bill did not apply to prison-made goods which were not for sale the Colonial Governments would not object.
    MR. LEONARD COURTNEYsaid the Committee were in a rather bewildering position; and as they had got a declaration from the Government that the word "foreign" applied to all goods made outside the Kingdom, he thought the hon. Member for West Islington should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS, in order to make it clear that the Bill was not intended to prohibit the importation of prison-made goods not for sale, moved to insert after "goods" the words, "intended for sale which are."
    *THE CHAT RMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: We have passed three lines beyond that point. [Laughter.]
    MR. LOUGHmoved after "prohibiting," to add—
    "provided that this prohibition shall not extend to any ropes, mats, cases, or other packages used in the conveyance of goods."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the words were absolutely unnecessary. Ropes, mats, cases, or other packages could not be considered as anything but the accessories of the goods imported, and would not be affected by the Act.
    MR. LEUTYproposed to move to add to the Amendment the words, "nor to any goods not intended for sale."
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That would be a very inconvenient form in which to raise the question in dispute.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEmoved to add after "penitentiary" the words, "and to have been sold there from at less than the current market price." Those interested in prison reforms had during the last few years come to be more unanimous, perhaps, on this than on any other point, that if any real change was to be made in our prisons there must be some amelioration of the conditions under which the training of prisoners took place. At present prisoners were confined to work which had no interest for them, and which trained neither mind nor body. It would be a great advantage if they could be taught some productive trade.
    *MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I rise to order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the mode of administering prisons in England?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I cannot say that the hon. and learned Member is out of order. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HALDANE: I am sorry I have not been able to get an idea into the head of the hon. Member. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw!"]
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid that that remark was not in order.
    MR. HALDANEapologised for what he had said in the heat of the moment. The evidence before the Prisons Commission showed that the trade unions did not object to prison-made goods, if they were not sold under the market price. If the Bill passed in its present form it, would deal a heavy blow at the useful employment of prison labour.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that there was not the least objection to foreign countries employing prisoners in labour which would not degrade them. All the Government sought to prevent wits foreign prison-made goods being sent to this country. Let foreign Governments sell those goods in their own countries. [Cheers.] English prison-made goods could hardly be said to exist in the markets. They had of late been very greatly reduced, in view of the evil which was properly complained of.
    MR. HALDANEsaid that there was a large and increasing sale of these to the Government Departments. It was a recommendation of the Prisons Commission that the production should be stimulated provided that the goods were nut put on the market at less than the market value.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that there would, no doubt, be difficulties in the administration of this Bill; but what possibility was there of carrying out the provisions of the Amendment? How could the Customs find out whether the exporter of prison-made goods had paid the market value for them?
    MR. J. DILLONsaid that, as he understood, this was a small Bill for the protection of English manufacturers. The arguments in its favour amounted to this, that the present competition was unfair. Why was it considered to be unfair? Because owing to the position of the workers in prisons they were able to undersell the goods made by the working classes. It was in fact the competition of subsidised labour. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Bill were a workable Bill he had every sympathy with its objects; but if the Committee rejected this Amendment and insisted upon protecting workers in certain small and limited trades, he should ask why did the House leave the Irish butter
    56
    manufacturers unprotected against the competition of bounty fed butter from abroad? ["Hear, hear!"] If the House passed this Bill they would be met with the demand which on no logical ground could they resist, that they should extend to the agricultural producers of Ireland the same justice and protection as this Bill was intended to accord to some English industries. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SOUTTARsaid that he could not support this Amendment as there wits an economic heresy at the bottom of it; and it was a great pity that the party to which he belonged had not sufficiently denounced that heresy in earlier days. The heresy was that this country could possibly be injured by receiving things from abroad at a cheap rate. The fact was that goods were paid for by goods, and the cheaper foreign goods were, the more had to be given to us in exchange. If we allowed our own prison-made goods to come into competition in the market, then an injury might be clone; but if a foreign Government were foolish enough to give us cheap goods by means of prison labour or a bounty, why should we refuse the gifts that the gods sent?
    MR. DALZIELsaid that the hon. Member's speech was really in favour of the Amendment. If the President of the Board of Trade adhered to what he said on the introduction of the Bill—that this Bill was introduced in the interest of the working classes—he would accept the Amendment. The Amendment simply proposed that the Bill should only affect goods sold under the market price. The Bill afforded no protection for British labour where the price was less than the current market price.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 166.—(Division List, No. 292.)
    MR. PARKER SMITHmoved an Amendment providing that the prohibition referred to should "not extend to any goods not intended for sale." He remarked that this was the understanding on which the Indian Government approved of the scheme, and it seemed

    57
    to him to be a very necessary and reasonable Condition in regard to the working of the Bill. It was one thing to import in a wholesale manner goods intended for sale in this country, but an entirely different thing for tourists or persons travelling about the world to have in their box of curios a few articles which had been made in gaols. When once a thing had been bought for private use and had become the property of an individual the mischief aimed at by the Bill ceased, but the mischiefs of undue inquisitiveness and interference with personal freedom might come in.
    MR. RITCHIEexpressed his sympathy with the object of the Amendment. It was not intended that the Bill should interfere with the private collector, and if it did words should be inserted to prevent it. But he could not at a moment's notice accept the words of the Amendment. He would have to consider them to see that they only did what was desired and no more. Between now and the future stage of the Bill he would carefully consider what words could be inserted which would best carry out the object of the Amendment.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Will there be another stage of the Bill?
    MR. RITCHIE: Certainly.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that the President of the Board of Trade had made an important admission of the standpoint from which he had been acting all through. He had promised to accept an Amendment which would deal a subtle blow at British trade. Any dealer would only have to go across the Channel and erect, an emporium for foreign prison-made goods and send them to pare lasers in England, and the Customs could not interfere with them at all. What difference could it make to the British working man if the goods came into this country although they were wit sold by British tradesmen? Why should the right hon. Gentleman have a feeling against British tradesmen in favour of foreign tradesmen? He had admitted that if one went to Belgium and bought anything made in prison for his, own use the Custom House officers would let them in.
    MR RITCHIEsaid he had admitted nothing of the kind, and that was the reason why he had refused to accept the words of the Amendment. All he had sail was that if people coming from.
    58
    abroad brought home a piece of old carpet, its importation in those circumstances ought not to be prohibited.
    MR. LOUGH, continuing, said the right hon. Gentleman could not know anything about the carpets to which he was alluding, otherwise he would not describe them as old carpets. How could an old carpet he made in a, prison to-day? [Laughter.] The Amendment had been accepted in principle, and that would enable those goods to be brought into every household in England so long as they were not bought from British tradesmen. And once those goods were in, how were they to prevent their being dealt in?
    MR. PARKER SMITHasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. J. BRYN ROBERTSprotested against this way of carrying· on legislation. Committee was the proper stage for consideration, of such points as those raised by the hon. Member, and to adjourn the entire consideration of the matter on the promise that it would be brought up on Report was au improper method of conducting business in this House.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSScould not see how the Custom House officers were to know When they were to enforce the prohibition and when not. The question was surrounded with difficulty, and he should like to hear that the House would have an opportunity of dealing with it on the Report stage.
    MR. REGINALD McKENNAcommended to the right hon. Gentleman the precedent adopted by the Colonial Secretary, and that was to accept an Amendment reserving the right to take it out on the Report stage.
    MR. JOHN BURNSadvised the right hon. Gentleman, before he made up his mind as to the precise words to be introduced, to have an interview with one of the Liverpool Custom House officers, when he would find there would be great difficulty in administering the Act. There was a time when America used to put on a tariff of from 20 to 40 per cent. against English boots and clothing. This, instead of stopping the injury to the New York tailoring trade, only brought into existence a class of agents who travelled regularly from Liverpool to America bringing over 50 pairs of trousers, 50 dress coats, no end

    59
    of waistcoats, and pot hats galore, and protested to the Custom House at New York that they were for their personal use. Thus the law was evaded and a systematic traffic set up. So it would happen under the proviso in question.
    MR. J. LOWLES (Shoreditch, Haggerston)scouted the prospect pictured by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Bill was intended to stop the importation of prison-made mats and brushes. Was it suggested that people would go about with mats round their persons or brushes in their pockets. [Laughter.] This was an honest attempt to deal with a crying evil. It was a most important matter that a stop should be put to unfair competition of labour that was not merely underpaid but that was not paid for at all, and which defeated the honest labour of British artisans whose difficulty was to make a living at all.
    MR. HENRY BROADHURSTobserved that the attitude taken up by the President of the Board of Trade on this Amendment was that he would allow cheap prison-made goods to be brought into this country,—
    "provided you take a holiday romp to Belgium, Calais, or some other place, buy the goods, and declare that they are for your own use."
    How was the right hon. Gentleman going to decide the amount of cheap goods this particular British excursionist was going to use? He might have a large number of relatives and buy sufficient goods to distribute among all his married relations, furnish the houses of those likely to be married, and by that means he could introduce ship loads of goods to distribute among neighbours and friends, provided he declared that they were to be used in that way without going through a middleman, retailer, or shopkeeper. A more absurd position to get a Bill into one could not imagine. The President of the Board of Trade said he was going to take the counsel of his legal advisers. But what legal advisers could get the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty he had got himself into in regard to this matter? He defied the most ingenious and resourceful Member of the Opposition to put a Bill into such a positon of ridicule as the President of the Board of Trade had put the present Bill by promising to consider
    60
    favourably this extraordinary Amendment. The Bill would be impossible to administer even without this Amend-merit, but with it it would be still more so.
    MR. LOUGHconsidered that the Committee ought to hear something more as to what were the intentions of the Government, and if there was no other way of enabling them to express this opinion upon it he moved to report progress.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSconsidered that to put such a Motion would be an abuse of the Rules of the House. The hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had asked leave to withdraw it; the hon. Member for Islington was opposed to the Amendment; and, therefore, in face of the fact that its Mover was prepared to withdraw the Amendment, he thought it would be an abuse to allow a Motion to report progress to be made.
    MR. SOUTTARwas interested in this question so far as it affected India, and desired to have an assurance that there would be some opportunity of bringing forward the case of India if the words which the President of the Board of Trade might see fit to introduce should not be quite satisfactory to hon. Members. Would there be a report stage, because if there would be then all his doubts in the matter would be set at rest?
    MR. LOUGH, by way of explanation, would like to say he thought the Chairman had dealt rather hardly with him. The hon. Gentleman had said he was opposed to the Amendment. That was not the case. He was in favour of the Amendment which proposed to let in goods made in foreign prisons, because he thought the whole attempt to keep out any goods was a ridiculous effort.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSwas sorry if he misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's first speech, the impression it conveyed to his mind being that the hon. Member was strongly opposed to the Amendment.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTSwas also strongly in favour of the Amendment, and asked for an assurance that there would be a report stage of the Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEcould not give any such assurance as that there would be a report stage. That meant to say, the Government must be prepared to accept some

    61
    Amendment which would necessitate a report stage. But they were at the end of the Bill and he had not been able to accept any Amendment. When the new clauses came on it would be for the House itself to decide whether any should be accepted and not for him. If there should be no report stage and an Amendment of this character were accepted in the other House, the hon. Member knew perfectly well that this House would have an opportunity of considering and dealing with such Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. W. S. ROBSON (South Shields)moved the following new clause:—

    RESERVATION FROM APPLICATION OF ACT.
    "Nothing in this Act contained shall be deemed to affect any right of action which would exist if this Act had not been passed against the said Commissioners, or against persons tendering evidence as aforesaid, on the part of any person interested as owner or agent in the manufacture, sale, transmission, or receipt of the said goods in respect of the prohibition or detention thereof, in case such goods were not in fact made or produced in any foreign prison, gaol, house of correction, or penitentiary."
    If any legitimate importer had a consignment of goods, mistakenly supposed to be made in a foreign prison, improperly detained, it was right that he should receive compensation for the damage thus inflicted upon him. These goods were brought in by importers who made contracts with wholesale dealers for their immediate execution, and if the goods were mistakenly supposed to be made in a foreign prison and detained, the wholesale dealers lost the benefit of their contract by the cancelling of the date. There was no safer way to prevent that mischief than to give a right of action to the man who had suffered damage. A discharged clerk, or a person likely to commit a trade libel, might give the Commissioners information that a particular consignment consisted of goods made in foreign gaols. If the Bill had enacted that the Commissioners should only act on evidence given on oath, there would be some protection given to the importer, but according to the scheme of the Bill the Commissioners were not obliged to act on what in legal parlance was called evidence; they might
    62
    act on information given to them. Should then the damage be borne by the person who was not responsible for the mistake, or by those persons who were responsible—by the Commissioners, or by those upon whose information they had acted? The Bill should be safeguarded in some such way as he suggested.
    Clause Read the First time.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped the Committee would not accept the clause. If adopted, the words would be in part unnecessary and in part mischievous. The proposed clause dealt with two classes of persons, those who had tendered evidence before the Commissioners and with the Commissioners themselves. As to the first class the clause was superflous. It was rightly assumed that it was necessary to confer such a right of action, but there was not a word in the Bill which would take away that right of action; and as to the right of action against the Commissioners, this part of the clause would be mischievous in its operation. There was no doubt that if a case could be imagined in which the Commissioners of Customs, abusing their position, maliciously stopped goods which they knew were not prison-made goods, they would be liable; but was it to be tolerated that the Commissioners, acting honestly, and arriving to the best of their judgment at a right conclusion, should be exposed to an action? If the clause was accepted it would open the door to a flood of dishonest actions against the Commissioners.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that this was a very important question. If a man came forward and fraudulently gave evidence he could be pursued under the present law. Suppose, however, that the man was honest but mistaken?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Such a person would not be liable under the clause of the hon. Member.
    MR. ROBSON, with all respect for the opinion of the Solicitor General, ventured to say that under the existing law if any person went to the Commissioners of Customs all induced them to stop goods, whether by information or request, and it turned out that the goods were wrongfully or mistakenly stopped, both that person and the Commissioners were

    63
    trespassers, and were subject to right of action.
    MR. LOUGHwould not follow the interesting, but rather technical, discussion. It was evident that there was great difference of opinion on the point, and it was another illustration of the difficulty of the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend at any rate meant to make it possible, if this Bill passed, that there should be some right of action against the person who tendered false or even mistaken evidence. The argument as to what the law is at present was not entirely relevant. But what would be the state of the case when the Bill was passed? In every trade there were rivals, and would not strong inducements be given to a rival trader to come forward and stop goods under this Act. He thought the Debate had shown that; and if the words of his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment were faulty, he was willing to correct them and to make them such as would give a right of action. The Solicitor General had not, in his opinion, completely covered the argument with regard to the persons who tendered evidence. But the other point was of so much greater importance that he hoped the Committee would address themselves to it seriously. The Solicitor General had said that if they passed the clause it would bring a flood of actions against the Commissioners. He would answer that by saying that if they passed this Bill they would be bringing a flood of actions against honest tradesmen and merchants. ["Oh!"] Let them see how it would work. The importer of goods had no knowledge of their origin. He bought them of a respectable merchant at Amsterdam, Berlin, or elsewhere. Could he trace the goods to their origin? He had never been accustomed to do so. He only knew the name of the foreigner from whom he bought; he sent his order in all honesty and simplicity; he was under contract to deliver on a certain day; and then came the opportunity of his trade rival, who said, "If I can stop this man from delivering these goods, I myself may make £1,000 by it." They were distinctly encouraging these malicious actions. ["Hear, hear!] He would ask someone opposite who was in favour of the Bill to deal with this point. They were throwing on the importer the entirely new duty of knowing whether or
    64
    not the goods he bought from the foreigner were prison-made; and how was he to answer this demand? He heard from the Commissioners of Customs that A or B had tendered evidence that the goods consigned to him were made in a foreign prison. He was astounded. He was under contract to deliver in two or three days; he could not fulfil his contract; and while the Commissioners were considering the case the other man got the order, delivered his goods, and made his money. ["Hear, hear!"] So that, as he had said, the Bill would make it possible to bring a flood of actions against perfectly honest men; and his hon. and learned Friend demanded some protection for them. Why should the Solicitor General he so tender with the Commissioners? If they made a mistake, had they not a longer purse than the private tradesman? Who was to protect the private tradesman if he was badly treated under this new law which they were passing for the first time in England? He had not the long purse of the Government at his back—the Commissioners had. He held that it was perfectly reasonable, as his hon. and learned Friend suggested, that if they took these drastic powers the Government should take the full responsibility for their proper use. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government wanted to give cheap satisfaction to their own side. Let them take the full responsibility. If the Measure was for the good of the country, and the Commissioners wronged a man in carrying it out, the country must, recompense him for the wrong done. They had not had a satisfactory answer on either of the two points raised. The proposed clause was a perfectly reasonable one because the Bill created a new state of things altogether, and they ought not to do that without seeing that the perfectly honest trader was protected. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR J. SAMUELregretted very much that the Government had decided not to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Shields. He was afraid they were acting on the principle that if they refused all Amendments they would save the Report stage of the Bill. But in the interest of the trade of the country, and for the protection of traders, some such Amendment as this should be inserted. When the Committee, earlier in

    65
    the evening, were discussing the Amendment dealing with the question of the evidence to be tendered to the Commissioners of Customs, with a view to stopping the importation of these goods, some hon. Members had in mind such protection as this clause would afford. Its importance could not be overlooked. The Solicitor General disputed the statement of the hon. Member for South Shields, and into that dispute he did not propose to enter, but when tile Bill became law persons coals read tile Act as meaning that by evidence tendered to the Commissioners they could stop the importation of foreign prison - made goods. But the evidence might be false or true, and there should be a clause in the Bill, not a reference to the Act of 1876 or any other Act, pointing out to any person tendering evidence that he would be liable to an action at law if he gave false evidence against any trader. The keen competition in the brush trade, the mat trade, and other trades, created a great deal of jealousy, and the probability would be that a large number of traders who imported goods from abroad would be liable to have evidence given against them that they were importing articles wholly or partially made in prisons, and such evidence might prevent the goods being sent out to them. He cited a case in point. The whole of this agitation against prison-made goods being imported into this country—it was astounding to find it was so—was based on the action not of an Englishman, but of Mr. Pollit, an American who represented a carpet-sweeping brush manufactory in America, and he became jealous of the importation of carpet-sweeping brushes from Germany. He did not know if the President of the Board of Trade had read die report? (Mr. RITCHIE: "Yes!") Then the right hon. Gentleman would boar him out in tile statement that Mr. Pollit was the first to start the agitation in this country. He was then sent to Germany by the proprietor of The Hardwareman newspaper, and he collected evidence he could not sustain before the Committee. If some such clause as this was not found in the Bill there might be fifty more Mr. Pollits in this country jealous of their own goods who might give evidence against importations into this country, and they might harass and ruin certain branches of
    66
    trade. He did not wish to go into the question whether the Bill would have any effect at all; but this he would say, after close attention to the evidence given before the Merchandise Marks Acts Committee—the Report and evidence of that Committee would startle the House when it became known—that the evidence showed that the interference with trade by the delay and opening of packages, preventing the quick transit of goods from the port of landing was doing great injury to the import business; and this Bill would put it into the power of any man whoever he might be to give false evidence against a trader who might be the importer of a perfectly genuine article, and tins evidence would prevent the goods reaching the trader within thee expected period. It was therefore essential that some such clause as this should be inserted for the purpose of checking the reckless giving of evidence.
    MR. SOUTTARhad a strong impression that something in this direction should be inserted in the Bill, and that if a clause of the kind was not introduced, the Bill would be the means of much injustice and oppression to traders. Let hon. Members bear in mind the extreme difficulty of finding out whether imported goods were prison-made or not. As a matter of fact, evidence given before the Committee showed that little of prison Manufactures were imported. Brushes and other articles were largely made in labour colonies by tramps, and these it imports would not be affected by the Measure. It was impossible for prison-made goods to compete with free labour, the idea was the subject of ridicule. But the difficulty was that prison-made goods could not be detected; it was impossible for a Man to know that any part of the goods he imported was prison made. Contracts were made by manufacturers for the product of prison labour; he knew of such an instance in Munich where a manufacturer, having a factory of his own, contracted also to take prison goods, and these went into his general store and no distinction was made or could be discerned in his sales, and many of the articles were sent to this country. It was impossible for honest traders in this country to tell if they had prison-made goods, and this was brought out clearly in the Report of the Committee when they said it would be hard for the honest

    67
    dealer but an easy thing for the dishonest trader who cared not which certificate he signed. It would be easy for dishonest persons to get honest traders into trouble. If no check of this kind was found in the Bill the result would be great injury to the trading community.
    MR. BUXTONunderstood, speaking as a layman and without going into technicalities, that under the present law and if this Bill had no existence there would be right of action on the part of any man whose goods were delayed upon insufficient cause, and the President of the Board of Trade had not given any good reason why this clause should not be inserted. It was obvious that if there was malicious and wilful detention of goods an action would lie, but there should he some protection for the innocent trader against the loss he would suffer from delay in the transit of goods through the bonâ fide action of the Commissioners taken upon allegations subsequently proved groundless.
    MR. BURNSdesired to ask the President of the Board of Trade what would happen under these circumstances. Suppose in Austria the Government set a number of convicts to the work of felling forest trees, and the timber, the raw product of this prison labour, was sold to a manufacturer who by free labour converted this raw material into Austrian bent-wood furniture. The timber could not be marked, it would be absolutely unrecognisable, and after the furniture was finished it might be sent to England. Suppose then a rival furniture dealer found out or suspected that in the initial stage of manufacture this Austrian bent wood furniture was partly made by prison labour and went to the Commissioners of Customs with his information, what would the Commissiners do? Would they attempt to trace a rocking-chair, finished and sent to London, through its various stages back to the prisoners who felled the timber perhaps five or six years before the passing of the Act, because the wood would have to be seasoned before using? What would a Commissioner do? Would he proceed on such evidence? If he did, would there not be injustice done to the man on whose goods an embargo would be placed by the action of a designing rival in business, who would be able to work
    68
    off his own furniture derived from a similar source, but against which no similar complaint had been lodged? Unless such a clause as this was inserted there would be found cases arising in the east-end of London in which such means as he had indicated would bedelibe-rately adopted, a man promoting the sale of his own goods by bogus statements against the goods of his rival. Trade suffered quite enough from restrictions now imposed, but he did not know that it had yet been made a crime for a man to sell a chair made from timber felled by convicts; better employment than oakum picking.
    MR. RITCHIEquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be unwise to ask the House of Commons to assent to a Bill having that effect. But the Bill would have no such effect. He had yet to know that an Austrian forest was a prison, gaol, house of correction, or penitentiary. [" Hear, hear ! "]
    MR. BURNSwas sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but how would he describe a breakwater in England made by convicts but as made by prison labour? He could not differentiate between the work of men making furniture inside a prison and men felling the timber for the furniture outside the prison.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid it was not the question what the hon. Member differentiated, but what the Bill laid down. It was perfectly clear that the words in the Bill would not include an Austrian forest, and if chairs were made by free labour, and not in a prison or penitentiary, it would be immaterial where the timber was grown or cut down. This Amendment had been argued on the assumption that the Commissioners of Customs would do more than they ought to do; that they would be extremely eager to put the Act in force, and would strain all their powers to bring in cases not suggested by the Act. His opinion was that if the Commissioners of Customs did make a mistake, it would be in the other direction. He believed they would require a very considerable amount of evidence, that they would thoroughly sift the evidence, and be completely convinced of its bona fides before they acted. ["Hear, hear!"] If he had a fear with regard to the operation of the Act, it was not that the Commissioners would require too little

    69
    evidence, but that they would require too much. evidence. [Cheers.]
    MR. BURNSsaid he would put another case to the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He was not in the habit of pressing the right hon. Gentleman unfairly, and he hoped he never would be. It was customary in Germany for the raw product to be roughed out in a prison, and for the article to be partially made by tramps in a labour colony and finished in a free factory. Supposing the article Came here, would it be scheduled as coming within this Act, and, if so, why?
    MR. RITCHIEremarked that, of course, such an article would conic under the Act. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned two processes in the course of the manufacture, both of which processes were carried on in a gaol. Under such circumstances it would be the duty of the Commissioners of Customs to stop the article.
    *MR. WEIRwas sorry the President of the Board of Trade had wandered away from the gaol to the forest—[laughter]—but he wished to bring the. right hon. Gentleman back again to the gaol—[renewed laughter]—so that he might know what went on within its four walls. Supposing parts of cheap locks—[cries of "Oh, oh !"]—yes, l-o-c-k-s—[laughter]—were made in a gaol in Germany and sent out to a manufacturer, who supplied the rest of the parts. How was the right hon. Gentleman going to fix upon the parts made in the gaol? The right hon. Gentleman wandered away from the forest—
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Gentleman himself is wandering away from the question—[much laughter]. His illustration is, I think, very indirectly connected with the new clause. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. WEIRsaid he would soon finish with locks. How would the right hon. Gentleman be able to discover the parts of the locks made in the gaol?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! That does not arise upon this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. J. CALDWELLremarked that a novel power was to be given to the Commissioners of Customs, inasmuch as those officials were to have
    70
    power to take evidence and to come to a judgment, which was practically to have the effect of a judgment of a Court. The evidence might be given privately, and there was no provision in the Bill under which the witnesses might be put on oath and the traders concerned protected by means of the administering of an oath. Furthermore there was no provision for the person whose goods were in dispute, ascertaining the grounds of the sentence of the Commissioners. Again, the goods might be required for the fulfilment of a contract, and yet there was no provision that in the event of the Commissioners being found to be in the wrong the trader should be protected against any breach of contract.
    Question put, "That the Clause be. Read a Second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 136.—(Division List, No. 293.)
    MR. BUXTONmoved the following clause: —

    RETURN OF ACTIONS TAKEN.
    "There shall be laid before Parliament each year a return giving particulars of, and information regarding, the cases in which action has been taken by the Commissioners of Customs under this Bill.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not accept this clause. He had the authority of the Commissioners of Customs that they should deal with the matter in their annual report. He did not anticipate that the passing of this Act would have a disturbing effect. [Opposition laughter.]
    MR. BURNSsaid that on the Second Reading they were told that the country was flooded with German prison-made goods. That was what they were told on the Second Reading by the Colonial Secretary. That statement had not been made by the right hon. Gentleman 24 hours—
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have just entered the House, and I have heard the statement of the hon. Member. I beg to say I never said anything of the kind. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. BURNS: The Secretary for the Colonies certainly did on the Second Reading. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has no right to doubt my word unless he produces evidence. [Cheers.]
    MR. BURNSsaid the Colonial Secretary did indicate—[ironical laughter]—did certainly say—that the reason for this Bill was demonstrated by the fact that prison-made goods to a very large extent were introduced into England.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it.
    MR. BURNS: I shall be satisfied if he will let us know what he did say. [Cries of "No!"]
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have contradicted the statement, and it is now for the hon. Member to prove it. [Cheers.]
    MR. BURNS: I cannot pull "Hansard" out of my pocket, but I am in the recollection of the House—[cries of "No, no!"]—that he did justify this Bill—[a laugh]—and said that it would stop the importation of goods made in German prisons. [Laughter.] Soon after that there was published in The Times from a German authority a statement to the effect that these goods were diminishing, and that the tendency was to restrict prison labour to goods required by the Government departments. That being so, it was important they should have this return.
    MR. LOUGHsaid there were many precedents for giving this Return, and he hoped that it would be agreed to.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN (having consulted "The Parliamentary Debates,")said he must protest against the custom, which seemed to be growing, of giving what was called "the effect" of an hon. Member's speeches which was entirely different from anything he had delivered. [" Hear, hear !"] The hon. Member for Battersea, no doubt speaking from recollection, said that he had stated that the country was flooded with goods made in German prisons. He had had an opportunity of reading the whole of the speech he made on the Second Reading, and he defied the hon. Gentleman to find anything in it which justified in the slightest degree anything of the kind. ["Hear, hear!] He said exactly the reverse. ["Hear, hear!"] He was accused of having said so on a previous occasion, and he took the opportunity of contradicting that statement. What he did say was that it was a matter of small importance economically, but that there was a great principle involved, and that the German authorities had expressed an intention
    72
    or desire to spread prison manufactures over a larger number of trades, so that no trade would be actually safe from the kind of competition involved. ["Hear, hear!"] But, whether it was spread over a large number of trades or not, he never denied for a moment that it was a small matter, and he still held that, though it might be a small matter economically, it involved a principle of the very greatest importance. It involved a political question, too, which hon. Members opposite had already found to be of very considerable importance—[cheers]—which they would find again to be of considerable importance, and which, therefore, they would be greatly mistaken to underestimate. [Cheers.]
    *MR. WEIRthought it was a very small matter to ask for an annual Report showing the amount of prison-made goods excluded by the Bill, and it was hardly in accordance with the usual generosity of the President of the Board of Trade to refuse so small a request. He could not for the life of him understand why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse it, and he sincerely hoped he would even now see his way to comply with the request.
    MR. BUXTONsaid he was afraid he could not accept the suggestion. of his right hon. Friend, though he acknowledged the conciliatory spirit in which ho had met his Amendment. What was required on his side of the House was a specific Return showing the action taken sunder the Bill. They did not want a mere paragraph or two in a long Report dealing with other matters. Therefore he was afraid he must go to a division. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid the President of the Board of Trade had twice that night accepted the principle of Amendments, and, since the right hon. Gentleman had not raised a single objection to the Amendment now before the Committee, he had come to the conclusion that the Government had resolved to deal with this Bill as they dealt with the Voluntary Schools Bill, and not to allow a single Amendment to be made. ["Hear, hear!" and Ministerial laughter.]
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 156.—(Division List, No. 294.)
    MR. WOLFFmoved the following clause:—
    EXEMPTION OF GOODS IN TRANSIT.
    "This Act shall not apply to any goods imported into the United Kingdom for the purpose of being sent to foreign countries."
    Clause read the First time.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he was not satisfied that the whole question of the examination of goods in transit was in a satisfactory condition. He thought that the state of the law in regard to merchandise marks at present was probably not satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] He understood that one of the principal questions now before the Merchandise Marks Act Committee was the question of goods in transit, and he ventured to prophesy that some Amendment of the law with regard to that matter would be recommended by them. He· thought the question of goods in transit required to be dealt with as a whole and not in a partial manner.
    *MR. J. SAMUELasked whether, if such a recommendation was made by the Merchandise Marks Acts Committee as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated, he would apply such a recommendation to this Bill before it became law.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he would undertake, if there was a prospect of the Report of that Committee being made at an early date, that that Report with regard to this particular question should be considered in connection with this Bill in another place.
    *MR. J. SAMUELsaid that as the Bill would become law in a very short time, and before the Committee had presented their Report, great injury might be done to the shipping trade and large numbers of men thrown out of employment through an interference with the tran-shipment of goods. He thought it would be well, therefore, for the Government to decide at once that there should be no interference in the matter.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that if the Report, which would show the Government exactly what the Committee desired them to adopt in regard to the transhipment of goods was not ready before the Bill reached another place, he would endeavour to frame some Amendment with a view to protecting that particular industry.
    MR. J. SAMUELpointed out that the Committee had not yet considered their Report.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!
    *MR. J. SAMUELsaid the hon. and gallant Member must know the reasons why that was so. There was no probability of the Report being laid before the House before the Bill had passed through another stage, and he, therefore, hoped the hon. Member for East Belfast would not withdraw his clause, but take a Division upon it.
    MR. RITCHIEhoped his hon. Friend would not adopt such a course. He thought he had said enough to show his sympathy with the proposal, but before dealing with it he should like to be informed of the recommendation of the Merchandise Marks Committee. However, he would promise that if the Report was not made before the Bill reached another place he would consider the question of introducing an Amendment in the Bill in the direction desired.
    COLONEL DENNYsaid he admired the shipping trade, not—he hoped the Committee would believe him—because it gave him employment, but because it was a great national industry; but he thought the President of the Board of Trade had gone as far as he could in the matter, and under the circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. VESEY KNOXdesired to call attention to the significance of the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Central Sheffield.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I did not say anything.
    MR. VESEY KNOX: The hon. Member said "hear, hear!" [Laughter.] When my hon. Friend said the Committee had not yet considered the Report the low. Gentleman said most significantly, "hear, hear!" The hon. Member is a member of the Court, and is strongly opposed to any interference with the policy of the Merchandise Marks Act.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear![Laughter.]
    MR. VESEY KNOX: The hon. Member will, therefore, oppose to the uttermost any such Report as seems to be anticipated.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order ! That question does not arise on this Amendment.
    MR. VESEY KNOXventured to submit that it did in this way. The President of the Board of Trade had suggested

    75
    that the Amendment should be withdrawn in order that the question might be considered in another place in the light of a Report which the right hon. Gentleman expected from this Committee. There was not the slightest probability of the Report being ready in time to influence the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill. What the Committee had, therefore, to consider was whether they should enact a provision which would interfere with the trade in goods in transhipment, although, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, there was strong evidence that that interference would, as in other matters have a disastrous effect.
    MR. WOLFFsaid that, after what had fallen from the President of the Board of Trade, he should like to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No!"] The suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman were somewhat vague; and if he sat on the opposite side of the House he did not know that he should accept them as satisfactory. [Laughter.] But he would impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the question was of immense importance to the shipping trade, and not one to be put aside by the Government in the usual way. [Laughter.]
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider the question with a view to dealing with it next year.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, no. I have not made an actual promise, but I have said enough, if not to convince the Committee, at least to bind myself to consider the question with a view to introducing in another place, even if there be no Report from the Committee, some such Amendment as that suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he was glad of the fuller explanation; but the right hon. Gentleman had not gone far enough. This Bill was introduced in defiance of the recommendations of the Board of Trade Committee, that such a Measure could not be carried out.
    MR. RITCHIE: The Bill is introduced in deference to a Resolution of this House.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the Bill was introduced ostensibly to protect the trade of the country from unfair competition; but unless this Amendment were agreed to, the Bill would protect
    76
    the industries of every country to which foreign prison-made goods were carried in British vessels. If the goods were carried to other countries, why should they not be carried in British vessels? A great injury to our shipping trade was threatened. If the right hon. Gentleman must wait for the Report of the Committee on the Merchandise Marks Act, let him postpone the question altogether, and deal with it as a whole.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 contained a list of prohibited articles, but a special exemption was extended to goods in transit. Why not apply the exemption in the present case?
    MR. RITCHIEsaid that he had expressed his sympathy with the proposition. It was really only a question of words.
    MR. McKENNAappealed to the President of the Board of Trade to accept the words. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that they should be considered not in this House, which was representative of the country, but in another place, where it would have consideration of a, kind, but where, from the constitution. of the Upper House, it could not have the same consideration as in this House. On the principle on which the Bill was based, he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept the Amendment. He proposed to assist the trade of the country and prevent the working men of Great Britain from being unfairly competed with by foreign prison labour. Unless he accepted the Amendment he would be introducing a Measure which, like some other pettifogging restrictions, would tend to kill the trade of the country. The President of the Board of Trade was merely asked to enable the shippers of the country to carry on their industry unrestricted by the petty restrictions which already hampered them at every turn. The Amendment applied only to goods to be exported for sale elsewhere. They could not come into competition with British labour. Looking at the question from a common sense point of view it must be obvious to hon. Members opposite that the Government was bound by the principle of their Bill to accept the Amendment. If the Government refused the Amendment the House would not have an opportunity of considering the question again on the Report stage, and it would be left to the

    77
    other House. He did not think the President of the Board of Trade was treating the Committee fairly. It was not reasonable of the Government when they had an Amendment before them coming from the representative of one of the largest shipping businesses in the country, an Amendment which they accepted in principle, to take the matter away from the purview of the House and leave it solely to the consideration of another place.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid that when it was shown, as it had been, that by some oversight the Bill had been so drafted that unless it was altered great injury would accrue to the carrying trade, there was no reason why the President of the Board of Trade should not say that in another place he would take care it was amended.
    MR. RITCHIE: I have said so in plain language.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that he sympathised with the object of the Amendment. But he had never yet definitely said that the Bill should not become law until the carrying trade of the country was secured by an Amendment. If he would say that the Debate would finish in a moment. Hon. Members opposite thought he himself and his Friends were opposing this Bill. [Ministerial cheers.] He was a supporter of the Bill. He had never voted or spoken against the Bill either in this House or the other. [Loud laughter.] He apologised; he meant either in this House nor outside. ["Hear, hear"]
    MR. J. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade if he would take the opinion of the Chairman of the Board of Customs, Mr. Primrose, as to the transhipment of goods, and whether he would have an Amendment inserted in the Bill in another place to safeguard the shipping trade of this country.
    MR. RITCHIE: Certainly; I will consult Mr. Primrose.
    *MR. J. SAMUEL: But will you undertake—[Ministerial cries of "Order!" and "Oh!"]—to have the Bill amended in the other House?
    MR. LOUGHdid not want assurances as to what would be done in another place; the House of Commons ought to do its own business itself. We were the carriers of the world, and this Bill, if carried, would interfere with our whole
    78
    trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] Because all vessels coming to British ports with goods for transhipment would be liable to be searched for foreign prison-made goods, and was it to be supposed foreign nations would intrust us as carriers if we had these worrying laws passed hastily and without amendment. [Derisive laughter.] To admit that the Bill must be amended and then to refuse to amend it here, was to reduce the discussions of the House of Commons to a monstrous farce. [Laughter and cries of" "Divide!"]
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be Read a Second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 164.—(Division List, No. 295.)
    MR. CALDWELLmoved a new clause—
    (NO ACTION TO LIE FOR NON-DELIVERY WHERE GOODS PROVED NOT TO HAVE BEEN MADE OR PRODUCED IN FOREIGN PRISONS, ETC.),
    providing that—
    "where goods were detained from being imported into this country by order of the Commissioners under the provisions of the Act, and the consignee proved in a court of law that the goods were not in fact made or produced, wholly or in part, in any foreign prison, gaol, house of correction or penitentiary, no action for breach of contract to deliver should lie against the consignee, or those deriving rights from him for the time during which the goods were prevented from being imported."
    There were, he said, more persons interested in foreign prison-made goods than those who were concerned only with certain industries. There were cases in which persons in this country naturally bought from persons abroad goods which were imported here, and which, it might be wrongfully and illegally alleged, were wholly or in part made in a foreign prison. These goods would be ordered with the view of ful-filling a contract in this country. It was well known that anyone who made a contract here to deliver certain goods and then did not deliver them within the time specified was liable to an action for breach of contract to deliver. If the Bill had provided that a Court of Law should adjudicate on the question whether the goods were prison-made or not, then the ordinary principles of law would have been carried into effect.

    79
    But as the Bill stood there was no mode whatever of leading evidence as to how the goods were made, or of allowing evidence to be adduced on the one side, and rebutting evidence on the other, so as to be able to show, as in a Court of Law, in point of fact that the goods were not made in a foreign prison. By the Bill a person was deprived of that right of protection which everyone ought to possess of having a matter of fact determined. The object of this clause was that if it should be shown in a Court of Law where there was an opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, and of bringing forward evidence before a Judge that the bonâ fide consignee of the goods could substantiate his case that the goods in point of fact were not in the condition mentioned in the Bill—"wholly or partially made or produced in any foreign prison"—and having failed through the action of the Commissioners to fulfil his contract, and having shown to the Court that this was so, no action for damages should lie against him.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid that of all the Amendments handed in this was the most trivial. [Cheers.] He hoped the country would take note of the the tactics that had been adopted—[Cheers and counter-cheers]—in order to delay and obstruct the passage of this Bill. [Cheers.] Any Amendment seemed to be considered good enough that might have that effect. The Amendment provided that if a man had entered into a contract to deliver goods by a certain day the person with whom he made that contract should have no remedy for the breach of it if the delivery was stopped by the goods not being under the provisions of the Bill. A more preposterous suggestion could not be made. [Cheers.] English merchants knew their own business, and if a man desired to protect himself against such a Bill as this he could have a clause in the contract saying that if delivery was prevented in such a way he should not be liable for non-delivery. Such clauses were of every-day occurrence, providing against the liability for non-delivery in case of strikes or other causes. It was the first time that the House had ever been asked to accept a provision that a man who presumably knew his own business and had contracted to deliver brushes by a certain date, should not be liable if he could show that the brushes he imported were stopped by the
    80
    Commissioners in the course of the execution of their duty.
    MR. ROBSONsaid that this Amendment was worth much more careful and respectful consideration than the Solicitor General had given to it. [Cheers and ironical laughter.] The Amendment itself, although probably expressed in full and precise language, was clear and simple in its effect, and the Solicitor General had not quite accurately stated the effect of it. [Cheers.] The Amendment was this—that where an English importer had contracted to deliver goods by a particular date to his purchaser, and those goods were not made in any foreign gaol, but had been mistakenly detained by the Commissioners, no right of action should lie against the importer for non-delivery when that non-delivery was due to the act of the Commissioners. [Cheers.] That was an act of injustice that might be committed by the Bill. If it occurred, he challenged any hon. Member to say how the Bill proposed to deal with it, or how it could be dealt with other wise than by the clause of his hon. Friend. If a man was importing goods from a foreign gaol, then of course he would insert in his contract the clause suggested by the Solicitor General. But that was not the man with whom the proposed clause dealt. It dealt with the importer who was bringing into the country goods that had not been made in prison—["hear, hear"]—and why on earth—[ironical cheers, and cries of "Order" and "Divide."] If hon. Members who cried "Divide" intended to imply that he was seeking to delay and obstruct—[Ministerial cheers]—let him say that it was they who were obstructing. [Renewed cries of "Divide."] He had never yet in his short experience of the House, and he never would, however long that experience might be, address the House for any other purpose than that of seeking humbly to inform its judgment. [Cries of "Oh," and "Hear, hear."] He had no desire whatever to delay or obstruct for a single moment the progress of business. He was addressing the Committee now simply and solely because he believed, as a man of no slight experience in mercantile matters, that this Bill made an interference with trade which, if hon. Members were in earnest and desired to make a good piece of legislation, they would certainly seek to minimise as

    81
    much as possible. [" Hear, hear ! "] What he desired to do was to point out that the remedy suggested by the Solicitor General was totally inapplicable in this case. The hon. Member had pointed out an injustice; the Solicitor General had not suggested how the injustice should be dealt with; and he did hope the Committee would accept what he regarded as a just and businesslike Amendment.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 66.—(Division List, No. 296).
    Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes, 179.—(Division List, No. 297).
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: A new clause has been handed in on a piece of paper without any name and without any title. I understand it is by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but it is out of order. [Laughter]. He proposes to apply the procedure under Section 45 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, to prison made goods. That procedure, which deals with the striking of books off the list of copyright books, is not applicable to foreign prison-made goods. [Laughter and cheers].
    MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLmoved the following new clause:—

    DURATION OF ACT.
    "That this Act continue in force until December 31, 1899, and no longer."
    If ever there was a case for limiting the duration of an Act of Parliament it was the case of the Bill now before them. [Ministerial laughter.] They were laying for the first time upon the Commissioners of Customs an entirely new duty and a duty which was admitted to be a most difficult and most delicate character. There were some of them who believed that, as a matter of fact, this Bill would never be put into operation, but they also felt very strongly that, if the Bill were put into operation, it must have a most serious effect upon the general trade of the country. [Ministerial laughter.] At all events, it was very desirable that the House should
    82
    have an early opportunity of reviewing and considering the effect of the operation of the Bill. He hoped the Government would not oppose this reasonable Amendment in order merely to avoid the report stage. It was peculiarly necessary in this case that they should have a report stage.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That has nothing to do with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. [Ministerial cheers.]
    MR. PIGKERSGILLsaid he would content himself by saying that, apart from the substantial merits of this Amendment, it would have the effect of giving the House an opportunity of having a report stage.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not think the hon. Gentleman had given any argument whatever why this Bill should lie limited in its duration. Either the principle of the Bill was a good one or a bad one. The principle of the Bill had been accepted by au immense majority of the House of Commons, and there was no reason whatever, in his opinion, why its duration should be limited.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGErose to continue the Debate, when
    THE FIRST LORD OF TILE TREASURYmoved "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, I73; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 298.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be Read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: —Ayes, 64; Noes, 175.—(Division List, No. 299.)
    And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
    MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
    LAW OF EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL CASES) BILL.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.
    DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.
    SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    POOR LAW BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
    NAVAL WORKS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [5th July] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
    FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
    BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Thursday.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.
    LAND TRANSFER [MONEY].
    Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday.
    LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL.
    Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Tomorrow.
    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    YORKSHIRE CORONERS BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    INCLOSURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
    CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
    LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
    RAILWAY RETURN TICKETS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
    PARISH REGISTERS BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

    LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    House Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock.

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be Read 3a on Thursday next.
METROPOLITAN AND OTHER POLICE COURTS BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be Read 3a on Thursday next.
POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments. The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and the Bill to be printed as amended.—(No. 154.)
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which' have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; Read 1a; and to be printed.—(No. 155.)

CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES (ACCIDENTS) BILL.
THE EARL OF YARBOROUGH,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to prevent accidents, which were by no means rare among those employed in connection with chaff-cutting machines. Provision was made for the casing of the dangerous parts of the machines so far as was practicable during their working. The other

3
part of the Bill merely alluded to penal clauses. There was a penalty not exceeding £5 in the case of the law being disobeyed, but the regulations were not arduous and would not put the farmers or those using chaff-cutting machines to expense. The Bill received support from all sides in the other House, and among farmers, implement makers, and others who had been consulted in different parts of the country there was a consensus of opinion in its favour. The Bill would not come into operation until August 1898, so that there was ample time for machines to be altered in the interval. The Government offices concerned, and the Home Office and Board of Agriculture, had expressed approval of the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture being strongly in favour of it. In these circumstances lie hoped their Lordships would agree to the Motion he now made.
LORD BELPER intimated that the Home Office hail no objection to the Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole. House on Thursday next.

PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Friday next.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a on Friday next.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

VOLUNTEERS BILL.
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Thursday next.
House Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Five o'Clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.