Sitting of 13 May 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LOCHEARNHEAD, ST. FILLANS, AND COMRIE RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for consideration, as amended, Read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into consideration."
  MR. JAMES BRYCEmoved to leave out the words "now taken into consideration," in order to add instead thereof the words "re-committed to a Select Committee of five Members, three to be nominated by the House, and two by the Committee of Selection." The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought that there were special grounds for his asking the House to take this somewhat exceptional course in this case. The proposed railway, if constructed, would run through the valley of the Earn, which was one of the most beautiful glens in Scotland, would destroy one of the most exquisite drives in that part of the country, and he did not hesitate to say that it would utterly ruin the peculiar

  341
  charm of the locality. ["Hear, hear!"] The Bill was opposed by a large majority of the local residents on various grounds, such as that the railway would destroy the beauty of the scenery, that it would reduce the value of their property for letting purposes, and that it would interfere with the numerous crofts in the valley. It was most unfortunate that the great majority of those who were opposed to the construction of the railway had no locus standi, before the Committee, owing to the fact that it was not proposed to take their land, although undoubtedly the construction of the line would depreciate the letting value of their houses. But, in addition to the local residents, a large number of persons all over Scotland were opposed to the construction of the railway on the ground that it would completely destroy one of the most beautiful valleys in the country. It was most unfortunate that those who had a locus standi before the Committee had been induced to withdraw their opposition to the Bill, and that thus the Measure had been allowed to pass through the Committee stage as unopposed. A petition against the Bill had been signed by the most influential and representative men in Scotland, who, having no locus standi, had had no opportunity of laying their views before the Committee. It was on this ground that he had taken the somewhat unusual step of opposing the Bill at this late stage. The object of his Instruction was to empower the Committee to inquire whether the construction of the railway would affect materially the beauty of the scenery. It really embodied the ground of his opposition to the Bill. The House last year had instructed the Committee on the Light Railways Bill to make inquiries as to whether the construction of such railways would seriously detract from the natural beauty of the scenery of the district through which it was proposed they should run, and he now asked the House to take a similar course on the present occasion. He trusted that the House would take into consideration the strong local feeling that prevailed in reference to this matter, especially as there was another route along which the line might be made, which would not injure the scenery of the valley in any way. He trusted that the House would accept his Motion to recommit the Bill
  342
  in order that the merits of the cases on both sides might be thoroughly inquired into. He begged to move the Motion of which he had given notice. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR DONALD CURRIEseconded the Amendment. He said that when the Bill was first suggested he was invited to promise to put his name on the back of it, and he agreed; but subsequently he felt it his duty to withdraw this promise, when he was told the details, on the ground that his constituents in the district, by a great majority, were unwilling that the Bill should be approved by the House. He had no reason to believe that they had changed their opinion. He was not going to discuss the question of the route, but he objected, in the interests of his constituents and of people in the neighbourhood whose property would be injured, as well as on the general grounds stated by the right hon. Gentleman, to the Bill in its present form.
  *SIR JOHN LENGsaid that, like the hon. Member for West Perthshire, he had put his name on the back of the Bill. The hon. Member had withdrawn his name because of the conflict of opinion in his constituency. That consideration did not affect him. He was induced to back this Bill because, like a number of his constituents, he was in favour of multiplying, as far as possible, the outlets for their crowded population, both for summer residences and for daily excursions. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) had said that the great preponderance of local feeling was against the Bill. That was one of the several points which the promoters strongly contested. Five petitions were lodged against the Bill, praying to be heard by counsel and witnesses, and these petitions were successively withdrawn, arrangements being come to with the petitioners; but the promoters were ready to go into the Committee, and had their witnesses ready to support every one of the statements they had made in favour of the Bill. With regard to the local feeling, it was as well that the House should know who were the actual promoters of the Bill. The Chairman was Colonel Hay Drummond, the Convener of the county of Perth, who would not from his position lend himself to

  343
  anything that he believed to he either destructive to scenery or injurious to the interests of the county. The, second promoter was the Lord Provost of Perth, a gentleman highly respected by all who knew him, and one who took a most active interest in the affairs both of the city and the county. An important business promoter was Mr. Fraser, of the firm of Macdonald, Fraser, and Co., auctioneers, Perth, who supported the line in the interests of the farmers because of the facilities it would afford for bringing their sheep and cattle into the market. The remaining promoter to whom he would refer was the Lord Provost of the city of Dundee, whose sole interest in the Bill was a public interest. Gentlemen who were familiar with the railway arrangements of the district knew that if they wished to go from the west of Scotland to the east through the city of Perth they must make a long détour to the south via Dunblane and Callander. The trains were very awkward, and loss of time was entailed in making that journey. By the construction of this short length of railway the distance would be considerably shortened. and they would be able to step into a train in Dundee and go over to Oban in about four hours. The opponents of the Bill had not availed themselves of the legitimate opportunity of opposition before the Committee. The Bill, having been initiated in the House of Commons, there was still the ordinary course left of opposing it in the House of Lords. The Committee of the other House would, no doubt, give fair and reasonable consideration to any and every representation that might be made to it. He was, as much as any man in the House, in favour of respecting the beauty of our scenery, but there was this difference between him and some other hon. Gentlemen, that while they desired to preserve the enjoyment of that scenery for the wealthier classes, he was in favour of extending to the masses of the people in our great towns and cities the privilege of also enjoying the grandeur and the beauties of nature. Concluding, he said he regretted that there had on this occasion been a departure from the ordinary course, and that the time of the House should be taken up with a discussion which in all fairness and propriety, ought to have taken place in the Committee.
  MR. C. B. RENSHAWsaid that those who supported the Motion for the recommittal of the Bill suggested practically that after a Measure had gone through all the stages prescribed by the Standing Orders, and its promoters had fulfilled all the conditions laid down, a new duty should be imposed upon them. According to the right hon. Member opposite, himself, there was only one precedent for the course which was proposed, and he (Mr. Renshaw) did not think that it ought to be followed in this case, there being no formal objection by the inhabitants of the locality concerned to the provisions of the Bill under consideration. He should certainly vote against the Instruction.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLEassociated himself with the right hon. Member opposite, and hoped that they would not be precluded from taking the course which he suggested merely because it was unusual. There was no doubt that facts which ought to have been considered had not been placed before the Committee to whom the Bill had gone. As a rule no doubt that House paid the greatest respect to the decisions of Committees, but this was an exceptional case. Considerations of convenience urged on behalf of the populations of large towns situated at a great distance from a district that would be affected by the construction of a railway ought not to prevail beyond a certain point, and he did not think that in this case such considerations ought to overrule the views of the inhabitants of Perthshire.
  *MR. MELLORreminded the House that this was not an attempt to defeat the Bill, and said that he intended to vote for its recommittal. The point involved was a very important one. The question was what the House ought to do when a private Bill was introduced, and the petitioners against it disappeared. It was well known that there were people who wished to oppose Bills but could not afford to do so. These people ought to be considered, and the general public also. This Bill had been Read a Second time without opposition, because people who had not petitioned, but who desired to oppose it, believed that it would go to an ordinary Select Committee. The

  345
  petitions against it were, however, withdrawn, and the Bill went in the ordinary course in such cases to the Unopposed Bill Committee, before whom no one could appear to give reasons against the preamble. There was no public officer whose duty it was to attend the Unopposed Bill Committee, or, indeed, any Committee to give information and protect the rights of the public. Who are the proper guardians of these rights if this House be not b? It is plain that circumstances may arise in which it becomes the duty of this House to interfere and instruct the Committee as my right hon. Friend now proposes to do, and as was done in the Ennerdale case. The Members of the Unopposed Bill Committee were ignorant of the facts put before the House that day by his right hon. Friend, and the Bill passed through the Committee as a matter of course. Under the circumstances it would be simple justice to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, before whom opponents could appear and state their case. Railway promoters as a rule had hard hearts, and cared little for beautiful scenery or ancient buildings. Some years ago a railway promoter informed him that he had gone with a party to Kenilworth Castle to ascertain whether it could be converted into a railway station. [Laughter.] It was urged that the scheme which this Bill would sanction would seriously interfere with some very beautiful scenery. He took the view that they ought to do what they could to protect such scenery against disfigurement. The Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, before whom his right hon. Friend could appear and state all that he knew about this matter. Hon. Members would see from the statements that had been circulated that the allegations on either side were such that it was quite impossible for the House to decide this question itself. Whether the promoters of the Bill were right, or whether its opponents were right, the interests of the public ought to be protected by the investigations of a Select Committee. That would be the most simple and direct mode of inquiry, and it would result in justice being done.
  SIR J. KINLOCHsupported the Motion of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen. The railway could be constructed on the south side of the loch
  346
  just as well as on the north, and if that course were followed the scenery would not be spoilt.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER (CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,)said that while he agreed with most of the statements of the right hon. Member for the Sowerby Division, he differed from him on one point. The right hon. Member said that this Bill ought to be sent to a Select Committee in the ordinary way. But that was just what had been done already. If the House agreed to the Motion of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen the promoters of the Bill would have just ground of complaint. They had done nothing wrong, but had complied in every respect with the Parliamentary conditions imposed on the promoters of railway Bills. The Bill was introduced in the ordinary way in January, and was Read a Second time on February 12, and not a word was said against it. The hon. Member for West Perthshire, who represented the locality through which this railway would pass, had told them that he was prepared at one time to put his name on the back of the Bill, but that he subsequently withdrew his approval of the Measure because there was so much opposition against it.
  *SIR DONALD CURRIEsaid that when he was asked to promise his name on the back of the Bill he did not know what the route of the railway was. When he found out, before it was printed, what the route was to be, he intimated to the promoters that he should not give the support of his name to the Bill.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHERthought that the course taken by the hon. Member was very natural. The hon. Member very reasonably did not wish to make himself unpopular with his constituents. But it was, in the circumstances, a singular thing that not a single word should have been heard against the Bill until that day. The Bill had gone in the ordinary course as an opposed Bill to a Committee. There were five petitions against that Bill, and the petitioners claimed to be heard. What happened? The promoters of the Bill came to terms with their enemies, and they agreed to certain conditions; and amongst others was one that they should pay the cost of the petitions. After a time they withdrew the petitions, and now hon. Gentlemen opposite asked them to take what he considered a very

  347
  unusual course upon the Third Reading, asking that the Bill should be recommitted. He had no interest in the Bill one way or the other. He was only concerned to see that the private Bill procedure followed its usual course, and that justice was done to the parties. He thought injustice would be done to the promoters if the course suggested were followed. He concluded by saying that he asked the House to reject the Motion on this ground, that injustice would be done to the promoters of the Bill. It was his duty to vote against the Motion.
  MR. BRYCEdesired to make an explanation. He had never heard of the Bill until it had passed its Second Reading. Of course he would have raised the question then. He had made arrangements to move the Instruction while the Bill was before the opposed Committee, when suddenly the Opposition was "squared," and his opportunity was gone.
  MR. R. B. HALDANE, said he lived in the neighbourhood of this railway and knew something of the locality. Reference had been made to the position in which the House found itself through the petitions against the Bill having been withdrawn, and this Debate and the situation in which they were showed more than anything the necessity—for the measure to which the Government had given its sanction—for having some at least of these private Bill inquiries in the locality where the matter could be gone into. [Cheers.] The people who came before the House to give information in a matter of this kind were necessarily wealthy people. The public generally could not petition. In this case, one of the petitioners— Lady Helen Macgregor, whose property was affected—had withdrawn, because the expense of appearing with witness and counsel to oppose the Bill was greater than she felt she was justified in undertaking. The promoters had taken the position which a well-to-do corporation could always take, and had bought Lady Macgregor's opposition off. Allusion had been made to the costs which the promoters had paid, but they had not paid any of the costs of opposition before a Select Committee, or of bringing witnesses up, or, in fact, any of the heavy substantial costs of private Bill legislation. They had only paid those
  348
  preliminary expenses which in their nature were not heavy. Those who represented the public in this matter had some right to complain. They were entitled to rely when these petitions were presented, and when they knew that there was some opposition to the Bill, that in the ordinary course the Bill would go before a Committee, where its merits would be investigated, and where the House would have some opportunity of satisfying themselves that the matter had been looked into. He agreed that the railway would confer great advantage, and he hoped to see it made, but that was not the question before the House. The question was whether it should be taken by a route where it would do inexpressible damage to scenery which was almost unique, or whether it should be taken by another route where it would do much less damage. The hon. Member for Dundee spoke of finding an outlet for the population of Dundee, on whose behalf he addressed the House. He agreed that there ought to be an outlet for the population of Dundee. But his hon. Friend spoke as if Dundee were somewhere near this scenery. Dundee was a good 50 miles away, and Perth at least 25 miles. The question was as to the route the railway was to take. Everybody directly connected with the locality had spoken strongly against the proposed route. Both the Members for the county were against it, and all the information that had reached him from people living in the locality was to the effect that they would regard the proposed route as injurious to their interests and unnecessary. The present request was a modest one. It was that the House should not sanction this proceeding without some investigation. If there were an investigation before a Select Committee they would then have a guarantee that the merits of the matter would be gone into. No substantial expense had yet been incurred, and the promoters would merely find themselves in the position in which they ought to have been if the matter had been properly dealt with in the first instance.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the Bill had not been considered in the interests of the public. The hon. Member for Dund had given the names of those

  349
  who now promoted the Bill, but he would call attention to the name of gentlemen who had ceased to be promoters. The hon. Member for the Western Division of the county had withdrawn his name. The Provost of Broughty Ferry and, he believed, the Lord Provost of Dundee, had also withdrawn their names as promoters. Why had they done so? They were reported in the public press to have said that they had been told that the inhabitants of Comrie were in hearty sympathy with the scheme; but when they went to Comrie and discovered the strong sentiment against the railway they withdrew their names. Five petitions were presented against the Bill, two of which were by railway companies and one by crofters, whose interests were injuriously affected. At the last moment, before the time expired for these petitions being lodged, one of them was withdrawn, and it was stated that certain persons whose property was to be dealt with had been very generously treated. Notwithstanding that, many people in small houses in the villages had been ruined, and had not had a penny given to them. He supported the Amendment on the general ground that, as a member of the public, he was entitled to oppose a Bill which was likely to do a great deal of harm in the neighbourhood through which the railway was to pass, and also on the ground that the majority of people whose interests were injuriously affected could not afford to employ counsel to represent them before the Committee. Dealing with the details of the Bill, the hon. Member was understood to object strongly to the fact that the proposed railway would repeatedly cross the high road and would therefore be a source of public danger. In the statement made by the promoters of the Bill it was said that the road was crossed only once. That was an altogether misleading statement, the meaning of which was that the road was only once crossed after leaving a particular village until Lochearnhead was reached. He submitted that the Bill ought to be recommitted, in order that the merits of the Bill might be gone into.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)said he might claim to speak as an inhabitant of Perthshire, and he hoped he was not
  350
  less careful of the preservation of beautiful scenery than hon. Gentlemen who opposed the Bill. The same idea of spoiling the scenery was advanced both in the case of the railway through the pass of Killiecrankie and Glenfarg, but those localities were still largely resorted to by tourists. If he gave his view as an expert in scenery, he would have preferred to see the railway taken on the other side of the loch; but he supported the Bill on much broader grounds. An hon. Member opposite spoke as if the Unopposed Bill Committee were utterly uninformed as to the merits of the Bill. So far as anything asked for by the promoters infringing on the general law, all these private Bills were very carefully scrutinised in the various offices, and if there were anything objectionable in them on that ground notice would be taken of it. The question of which side of the loch the railway should go was not a public question. The question now raised might have been raised before the Committee, and even now those who objected to the Bill could still do everything they wanted to before the Lords.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he was obliged to make the motion in the House of Commons, because the question could not be raised without an instruction, and he had not heard of any instruction in the Lords.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATEdid not pretend to be familiar with the procedure of the House of Lords, but he thought that there would be ample opportunity found there to do what was desired. He should oppose the Amendment because he thought it would open the door to great inconvenience. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. G. WEIRcontended that there was no reason why the railway should not go on the south side of the Loch instead of on the north side. On the day before the Bill was put down on the Paper he saw the Parliamentary agent for the promoters, who agreed that the Bill should not be proceeded with for several days, yet on the following day it appeared on the Paper. He thought that was a very unreasonable course of proceeding after a distinct arrangement had been made. It would make him fight shy of making arrangements in the future, and never again would he take the word of

  351
  that Parliamentary agent. [Cheers and laughter]. The House had heard a great deal about beautiful scenery. He admired scenery as much as any man in the House, but fine scenery would not fill empty stomachs. [Laughter]. He pointed out that in many cases crofts would be cut in two by this railway, without any provision being made for compensating the holders.
  *MR. F. A. CHANNINGsaid the Chairman of Committees seemed to be under the impression that the opposition at this stage was due to the action of one of the persons concerned, who had petitioned against the Bill and then withdrawn the petition. He thought it, was only right that the House should know that Lady Helen Macgregor did not do anything which led to the action of his right hon. Friend, or of others who were opposing the Bill. Any letters from her which had appeared were due to those who had written to her to obtain her opinion. The opposition originated with the inhabitants of St. Fillans, with whom he had had personal friendship for many years, and who had no locus standi. From his knowledge of the district and of their wishes he was convinced that his right hon. Friend was thoroughly justified in his Motion.
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty implied there had been some breach of faith on the part of the promoters. On referring to the Votes he found that the Bill was down for Second Reading on the 8th of February. Objection, was raised to its being taken then, and it was not taken until the 12th of February. Four days therefore, were allowed.
  SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLprotested against the line taken by the Lord Advocate and the Chairman of Committees. Both those Gentlemen had put the merits of the Bill on one side and addressed themselves to the question of procedure. Everyone admitted that a railway between the two points specified might be made with advantage, and yet everyone who knew the locality felt that the line proposed would interfere very seriously with the interests of persons who had not been sufficiently rich to oppose the Bill. Opposition was very expensive; and, if the House were going to allow every Bill to which opposition did not come up
  352
  in Committee, it was quite clear that injustice would often result. He hoped the House would send the Bill to another Committee.
  Question put, "That the words 'now taken into consideration' stand part of the Question:"—The House divided:— Ayes, 159; Noes, 175—(Division List, No. 207.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there added:"—
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he was sure that as it had now been decided to send this matter back to the Committee, the House would not desire to deprive the promoters from stating their case before the Committee. He therefore begged to move the addition of the words," And that the promoters have leave to appear by themselves, their counsel, or agents."
  Words amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words" and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to appear by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents."—(Mr. J. W. Lowther.)
  Words added.
  MR. BRYCEmoved:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report whether the railway proposed to he authorised by the Bill, will, if constructed along the line mentioned in the Bill, so seriously injure the scenery of the valley and lake along which it is to pass as to make it inexpedient to pass the Bill, and that the Committee have power to call witnesses and receive evidence on the subject,"
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House, and Two by the Committee of Selection, and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to appear by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to inquire and report whether the railway proposed to be authorised by the Bill will, if constructed

  353
  along the line mentioned in the Bill, so seriously injure the scenery of the valley and lake along which it is to pass as to make it inexpedient to pass the Bill, and that the Committee have power to call witnesses and receive evidence on the subject.

EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
*MR. ERNEST GRAYrose to move:—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the East London Water Bill that they have power to insert a clause providing that the term 'the annual rateable value of the tenement supplied with water' shall have the same meaning in the districts outside the metropolis supplied by the company as the term now has within the metropolitan area."
He said he was asking permission to place before the Committee now sitting a question that concerned a large number of persons resident beyond the boundaries of the metropolis. The charges for the supply of water were levied on the annual value of the tenement supplied with water, and those words formed the basis of all water charges levied within the metropolitan area and in the large area outside the metropolis supplied by the companies which also supplied the central area. The words were found in the Act of 1847, and for 41 years they were acted upon by the various companies, including the East London Companies, with more or less friction between the companies and the consumers. The frictions grew so great that in 1885 an Act was passed defining these words in the sense of the value set upon the tenement by the local assessing authority, but the Act applied only to the metropolis. Under that Act, the East London Company, in common with the other water companies, levied their charges on the annual value as defined by the Local Authority, but, as the Act was strictly limited to the metropolitan area, one set of charges for the supply of water by the East London Water Company obtained within the metropolitan area, and a totally different set of charges was made on the consumers supplied by the same company in the extra-metropolitan area. They had two tenements
354
in the same street rated at exactly the same amount, but persons living on one side of the street, outside the metropolitan area, paid more for the supply of water than those living on the other side of the street, which was within the metropolitan area. He could not conceive any justification for the continuance of such an anomaly which was, in his opinion, a great injustice on the people residing in the populous extra-metropolitan areas. he asked, by his Instruction, that the Committee now sitting should have power to inquire into the circumstances, to hear evidence, and to decide whether or not this grievance should continue or whether it should be remedied by the incorporation of a clause in the Bill now under their consideration. The question was not now brought forward for the first time. In 1886, a Committee was sitting on the East London Bills and the then Chairman of the Committee, Lord Claud Hamilton, pointed out, on the 13th April, that—
"The Committee are of opinion that a new clause will be wanted. In the opinion of the Committee it is very desirable that West Ham should he included for water purposes within the metropolitan area and should be subject to the same advantages both as regards continuous supply and the mode of rating as applies to the rest of the East London Company's District subject to the provisions of the Metropolitan Water Act 1871. No doubt the representative of West Ham will frame a, clause carrying out the views of the Committee."
Some technical difficulties arose. It was pleaded on behalf of the companies, that the petitioners had not included this point in their petition, and on that point, and the further contention that there was not at that time a similar method of assessment adopted in the extra-metropolitan area as prevailed in the metropolitan district, the Committee finally decided against the extra-metropolitan areas. He was informed by those who ought to know that the second objection no longer holds good, inasmuch as the system of assessment had been revised in the extra-metropolitan areas and was now practically, on the same footing as the system within the metropolis. If that were the case, one objection had now disappeared, and the second objection, the mere technical objection, could not now be maintained. He

355
did not want the House to constitute itself judge and jury in this technical question. It was a question which necessarily involved the presence of experts who would place before the Committee the evidence both for and against the proposal. He was not asking the House to pronounce an opinion on the question, but simply asking that the Committee should be given power to go into the question and to hear and determine the case on its merits. If the evidence satisfied the Committee that the existing condition of things rendered such a clause undesirable, they would reject it; but it was perfectly possible that the Committee would come to the same conclusion as the Committee over which Lord Claud Hamilton presided. He could not understand why there should be any objection to the proposal, seeing that the Instruction was only permissive. Certain of the extra-metropolitan areas had petitioned to have the clause inserted and they were alive to the possibility of their petition being rejected on the ground that the Committee had no power to deal with the question. He sought to remove that technical objection. He was told that the Bill was simply one asking for more storage, to enable the Company to discharge its statutory obligations to consumers within the area. To a certain extent that was true, but it was not the whole truth. The water company were asking for another half-a-million of money to provide storage, and consumers would reap a certain amount of advantage; but no one would convince him that the directors, in view of their obligations to their shareholders, were going to undertake this enormous work as a pure matter of charity to the consumers. The merest child must know that unless there were some profit to be derived, the company would not be likely to undertake the work. He had no wish to contest that point. All he wanted was that the Company should deal equitably as between ratepayer and ratepayer, no matter where they happened to reside. It was an injustice which ought no longer to continue, that people in London who happened to be separated by a street should be paying higher charges for water on one side of the street than on the other. He might be told that he was supporting a principle of robbery. He had no
356
sympathy with any project that would deprive the water company of what they might legitimately claim; but he saw no injustice in enacting that the rates which prevailed in the metropolitan area should prevail in the other districts. He was told that the thing was an impossibility; that the same system of assessment could not be maintained in the extra-metropolitan area; that there were certain safeguards within the metropolitan area which did not exist without. That, however, was a purely technical point which ought not to be argued in the House, but should be left to the Committee upstairs. He had no interest to serve in the matter excepting that which he conceived to be for the benefit of his constituents. He was speaking for more than a quarter of a million of people who were paying rates to this company, which they considered to be abnormally high. It was not a question to which the stigma of robbery and misappropriation should be applied. His desire was to see common justice done as between the company and their consumers. He might be told that this was piecemeal legislation; that it dealt with one company instead of with the whole area. If he could have the whole of the water companies within his purview at that moment he would endeavour to apply the Instruction to the whole of them. But there was no reason why the consumers within the area of the East London Company should be excluded from the proposed benefit because it was not possible at the same moment to include other areas. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Instruction.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD, said that the hon. Member for West Ham had remarked that the terms misappropriation and robbery would probably be applied to his Instruction. He had several times argued the case of the East London Company, but he had never taken that line, or bandied such terms. The case of the company was that they wanted the increased storage to enable them to avoid the danger of drought. The hon. Member had also suggested that the company were asking for these powers with a view to making profit, that this was their only and their first idea. He said distinctly that profit was not their first idea, their first idea was to prevent their running

357
short of water, and the hon. Member for West Ham had no right to impute to the company motives that were not actuating them. The hon. Member was simply endeavouring to extend Torrens' Act to the extra-metropolitan areas without those very cheeks that were provided by the House in order to ensure fair treatment for the water company within the area. The overseers of outside localities were interested in keeping down the assessment, because the contribution of the locality was based on its aggregate rateable value. The company would have no objection to the same charge being imposed on the extra-metropolitan districts if there were the same checks as to valuation. But even if the hon. Member's hypothetical street were included, there would still be a street beyond that. There must be a boundary somewhere. The hon. Member had called attention to a decision of a previous Committee which had claimed to be in his favour. But the decision of the Committee on the 13th April 1876, was given before the facts were fully placed before the Committee. When they had heard the evidence, Lord Claud Hamilton's Committee decided in the following terms:—
"We do not insist on any change in the mode of rating, and only agree to a constant supply being compulsory on there being inserted the same conditions as are attached to other portions of the metropolis."
Another Committee in 1894, when the hon. Member for West Ham brought forward a similar proposal, decided as follows: —
"The Committee have come to the conclusion not to go any farther with the West Ham Clause."
The same question came before a Committee of the House of Lords, and they decided that it would not be safe to interfere with or alter the law as it stood, and they declined to entertain the proposal. If the House of Commons wished to alter the law it ought not to do so by a roundabout method, but ought to deal with all companies that had extra-metropolitan areas, in the same way and in a public Act. It was unfair, after the company had made every effort to meet the objections of hon. Members opposite, that Instructions like this should be sprung upon them at the last moment.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought it curious that on the one hand the Government should think it right to relieve districts like West Ham from rates—and that they did think it right was proved by the introduction of the Poor Board Schools Bill— and that on the other hand they should allow the water companies to impose heavier rates upon those districts because they were just outside the London boundary line. The districts to which he referred were far more thickly populated than some of the districts inside the metropolitan area. That wits true of West Ham, Walthamstow, and Leyton. The Essex population was quite willing to agree to any checks which the company now had against the people of London. In fact they wanted to be treated in the same way. The assessment was not kept down a bit more in Essex than in London. The Essex County Council took great care that the assessments should not be kept down, and they had gone up enormously in recent years. It was said that the company would not profit by this Bill. That might be true; but the company did profit from the increased consumption in consequence of the growth of the population in the extra-metropolitan area. That population was now being treated worse than the people of London, to whom the company gave the advantage of a preferential rate. He trusted that the House would pass the Instruction.
MR. F. G. BANBURYpointed out that within the metropolitan area there was an authority which laid down the proper way in which to ascertain rateable value, but that outside the Metropolis there was no such authority. The hon. Member for West Ham said that the rateable value was fixed in his constituency as it was in the metropolitan area. There was, however, nothing to prevent the local authorities of West Ham from making a change at any moment, for the powers of such local authorities were unlimited in regard to rates. Upon a house rated at £50 a year they could raise 1s. in the pound if they wanted £2 10s.; but if the assessable annual value were reduced to £25, they could still raise the same amount by increasing the rate to 2s. The water companies, however, could not do the same thing. When a water company

359
came to the House, as in the present instance, and asked for certain powers in order to enable them to benefit the public, it was, to say the least of it, discouraging that Instructions of this nature should be proposed. On a previous occasion the East London Water Company had applied to that House to sanction the steps that were necessary in order that additional reservoirs might be established. The application was resisted on the ground that if it was assented to the profits of the shareholders of the company would be increased. But what had, in fact, occurred? The dividends had been reduced since then by 1 per cent. He asserted that the company had not brought this Measure forward with the object of increasing the shareholders' profits, but in order to guard the consumers against the risk of future drought.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,)said that he understood that the view of the company was that this was a Bill to supplement one which was introduced and sanctioned last year. That Bill gave greater storage power to the East London Water Company in order to obviate the risk of a recurrence of the water famine. In order to enable the company to carry the Bill of last year into effect this Measure was said to be necessary. An Instruction was now moved which the company alleged might be extremely injurious to them, and his hon. Friend asked that the Committee upstairs should be empowered to consider and discuss the question which was involved in that Instruction. But he apprehended that that was within their powers at the present time. The advocates of the Instruction were, it appeared to him, in this dilemma—if the matter could be discussed by the Committee what was the object of this Instruction? If, on the other hand, it could not be discussed, the supporters of the Instruction were calling upon a Committee to examine into questions which were outside the purview of the Bill. He did not think that adequate reason had been shown for adopting the course proposed. The matter, if dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with in relation to all the water companies, and a public Bill ought to be introduced for the purpose. In the circumstances he did not think that the
360
House would be well advised in passing the Instruction.
*MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid that he realised that it would be perfectly futile to press the Motion to a Division in the face of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed—[Bill 248.]
QUESTIONS.

  PLYMOUTH HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the steam barge for the Plymouth Harbour Works Department, provided for in last year's Estimates, will be available for use?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): It is probable that the steam barge will be delivered about the close of the financial year.

  ARMY (SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION).
  SIR A. F. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the defective ammunition issued to the Guards at Pirbright for musketry practice; whether this is part of the issue which caused dissatisfaction last year; and, whether he will have it withdrawn from use as soon as possible and take steps to insure that it is not re-issued at a future date?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): A report has been received from a battalion of Foot Guards as to defective ammunition, and the supply has been changed. Careful inquiry into all the circumstances is taking place.

  VACCINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board will he explain why a considerable part of the evidence and several of the Special Reports on which the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination is based have not yet been published; and, when this Evidence and these Special Reports will be issued?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I have made inquiry, but have not received any information beyond that I have already communicated to the House.

  EXCHANGE COMPENSATION (INDIA).
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government of India in regard to the various questions still pending in respect of exchange compensation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): Exchange compensation is authorised for Europeans appointed in England, and for officers appointed as Europeans in India to offices in which European qualifications are held to be indispensable, or to services and departments in which a proportion of Europeans is held by the Government of India to be indispensable. The Government of India are now considering the rules which must be issued in order to carry into effect this decision of the Secretary of State in Council.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy of India, the Governors and Lieutenant Governors of Presidencies and Provinces and members of the different Councils draw Exchange compensation allowance in addition to their salaries; whether the salaries of some of them are not fixed in rupees lay statute; and whether the grant of the allowance taken without statutory amendment is legal; and whether it is a fact that the allowance is granted to such European officers as make no remittances to England; and, if so, on what grounds?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Exchange compensation has hitherto been drawn by all the European officers in India who are entitled to it under the regulations. Among these are about 40 officers whose salaries are fixed in rupees under Statute; and doubts have been raised whether, in their case, the compensation, though obviously equitable, may not be technically illegal. Opinions on that point differ, and the matter is now under my consideration with a view of obtaining further advice. The compensation allowance is intended to protect European officers in India against an excessive depreciation of their emoluments by the fall in exchange, and is confined by the regulations to those classes which as a rule are seriously affected by it; but it is not thought necessary or advisable to make any special inquiry into the private circumstances of individual officers.

  BRIGADE OF GUARDS.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether all recruits enlisted for general service who are up to the Guards' standard are now taken for the Brigade of Guards at the expense of the rest of the Army; what are the numbers of recruits, exclusive of bandsmen and boys, raised for each regiment of Guards since 1st January 1897, and how many of these are specially enlisted; and what are the present numbers of each regiment of Guards above or below the establishment of 1896?
  MR. BRODRICK: No alteration has been made in the recruiting regulations by which it has been laid down for some years past that recruiting for the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, and Foot Guards takes precedence of other recruiting. The number of recruits raised for each regiment of Foot Guards since January 1, 1897, was as follows:— Grenadier Guards, 235, of whom 75 were specials; Coldstream Guards, 143, of whom 39 were specials; Scots Guards, 131, of whom 40 were specials. On May 1 the Grenadier Guards were 30 above establishment, the Coldstream Guards 11 above establishment, and the Scots Guards four below establishment. It is necessary to add that, owing to the great activity of trade, and the consequent

  363
  increase of employment, the recruiting for the, Army generally has been unusually slack since January 1, and, while the numbers of Foot Guards have been more than maintained, the rest of the Army is short by nearly 1,600 men.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that answer, why, if the strength of the Foot Guards has been more than maintained, it has been thought necessary to reduce the standard to 5ft. 7 in.?
  MR. BRODRICK: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably aware that there has never been an occasion when an increase in the Army has taken place that the standard has not had to be reduced. In the next place, we have not merely had to maintain the strength of the Foot Guards, but we have to add an extra battalion during the year. That is the reason why the standard has been reduced to that at which it stood for many years.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Has any progress whatever been made towards adding this new battalion to the Guards? Does the battalion yet consist of a single man?
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, some progress has been made. We were below the establishment for the Foot Guards at the beginning of the year, and now we are above it in the Grenadier and Coldstream Guards. Measures have been taken for the recall of men from the Reserve, which we confidently anticipate will put us in a much better position altogether than before.

  LAND SUB-COMMISSIONS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is over 12 months since any court for the disposal of land cases from the union of Bawnboy has sat in county Cavan; and, whether he will inquire into this subject, and direct a Commission to hold a court for the dispatch of the large number of cases pending in this uuion?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): A Sub-Commission last sat for the disposal of fair rent cases from the Poor Law Union of Bawnboy
  364
  on the 24th November last. It may be assumed that a sitting will be hold there on the earliest possible occasion, having regard to the claims of other districts.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a sitting of the Sub-Commission will be held in the present spring for the hearing of numerous cases awaiting trial in the counties of Meath and Cavan in the vicinity of Kingscourt; and whether, as was conceded to Bailieborough, the Commission, for the convenience of the people of that district, will sit in Kingscourt, between which town and Dublin there is easy railway connection, and in which there is an ample Town Hall and superior hotel accommodation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Sub-Commission will commence its sittings at Bailieborough on the 18th instant. The Chairman of the Sub-Commission will consider any application that may be made to him for the purpose of holding a special sitting at Kingscourt for the disposal of cases from that district.

  LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, in view of the fact that it is expressly provided by Statute that the land certificates of tenant purchasers should be handed over to such tenant purchasers, will he explain why the Land Commissioners impound the certificates and decline to hand them over as directed by the Act of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): Copies of the certificates are furnished to the purchaser, and the originals are retained by the Land Commissioners for the reasons stated at length by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 24th of July, 1896, in reply to a Question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Cork City. I beg to refer the hon. Member to that answer, to which I have nothing to add.

  ARMY HORSES.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a Commission has been recently dispatched to Argentina for the purpose of purchasing horses for the British Army; whether these horses could be as

  365
  cheaply purchased in Ireland; and whether, having regard to the promise of the War Office authorities to give preference to home-bred horses, this order will not be repeated, and Irish horses purchased instead?
  MR. BRODRICK: A small number of horses required for South Africa will be purchased in Argentina. Their cost when landed at their destination will be less than one-half of that involved by purchasing them in Ireland, and they will be older horses. Preference is always given to home or colonial horses when they can be obtained without serious loss.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has my right hon. Friend considered the question of purchasing horses in Australia?
  MR. BRODRICK: That question has been considered, but, the distance being equally great, the cost would have been double what it would have been for horses from South America.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state the exact number of horses to be purchased?
  MR. BRODRICK: I think it is 450.

  PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENCE (POSTAGE).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the large surplus available principally for postal reforms, he will consider the advisability of recommending that all letters posted from the House of Commons during its sittings by Members of Parliament be sent post free, as the present arrangements entails a large tax on most Members for purely Parliamentary correspondence?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Act 3 and 4 Vic. cap. 96 expressly abolished the privilege of franking which Members of Parliament had previously enjoyed. I see no good reason why it should be revived even in the modified form suggested by the hon. Member. There is a special and practical objection to that suggestion—that the Postmaster General would have no means of knowing what letters were for purely Parliamentary correspondence.

  COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND.)
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of fees imposed as fines and recovered by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, under Section 6 of the Local Loans Act, 1892, and the number and amounts of the loans recovered by ordinary process by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for each of the five years ending 31st March 1897.
  *MR. HANBURY: The amount of fees imposed and recovered by the Board of Works under Section 6 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1892, was:—

  Year.

  Fees.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1892–3

  14

  9

  1893–4

  40

  8

  5

  1894–5

  121

  12

  1

  1895–6

  195

  16

  4

  1896–7

  712

  17

  5

  These figures of course can only refer to loans granted after the passing of the Act. The numbers of half-yearly instalments recovered in each of the same years were respectively:—

  £

  1892–3

  49,882

  1893–4

  51,364

  1894–5

  53,638

  1895–6

  59,564

  1896–7

  62,000 approximately,

  (the number of loans being in each case half the number of the instalments). And the total amounts so recovered were—

  £

  1892–3

  733,044

  1893–4

  707,245

  1894–5

  783,374

  1895–6

  764,732

  1896–7

  757,883

  These figures, however, include loans granted before, as well as those granted after, the passing of the Act. To separate the two would take very great time and trouble, but the total amounts recovered in respect of loans granted after the passing of the Act are roughly estimated to be as follows:—

  £

  1892–3

  1,000

  1893–4

  23,000

  1894–5

  50,000

  1895–6

  76,000

  1896–7

  132,000

  367
  In the latter year, as I have already stated, the amount of Fees imposed under the Act was £712 17s. 5d. The Fee being one shilling on every pound more than a month in arrear, this amount represents arrears of more than £14,300 out of a total of £132,000 recovered, or considerably over 10%. The large increase of the amounts received from £76,000 in 1895–6 to £132,000 in 1896–7 is due to the Seed Loans of 1895, amounting to about £65,000, repayable in two years; and as I have already explained in reply to previous Questions, interest on these loans is payable not by the localities but out of the Irish Church Fund, so if the Fees were not enforced, there would be little inducement to the localities to repay the loans.

  SCIENCE AND ART SCHOOLS (GRANTS).
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) at what date the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Grants to Science and Art Schools, as adopted by the Committee of Council, are to take effect; and (2) whether the Science and Art Directory will henceforward be laid upon the Table of the House for one month before it comes into force?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The recommendations of the Committee are at present being considered by the Committee of Council. The Committee of Council do not consider that the course suggested in the second paragraph would be advisable.

  WEIGHING OF CATTLE (SCOTLAND).
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he receives, in virtue of the provisions of Section 3 of The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act 1891, from the five scheduled cities in Scotland satisfactory weekly Returns of the prices of live stock sold therein; and, if so, whether he is prepared in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, for the information of the large number of farmers in Scotland who have erected cattle-weighing machines at their farms,
  368
  and who are selling their fat cattle to butchers direct instead of sending them as formerly to the auction marts, to publish these Returns, or abstracts thereof, weekly instead of quarterly as at present, in the same way as is done by the Board of Agriculture in regard to the average price of British grain?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Yes, Sir; I do receive fairly satisfactory returns, but there is still room for improvement. I cannot, however, adopt the suggestion in the last part of the Question.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether, having regard to the fact that for the year 1896 there were 8,076 cases in which the telegraph was used merely for giving notice of withdrawal from the Post Office Savings Bank, the withdrawal Order itself being sent by post, will he state the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and (2) having regard to the fact that for the year 1896 there were 94,477 cases in which the advice authorising payment was sent by telegraph, will he state the average cost to the depositor in each of these cases of withdrawal in which, in order to have payment authorised by telegraph, he had to pay for two telegrams?
  *Mr. HANBURY: The answer to the first Question is 9d., and to the second 1s. 3d.

  PARISH COUNCILS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the amended regulations under which telegraph extensions may be provided under guarantee, he will state when he expects to introduce the promised Bill which will place parish councils in Scotland on the same footing as similar councils in England in regard to guarantees.
  *Mr. HANBURY: I hope to introduce a Bill containing this provision within the next few days.

  PUBLIC WORKS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether his attention has been called to a resolution moved at a recent meeting of the Ross-shire County Council by one of the leading supporters of the Government in the county, and unanimously carried, in which it was declared that the Council views with astonishment and dismay the reduction of the Vote for public works and communications in the Highlands by over £10,000; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that the stoppage of harbour works (such as Bayble) which have already cost the promoters considerable sums of money, and which have been promised by the Scottish Office, will be productive of very great hardship to the promoters, he will make some provision under which those works, which have already been entertained at the Scottish Office, maybe proceeded with without delay?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second portion of his Question the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that any harbour works have been stopped for which promises were given. He is aware that the cost of such works after being entertained by the Scottish Office must be sanctioned by the Treasury—who have not seen their way to make provision for these works this year.

  PORT NESS HARBOUR (LEWIS).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any steps have been taken to free the harbour of Port Ness, Island of Lewis, from the huge concrete blocks which fell into the harbour during the construction of the harbour works; and whether he is aware that these blocks are a serious source of danger to the fishermen in the pursuit their calling?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the engineers of the works that the blocks referred to have not been removed owing to the weather not yet being suitable for doing so. They also assure me that the blocks are not a source of danger to the fishermen.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICES (PUBLIC GUARANTEE).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposed reductions in the guarantees for telegraphic extension will be made retrospective to relieve guarantors in places where telegraph offices have not paid working expenses?
  *MR. HANBURY: The concession to be made will apply to existing guarantees. The form which the concession takes is that the Exchequer will share the loss, if any, equally with the guarantors. It will come into operation on Jubilee Day, and will from that date apply to both future and existing guarantees.

  POST OFFICE (DELIVERY OF LETTERS).
  MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the new regulations for the delivery of letters to every hamlet and house, due care will be taken that no delay shall occur in the present delivery of letters to the various villages and houses in the rural districts?
  *MR. HANBURY: In the endeavours which are to be made to extend the delivery of letters to every hamlet and house in the kingdom care will, of course, be taken to maintain as far as possible all existing facilities, but the Postmaster General cannot pledge himself that, in the multiplicity of re-arrangements which will become necessary, no place or house shall in any case be served in the least degree later than at present.

  TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a telegram addressed "Prime Minister, Natal," was refused on the ground of insufficient address at the Hammersmith Post Office on 8th May; and whether a telegram addressed to the Prime Minister of England would receive like treatment?
  *MR. HANBURY: The telegram in question was not refused at the Hammersmith Office, but was duly forwarded to

  371
  the Telegraph Company concerned. It was, however, returned by the Company with the request that if the telegram were intended for South Africa the name of the telegraph office might be inserted. A telegram addressed merely to the name of the country of destination does not comply with the regulations of the International Convention, which require that the name of the terminal telegraph office should be given. The regulations of the International Convention would apply to the Prime Ministers of England and Natal equally.

  TELEGRAPH CHARGES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the telegraph officials at the West Strand Office on Saturday last insisted on charging "McCalmont" as two words; and whether these are the same officials who insisted on charging a person last year "bonheur" as two words?
  *MR. HANBURY: I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone this Question, as the answer I have received from the Post Office is quite unintelligible to me. [Laughter.]

  RATING ASSESSMENT.
  MR. FINCH-HATTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, the rateable value of a tenement having been reduced in the autumn of one year at the quinquennial valuation, the said reduction to take effect on 6th April of the ensuing year, a vestry or other rating authority is entitled during the ensuing year to demand rates under the old assessment, on the ground that the rates for the whole year are fixed in the month of March previous to the reduction taking effect, notwithstanding that the said rates are payable quarterly, the result being that rates are demanded during a period of 18 months on a rateable value which has been declared excessive?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The new valuation list comes in force on 6th April and only affects rates made after that date. The quarterly instalments payable in respect of a rate made in the preceding March
  372
  must therefore be based on the valuation in force at the time the rate was made. There is only one exception. If the rate made in March was made on the rateable value as fixed by a provisional list, and that value is more than the value fixed by the new list which comes in force in April, the amount of rate overpaid is to be repaid, and presumably any unpaid instalments are to be diminished accordingly.

  POST OFFICE (GRATUITIES TO POSTMEN).
  MR. FINCH-HATTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that postmen have been forbidden by the authorities of the General Post Office to ask for Christmas boxes, without any compensation being given to them for the loss thereby entailed; and, whether it is the case that Christmas boxes have hitherto always been officially recognised as part of the wages of postmen?
  *MR. HANBURY: I am of course aware that postmen have been forbidden in future to ask for Christmas boxes, and that their witnesses complained strongly before the Tweedmouth Committee, of the indignity which asking for Christmas boxes imposed upon them. I am also aware that in the provinces it has hitherto been forbidden to ask for them by printed card or letter, and that the London and provincial postmen are now for the first time brought under the same regulations. The Committee did not anticipate that to forbid solicitation would lead to any considerable diminution in the amount of Christmas boxes received from the public, and it is a fact that, although parcel postmen have always been forbidden to solicit Christmas boxes, they nevertheless receive them, although no old custom of giving to them could exist in their case as it does in that of the letter postmen. When the hon. Member speaks of compensation he is, perhaps, not aware that the Christmas boxes are by no means equally distributed among even the letter postmen, and that, while the juniors receive little or nothing on some walks, the seniors receive very much more than their share. Any system of compensation would in any case therefore be very difficult to carry out.

  373
  But with the advantages given by the recommendations of the Committee, which have been accepted wholesale by the Treasury, the postmen, so far from losing, gain considerably. It is not the fact that Christmas boxes have been officially recognised as part of the wages of postmen.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT.
  *MR. ERNEST GRAY): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, if the managers of a school join an association under the conditions set forth under the Voluntary Schools Act, and such managers afterwards withdraw from the association, their school would continue to receive special grants at the same rate as when the school was represented in the association, providing the necessity of the school remained the same; and, whether, if the managers of any school decline to join an association when it is first formed, the association could refuse to admit representatives of such managers at any subsequent date if the managers then desire to join the association?
  SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council cannot lay down a general rule applicable to all the hypothetical cases suggested by the hon. Member. Every case would have to be considered on its merits and with reference to the special circumstances.
  *MR. MELLOR: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether his attention has been called to the speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury in Convocation, in which he advises the Bishops and Clergy to proceed to divide the country into ecclesiastical districts for the purposes of association under the Voluntary Schools Act; and whether he is prepared to sanction such a scheme?
  SIR J. GORST: Under the Voluntary Schools Act it is for the managers, and not for the Education Department, to initiate proposals for areas of association. The Education Department are prepared to, as stated in the minute of April 19, consider proposals as to areas made to them by bodies of managers which comply with the conditions.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in January 1896, the Local Government Board for Ireland sent a notice to the Local Government Board for England suggesting a committee of inquiry regarding the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland; (2) whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for England replied their willingness to nominate a member to serve on proposed committee of inquiry; and (3) whether he can state what steps the Local Government Board of Ireland have taken to carry out their part in the inquiry suggested?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. The proposal was to form a Departmental Committee, consisting of an officer to be nominated by the Local Government Boards of England, Scotland and Ireland, but the proposal fell through as the Scottish Board did not see its way to appoint a representative to act on the committee.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether postal employees will receive a whole or partial holiday on 22nd June; and whether it will be possible at least to suspend all mails after the first delivery, and close telegraph offices after 10 a.m. as on Sundays, so that postal employees may participate in the general holiday.
  *MR. HANBURY: June 22nd will be a Bank Holiday, and the ordinary Bank Holiday rules as to leave will apply. As regards the suspension of mails and the closing of telegraph offices, the arrangements will be the same as on ordinary Bank Holidays. Generally speaking, only one mail will be received and one dispatched. The telegraph offices will, as a rule, be kept open as on ordinary days to meet the convenience of the public, but the less important offices in towns will be closed as far as possible. Rural post offices at which telegraph business is not transacted will be closed at noon.
  MR. F. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, considering the few opportunities the inhabitants of the East End of London have of seeing the Colonial and Indian troops, whether arrangements could be made during Jubilee week to march the Home, Colonial, and Indian troops, with their bands, through the principal thoroughfares of the East End of London, say from Whitechapel to Victoria Park, returning by way of Bethnal Green and Shoreditch?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is intended to give as much opportunity as possible to all classes to see the troops collected for the Jubilee; but no arrangements can at present be made public.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention to propose any, and if so what, arrangements as to the attendance of Members of the House of Commons at St. Margaret's Church or elsewhere on Sunday the 20th of June at a Thanksgiving Service in celebration of the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that, after consultation with Mr. Speaker, and after obtaining such information as I could, it seems quite clear that, acting on the precedent of 1887, we ought to have a service on the Sunday preceding Jubilee Day. [" Hear, hear."] With regard to the details, I have been in consultation with Mr. Speaker, and I can at present only say that in all probability the broad precedent set in 1887 will be followed on the present occasion.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he thought the service should be held before June 20, seeing that a large number of Members would then be out of town, and whether it would not be more convenient to have the service on the Sunday following. [Cries of "No, no."]
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked whether June 20 was not a peculiarly appropriate day, as being the actual date of the Queen's accession.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Probably June 20 would be the most convenient day.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the authorities who have arranged the route for Her Majesty's forthcoming procession on the 22nd June, have considered the facilities which could be afforded to Naval and Military pensioners, as well as to sailors and soldiers on the active list, for viewing the procession, if the route were slightly altered so as to pass Wellington Barracks; whether they have considered that the configuration of the ground adjoining Birdcage Walk forms a natural stand for spectators on foot, whereas the ground adjoining the Mall is lower than the roadway and is ill adapted for enabling more than one or two rows of spectators to obtain a view; whether, since no stands are to be permitted in St. James's Park, any inconvenience or disappointment could be caused to anyone by the alteration of the route; and whether, since the distance from Whitehall and the Horse Guards Parade, via the Foreign Office, or Birdcage Walk to Buckingham Palace is not appreciably longer than that by the centre Mall, he is prepared to consider the practicability of such alteration, and, should it be found practicable, to recommend it?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): In answer to the hon. Baronet I have to say that the route of Her Majesty's procession on the 22nd of June has been settled for some time and cannot now be changed.
  MR. MACNEILLwished to know from the First Lord of the Treasury whether there was any foundation whatever for the statement, which had been very definitely made that morning, that the Sultan of Turkey was sending his son to take part in the Jubilee proceedings [ironical Ministerial laughter], and, if that were so, who had given the invitation?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I know nothing about it.
  MR. MACNEILLsaid he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for a Copy of the Supplemental Commission, now being

  377
  acted upon by the Royal Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, to be laid before Parliament at an early date?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have laid on the Table this day a copy of the Supplemental Commission.

  NOTIFICATION OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many local authorities have adopted the Notification of Infectious Diseases Act, and what, proportion that number is of the whole number empowered to adopt it?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Excluding London, where the notification of infectious disease is compulsory under the Public Health (London) Act 1891, the Local Government Board have, up to May 11th, 1897, received information of the adoption of the Infectious Diseases (Notification) Act 1889, in 654 rural districts out of a total of 671 rural districts, and in 904 urban districts out of 1,088 urban districts. But in 49 of the 184 urban districts where the Act of 1889 has not been adopted the notification of infectious disease is compulsory under provisions in local Acts.

  CASHEN RIVER, BALLYBUNION.
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that great injury has been caused to property and land adjoining the Cashen River, near Ballybunion, during the early part of March last by the overflowing of the Cashen River; whether he is aware that this is a frequent occurrence; and whether, owing to the very high taxation on the people of this district, some relief will be granted to them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that early in March the River Cashen overflowed its banks, and that similar overflows have previously taken place. I have no reason to believe that the injury caused by the floods was extensive. It does not appear to be a case calling for the assistance of Government.

  WATERFORD, DUNGARVAN, AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will now state, for the information of the guaranteeing ratepayers of Waterford County and City who have a larger financial interest than the Treasury in the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway, what company or companies are negotiating for the purchase of that line?
  *MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; any negotiations are of course confidential.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE (DUNGENESS).
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Telegraph Office at Dungeness has recently been placed in the house of the agent of Foreign tug owners, and, having regard to the suspicion thus aroused in the minds of British tug owners and others that this gives advantageous priority of information to their foreign rivals, if the Postmaster General will take an early opportunity of considering whether it, would not be better to have the office removed to a more neutral location?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, but he has received no representations on the subject from British tug owners. When he decided to extend the telegraph to the house in question, he had every assurance that the sub-postmaster would act in strict accordance with his duty and he sees no reason to remove the office.

  COUNTY COUNCIL (ACCOUNTS).
  MR.EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, referring to their circular letter of the 29th March, 1889, whether sufficient experience has now been gained, since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, to enable them to prescribe the form in which the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of County Councils shall be kept?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have prescribed a form of financial statement for County Councils,

  379
  which has served as a basis upon which the County Council have modelled the accounts of their receipts and expenditure, and uniformity in the system of keeping the accounts generally has to a great extent been secured by the action of the District Auditors. The form of accounts with respect to the administration of the Technical Instruction Act is less settled than other accounts of the County Councils, and I am advised that it is expedient that some, further experience should be obtained with regard to this branch of the accounts before an Order is issued. I may say, however, that the question of the issue of an Order will not be lost sight of.

  TELEGRAPH POSTS (YEOVIL).
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why no reply, except formal acknowledgments, has been sent to letters dated the 24th June, 14th August, 21st October, 11th November and 10th December of 1895, and 20th February 1896, from the Town Council of Yeovil in reference to certain telegraph posts on a road within the area of that borough; and whether, in view of the danger and obstruction caused to the public using this road, which is the main thoroughfare between the two railway stations of the town, the Postmaster General will assent to the request of the Town Council, contained in their letter dated the 24th June, 1895, and take immediate steps to remedy the present dangerous condition of the road caused by the telegraph posts standing out in some cases from six to nine feet from the side of the road?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General much regrets to find that through an oversight the result of the Inquiry which was at once instituted with reference to the request of the Town Council of Yeovil in their letter dated the 24th June, 1895, as to certain telegraph posts on a road within the area of the borough, was not communicated to the Council. The request was to the effect that the wires should be placed underground; and it was found that the circumstances did not justify the Department in acceding to it. The poles affected stood at that time in the banks or margin of the road, out of the way of
  380
  traffic; but it may be that, owing to alterations which have since taken place in the road, the case is now different; and the Postmaster General, as soon as he received notice of the Question, gave instructions for further immediate inquiry, and ordered that steps were to be taken to set right anything which might be found to constitute a source of danger or obstruction.

  SCOTCH HERRINGS (ST. PETERSBURG).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the special facilities which the Russian Government is reported through Her Majesty's Ambassador, Sir N. O'Conor, to be making for the acceleration of the landing of Scotch herrings at St. Petersburg, he will again consider the expediency of approaching the Russian Government with a view to a reduction of the duty on herrings imported from Scotland, as recommended in the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on February 2nd.

  CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to continue the blockade of Crete now that the Greek troops have been withdrawn?
  *MR. CURZON: Although Colonel Vassos and some other officers have left Crete, the Greek troops have not yet been withdrawn. Arrangements are, however, being made for the removal of a first batch of 400. The question of the continuance of the blockade is under examination by the Admirals; and there can be no doubt that, as soon as it is found to be unnecessary, they will at once suggest that it should be raised.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand, then, that the question of raising the blockade is to be left to the Admirals?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir, the hon. Member is to understand nothing of the kind. The question will of course rest for decision with the Governments, but they cannot act until they have received the views of the Admirals.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cretan refugees from Candia and Canea who are now in Greece are free to return to their homes; and whether, if they do so, the forces of the Powers now in occupation of those towns will guarantee their safety?
  *MR. CURZON: The Cretan refugees from Candia and Canea have always been free to return to the Island, and there would probably be no objection to the return to Canea of those who have homes in that town; but so long as the Mussulmans who have been driven by the Insurgents from their homes in the interior are kept penned up in Candia by the Insurgent forces, they are likely to oppose even by force the return of the Christians to the houses in the town abandoned by them, and since occupied by Mussulman refugees. The forces of the Powers now in occupation are not sufficiently numerous to guarantee the prevention of bloodshed in such an eventuality. It will be necessary to allow time for some arrangement to be made for the return of the Mussulmans in Candia to their homes before the Christians who have left that town can with safety come back.
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand that the refugees from Canea can return with the assurance that their lives will be safe?
  *MR. CURZON: Of course it is not for me to give any assurance of that kind. The information, however, which we have received from the Admirals and Consuls leads us to think that the return can be safely carried out.

  GAMBLING RAID (HULL).
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the, fact that last month the police made a raid on the "Prince George" public house in High Street, Hull, and arrested a number of persons on a charge of haunting and frequenting for the purpose of gaming, among whom were some working men who had entered the bar a few minutes previously to the arrest, and were subsequently discharged, no evidence being produced against them by the police; whether he is aware that these men were marched through the
  382
  streets by the police to the station, searched, and detained in custody from shortly after three in the afternoon until enlarged by the magistrate on bail on the next afternoon, bail being refused although two magistrates were prepared to offer it, and subsequently had to appear twice at the Police Court, losing in all three days' work; whether he has been informed that the cases of these, men have created general indignation in Hull and throughout Yorkshire; and if he is prepared to recommend that they shall be compensated for the loss to which they have been subjected?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention was first called to this case by the hon. Member's Question, and I have no information at all of its having excited a general feeling of indignation in the county. It has been impossible for me to obtain a full report of the facts, but I have no reason to doubt that they are, substantially, as stated in the Question. The arrests, however, were effected on a warrant granted by the police magistrate, and the police court having risen for that day, there appears to have been no power to admit the accused to bail. I am afraid this is not a case in which I could grant any compensation from any fund under my control.

  REVENUE (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps are being taken to ascertain the true revenue paid by Ireland and Great Britain respectively, in regard of articles which are consumed in one country and the duties on which are collected in the other; and, whether any steps are in contemplation to ascertain such true revenue, especially in respect of those articles which can be removed from one country to the other without official permit?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): No steps have been taken in the direction indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, and none are in contemplation, beyond the continuance of the returns as to the financial

  383
  relations between England, Scotland and Ireland, which have in recent years been presented to Parliament. With regard to the adjustments of collected revenue made in those returns, I am advised that the figures relating to spirits are certainly, and those relating to beer probably, as accurate as they can be made. As to the other dutiable articles of consumption, notably tea, the figures cannot, I admit, be regarded with the same confidence. But no satisfactory means have yet been devised whereby greater accuracy could be obtained, without establishing such a watch over the movement of dutiable articles as would seriously hamper trade. Only one member of the recent Commission gave any countenance to such a suggestion. The proposed Commission will have before them the figures presented to their predecessors, and it will be open to them, if they are not satisfied with those figures, to suggest any practicable means for improving the basis on which the adjustments are made.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS (INDIA).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what has been done with reference to a memorial on the subject of the preservation of ancient monuments in India, which was presented to the Secretary of State for India on 13th July, 1894, on behalf of the Royal Academy of Arts, the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and the Royal Archæological Institute; and, whether he will lay upon the table of the House the correspondence which has taken place regarding this memorial?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Memorial cited in the hon. Baronet's question was forwarded in April, 1894, to the Government of India for their consideration. I am not aware what measures, if any, the Government of India have taken in consequence of the suggestions which it contains, but I will inquire, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member. At present the correspondence cannot lie regarded as complete, but, when it is so, I will consider whether papers can be laid on the Table.

  SALT DUTY (INDIA).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there is a very general feeling in India that the high duty on salt should be reduced for this year at least, in view of the sufferings of the poorer classes from famine, the loss of revenue caused thereby being included in the cost of famine relief; whether he is aware that such reduction can be effected by an executive order of the Government of India; and, whether he will direct the Government of India to issue such an order?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am not aware that there is any general feeling in India that the salt duty should be reduced for one year. I may, on the contrary, point out that any such limitation of the period of reduction would be practically impossible, because, if an abatement for one year only were announced, enough salt for consumption during a very much longer period would undoubtedly be drawn out of bond or otherwise passed into stock within the year. The price of salt is now for the majority of the people of India lower than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago, and the incidence of the duty is about 4½d. per head per annum. In these circumstances, although I feel most deeply for the sufferings which a large number of her Majesty's Indian subjects have been and are undergoing, I do not propose to issue any orders with regard to the salt duty.

  ESTATES RETURN (IRELAND).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the first return of estates, under Section 40 of the recent Land Act has yet been printed: and, if not, why not?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: The Return in question was laid on the Table on the 6th instant, and was ordered to be printed. It will, I hope, soon be circulated. The printing of the Return rests with the Stationery Office.

  IRISH ACTS (CODIFICATION).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is now prepared to state what the Irish Government propose to do in the matter of consolidating the Statute

  385
  Law so far as Acts applying to Ireland are concerned; and whether his attention has been drawn to the observations made by the Lord Chief Baron in the recent case of Barrett v. Harold as to the unsatisfactory condition of the Irish Poor Law Code in this respect?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: My attention has been called to the report of the Judgment of the Lord Chief Baron as published in the Freeman's Journal of the 7th inst., which contains no reference to the subject of codification. I have only to repeat the answers I gave to the hon. Member on the 21st and 22nd of January last in reference to this Question. The whole matter is still under the consideration of the Irish Government, but I cannot, promise any legislation on the subject this Session, the more especially as several hon. Members from Ireland have announced their intention of raising controversial questions such as those relating to the Poor Law and Municipal Franchise and Rating on every available opportunity.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Am I to understand that the Irish Government admit no responsibility for the Government of Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I don't wish the hon. Member to understand anything of the kind.

  MATAMBELELAND MASHONALAND.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Pembroke and Haverfordwest (General LAURIE), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Imperial and Colonial troops employed in suppressing the insurrection in Matabele and Mashonaland, what number respectively of Imperial troops were killed in action, wounded in action, and died from other causes; whether it is intended to recognise the gallantry shown and arduous service rendered by the troops engaged by the issue of any decoration; and whether he is able to state the total number of white settlers murdered in Matabele and Mashonaland during the insurrection?
  MR. BRODRICK: The forces comprised 1,230 Imperial and 1,492 local troops. The casualties from all causes
  386
  among the Imperial troops were 14 officers and 39 men. The Chartered Company have been granted permission to issue a medal for service in the campaign. The white settlers murdered or missing were, according to a return furnished by the Company, 258.

  VETERINARY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENOn behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended this Session to give the promised grant in aid of establishing a Veterinary College in Dublin: and, whether he is aware that the charter has been ratified and guarantors secured, and that the governors are anxious to avoid further delay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No grant-in-aid out of voted moneys was, so far as I am aware, ever contemplated or proposed for the establishment of a Veterinary College in Ireland. I have no funds at my disposal which could be utilised for this purpose otherwise than by legislation, which would certainly not be of a non-contentious character. The establishment of a Veterinary College would, in my opinion, be a matter proper for the consideration of a Board of Agriculture, such as it is proposed to create in the Bill now before the House.

  BLACKROCK TOWNSHIP COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. FIELD), I. beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Treasury, through the Board of Public Works for Ireland, require a fine of about £1,752 in consideration of accepting from the Blackrock Township Commissioners repayment at three months' notice of the outstanding balance of their loans (amounting to £12,084) instead of receiving that repayment by instalments spread over a number of years, pursuant to the literal terms of the mortgages under which these loans were obtained, and which do not contain any such condition as that which the Board of Works are now seeking to

  387
  impose; and, whether this is a condition introduced recently and since the Black-rock Township Commissioners borrowed any of the sums of money which they now seek to repay?
  MR. HANBURY: The sum mentioned is in no sense a fine, but merely the difference between the par value and the current market price of the Local Loans Stock. The Blackrock Commissioners have borrowed from the Board of Works, within the last nine years, various sums which it was distinctly stated in the mortgages, as the question admits, should be repaid by periodical instalments spread over 15 to 50 years. They ask to be allowed to break these contracts at a cost of nearly 15 per cent, of the capital value to the lenders—the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. In the case of all loans, whether in England, Scotland or Ireland, it has been the rule of the Treasury since the end of 1895 to protect the taxpayer by refusing to allow premature repayment at a price far below the market value of the stock.

  LOUGHSHINNY PIER (CO. DUBLIN).
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the pier at Loughshinny, county of Dublin, has now for several years been left but half built; and whether any steps are to be taken, and if so, when, to complete that structure, an excellent foundation for the unfinished part of which already actually exists?
  MR. HANBURY: Prior to 1886 there existed at Loughshinny, County Dublin, only the ruins of a very ancient pier about 400 feet long. In that year the Fishery, Piers and Harbours Commissioners made a grant of the then available balance of the Sea Fishery Fund, namely, £1,899, together with a local contribution of £276 for the construction of a pier 120 feet long and of a boatslip and platform. These works were completed, and handed over to the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin in 1888. No proposal is before the Board of Works for increasing the length of the pier, nor have they any funds available for such a purpose.

  BALBRIGGAN HARBOUR.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the condition of Balbriggan Harbour, which is such that if the harbour is not soon dredged it will become useless; and if so, whether he will use his influence with the Treasury in favour of a grant being made for the purpose of clearing it out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention does not appear to have been previously directed to the condition of Balbriggan Harbour, which, I am informed, is under the control of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. I could not, under the circumstances, recommend the Treasury to give a grant for the purpose of dredging the harbour.

  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (SCOTLAND).
  MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Annual Local Taxation Returns (Scotland), 1894–5, will be published?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the proofs of the Local Taxation Returns have now been received from the printers, but that the Memorandum and Summary is not yet quite ready. The matter will be pressed forward, and it is hoped that it will not now be long before the complete volume for 1894–5 will be issued.

  POSTMEN (CORK).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, could he explain why it is that Cork postmen are placed in the same scale of payment as the postmen of Limerick and Waterford, cities of only half the population, and in a lower scale than the postmen of several English cities with half the population; how many and what English towns and cities with a lower population than Cork are placed in a higher scale than that city; and whether there are any English cities and towns with the same population as Cork which are placed in the same scale?
  *MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received a memorial for better wages from the postmen at Cork, and as stated in a letter sent yesterday in the hon. Member, the subject is now under careful examination. A further communication shall be addressed to him as soon as possible. At such short notice the information desired by the hon. Member cannot be given to-day.

  START BAY (REMOVAL OF SAND).
  MR. F. B. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the contractors for the naval works at Devonport in removing large quantities of sand from the shores of the Start Bay; whether he will hold a local inquiry upon the allegations as to damage to fishermen's cottages and to the fishing industry likely to result therefrom; and whether he will in the meantime prevent further action of the kind?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C.T. RITCHIE,): The shores of Start Bay referred to by the hon. Member are under the control of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests, who have granted the contractors a licence to remove materials therefrom—but, at my suggestion, a provision was inserted in the licence to enable it to be determined at three months notice. I will communicate with the Commissioners and cause inquiry to be made as to the likelihood damage being caused by the removal of the sand.

  UNIVERSITY COLLEGES (GRANT).
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee on University Colleges has reported on the allotment of the increased grant; and, if so, whether he is able to inform the House as to its future allocation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Committee has not yet reported, but I expect it will shortly do so.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY (CO. MAYO).
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he could state when will tin maps of
  390
  the revised survey of the county of Mayo be all completed and published; of what parts of the county of Mayo will maps be published on the 25-inch scale; whether maps on the 6-inch scale will be also published for the whole county; and will maps of Ireland for the future be in every way brought up to the same standard as the English and Scotch maps?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that the maps will be presented in the course of the Session.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when he will introduce the promised Bill for the amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on this subject and I am afraid I cannot fix a day at present.

  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION ACT.
  MR. WALTER HAZELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Midwives' Registration Bill now waiting its Second Reading in this House; whether he is aware that the Bill carries out the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the subject, and that Bills with this object have been introduced time after time into Parliament, but that they have been dropped through failure to secure parliamentary time; and, whether in view of the large amount of mortality and widespread suffering both of mothers and of infants which the Committee report, the Government will give time during the present Session for the discussion of the Bill now before the House; and, if this be not possible, whether they can hold out hope of its being made a Government measure next Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give special facilities for the discussion of a private Bill. Without venturing

  391
  to offer an opinion on the merits of the Bill, I must say this is a course the Government can hardly take at the present period of the Session.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (SCOTLAND).
  MR. T. C. H. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce a Measure dealing with the subject of Private Bill legislation in Scotland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Secretary for Scotland is now Introducing the Bill in the House of Lords.
  MR. HEDDERWICKasked if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Bill should be introduced in this House in time to enable it to have a fair chance of passing into law before the end of the Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That would depend upon the general course of public business, with regard to which I cannot make a statement at present.

  WALLACE BEQUEST (MANCHESTER HOUSE).
  MR. W. F. B. MASSEY-MAINWAR1NG: I begin ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the lease of Manchester House has been purchased by the Government; whether Lord Portman has been asked to sell to the Government the freehold of Manchester House; whether he has staled that, under certain circumstances, he is prepared to present the reversion of Manchester House to the Nation; and whether the Wallace Collections will be arranged in time so that the numerous Colonial visitors during the Jubilee week will have the opportunity of inspecting the said collections?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As my hon. Friend is aware, a Committee has been appointed and is, I believe, actually sitting in connection with the course to be pursued as to this great public bequest. Until that Committee has reported I can hardly reply to the major part of the Question. I am informed with regard to one paragraph,
  392
  however, that it would not be possible to throw the collection open to the public in the course of the next few weeks.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether there was any probability of the Committee reporting before the close of the present Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have not made special inquiries, but I should anticipate that they would report before the close of this Session?

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM.
  MR. MASSEY-MAINWARING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to a memorial by a large number of artists and others to the Education Ministers, praying that the completion of the South Kensington Museum frontage may be commenced; and if so, whether he will endeavour to procure the necessary funds for this purpose from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There is a Committee of the House investigating certain questions connected with the South Kensington Museum, and though it was quite true the primary object of that Committee is to deal with structural alterations or additions, I think we can hardly settle upon a plan dealing with the structure, seeing that it might require modification in consequence of the recommendations of that Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he was last in office, plans were not called for by competition, a plan actually decided upon, and instructions given to proceed?
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYinquired whether the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not absolutely promise a grant to commence the building? ["Hear, hear."]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he must have notice of the Question put by the hon. Member for Islington. He was not acquainted with the facts the right hon. Gentleman had brought before them, but he would be surprised that the right hon. Gentleman's account was accurate, as during the three years he was in office nothing was done.

  GRECO-TURKISH WAR.
  Mr. JOHN MORLEY: I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury can give the House any information as to whether an armistice has been arrived at between Greece and Turkey?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir. I am afraid that I have I no information to convey to the House. I did get private notice from the right hon. Gentleman a little after Five o'clock, but I know that he is very particular that an identic statement should be made in both Houses, and in order that that may be obtained I must have an opportunity of consulting the Foreign Secretary. On this occasion I have not had that opportunity. [Laughter and cheers.]
  MR. J. MORLEY: I may say that I did not at all expect or ask the right hon. Gentleman to make an identic statement, but I should have been glad if he could have given any statement at all on a subject which is of great interest to the House and to the public. ["Hear, hear!"]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. MORLEYasked the Leader of the House what the business was for next Thursday—whether the Budget would be taken and also whether it would be convenient for him to take the South African Vote on Friday, the 21st?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I cannot give an absolute pledge as to Thursday, but I think it is very likely that the Budget will be taken. With regard to Friday week, I shall be very glad to meet the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, which, I understand, are the wishes also of the Leader of the Opposition and of the House generally. The South African Vote shall be put down first for that day.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsupposed that the Finance Bill would not be taken before Thursday.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he could not even give an absolute promise on that, but he thought it unlikely.
SIR J. FERGUSSONasked whether the second reading of the Workmen (Compensation for
394
Accidents) Bill was absolutely fixed for Monday?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied in the affirmative.
MR. T. LOUGHasked if there was any intention of taking Supply to-night?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if they got as far as Supply he should propose to take it.
MR. WEIRdesired to know whether the First Lord was now in a position to make any statement with regard to the introduction of the Bill for the congested districts of the Highlands and islands of Scotland?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had no statement to make on the subject at present. He desired to add to his previous answer on the subject that in no case would the Finance Bill be taken to-night.
MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any statement to make with regard to the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had not.

PLUMBERS' REGISTRATIONS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 208.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 208].
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday 30th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 249.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 209.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 209.]
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed.— [Bill 250.]

MOTION.
  POST OFFICE (SITES).
  Bill to enable Her Majesty's Postmaster General to acquire lands in London, Brighton, Norwich. Plymouth, Southampton, Oban, and Cork for the public, service, and to confirm agreements in relation to the Aldersgate public garden or postmen's park; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Akers-Douglas; presented accordingly, and Read the First time; to be read H Second time upon Monday nest, and to be printed.—[Bill 251.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FOREIGN PRISON MADE GOODS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,,moved: "That the Bill be now Read a Second time." He said the subject was not by any means a new one to the House. In 1895 the matter formed the subject of Debate on the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sheffield, "That it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government, in the interests of the industrial classes of the United Kingdom, at once to take steps to restrict the importation of goods made in foreign prisons by the enforced labour of convicts and felons." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, who was then President of the Board of Trade, opposed the course proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend, and suggested, as an alternative to the Motion, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole matter. The Debate showed very clearly that the House was not at all disposed to accept this alternative, and, in the result, the Motion was carried without a division. Thus the House of Commons, distinctly and without reserve, committed itself to the opinion that the Government should at once take steps to prevent the importation of these goods. The then Government, although they allowed the Motion to pass without a division, did not act either in the spirit or the letter of its terms. They did, in fact, the very thing which had been
  396
  rejected by the House of Commons. They appointed a Committee, not, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Aberdeen, of the House of Commons, but a Departmental Committee "to inquire into the extent to which goods made in foreign prisons are imported into this country and to report whether any, and, if so, what, steps can be taken effectually to restrict the importation of such goods." It seemed to him that that was deliberately setting at naught the Resolution of the House of Commons. [Cheers.] The Committee reported to the effect that the quantity of such goods imported was not such as to injure British trade generally; that the evil results were confined to the importation of Belgian and German goods; that mat-making suffered slightly, and that the brush-making trade as a whole did not suffer any serious or lasting injury. He had never stated that the importation of these goods was a very large importation, nor had he ever said that the importation was a serious injury to their trade as a whole. [Opposition Cheers.] When they assumed Office they felt that, in view of the Resolution of the House of Commons, it was necessary that some steps should be taken with a view of endeavouring to carry it out. They did that which was suggested as a possible course in the Report of the Committee — received after they had assumed Office — and endeavoured to put an end to the grievance. They entered into negotiations and addressed communications to the four Powers who were mainly interested in the matter—Holland, Belgium, France, and Germany—with the object of endeavouring to arrange for some common action to stop the importation of these goods. The reply from France was to the effect that steps had been taken to utilise prison made goods with a view of stopping, or at least of diminishing, their exportation. Belgium replied that they could not undertake to prohibit their exportation; Prussia that they were restricting the manufacture more and more, hoping ultimately to abolish it; and Holland that the amount was very small, and that they could not assent to an international agreement. Though there was no reason to express dissatisfaction with the sympathetic tone of the replies, it was quite evident that there was no

  397
  prospect of putting a stop to the importation of these goods by means of international agreement. The Government then had to consider whether they were justified in ignoring the Resolution of the House, and, in arriving at a conclusion upon that matter, they had to consider what was likely to be the action of the present House of Commons upon the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] He certainly had no hesitation in coming in the conclusion that if the House of Commons of 1895 arrived at such a Resolution there was every reason to expect that the existing House of Commons would be even more in favour of such legislation—[cheers]— and that, therefore, it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to give effect to the Resolution. The practical conclusion at which the Select Committee arrived was that the grievance was a small one and that British trade generally was not. injured. [Ironical cheers.] That, however, was no consolation to a particular trade which was injured. [cheer.]The Government had never said that the grievance was a large one, having regard to British trade as a whole; but they agreed with what the Commissioner of the Department of Labour in the United States said that the difficulty "did not lie so much in quantity as in the effect occasionally and here and there upon price." What the House was asked to legislate upon was the question of principle and not quantity. [Ironical cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen seemed to be inclined to think that a Bill of this kind would be of little use. That was not the opinion of Belgium. He saw the other day a copy of an influential Brussels journal in which the question of this legislation was commented upon. It was Le Petit Bleu. and this is what it said:—
  "Public opinion in this country is much occupied with this Measure, which may have a serious effect upon Belgian trade. Owing to the extreme cheapness of these goods, England has been the principal market for articles manufactured in our prisons, and particularly in our penal settlements. That market once closed to our a trade of this particular kind, the latter will necessarily begin to raise a serious and even a disloyal competition against the regular trade of Belgium, and our free workers producing under less favourable conditions, we shall witness the decline of a whole series of interesting small industries. … But now that exportation is soon to become impossible, the whole weight of competition will fall upon
  398
  Belgium. All the products which used to be sent to England will load the Belgian market; the free employer who pays a day's wage of from 2f. 50c. to 3f. cannot contend against speculators who run the workshops of the penal settlements and pay wages which never exceed 40 centimes a day."
  Hon. Gentlemen who jeered apparently had no objection to disloyal competition between convict-made Belgian-made goods and English free labour. [Cheers.] The proposal of the Bill was to add prison-made goods to the table of goods which were prohibited. That was the course which they found adopted both in Canada and the United States. The Canadian law prohibited "goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour or made in connection with any prison, gaol or penitentiary." The United States law enacted that "goods, wares, articles, and merchandise manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country by convict labour shall not be entitled to entry at any of the ports of the United States, and the importation thereof is prohibited." It might be said, and with some justice, that there would be difficulty in applying the law. On that point he bad consulted the Customs authorities, and they informed him that there would be no difficulty in applying the law if sufficient evidence be produced. [Laughter.] If the Bill passed it would he the duty of the Government to instruct our Consuls at foreign ports carefully to watch with a view to obtaining such evidence. Even assuming that the difficulties would be considerable, the mere existence of this legislation and the risk of confiscation would act as a deterrent in preventing such goods being sent. But. whether that were so or not, he was satisfied that in placing it upon record that this House would not tamely submit to the importation of prison-made goods to compete with the free labour of this country the Government were giving effect not only to the views of the House of Commons but of the immense bulk of the people of this country. [Cheers.] He should very much like hon. Gentlemen who were now endeavouring to minimise this Bill and were going to oppose it to go to any meeting of the working classes in any part of the country and advocate the admission of convict-made goods. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no doubt as to what the result would be.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Who is to tender the evidence?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Who is to supply the evidence? Those people who have got the evidence to supply. [Laughter and cheers.] The Customs authorities will be prepared to receive evidence from anyone who will come to them with facts respecting any particular shipment of goods which arrive in this country.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: They can only take action upon evidence tendered.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Certainly. For the reasons he had adduced he commended the Bill to the attention of the House, and he had no doubt hon. Gentlemen would find that the opinion of the House of Commons in regard to it was in accord with that of the last House of Commons and the opinion of the great bulk of the people.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELoffered the Government his congratulations that at last, after two years of office, they had been able to find time for the consideration of that social and labour programme of which they heard so much during the General Election, and so little since. They might also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having performed a feat which he ventured to say was absolutely without precedent in Parliamentary history. The right hon. Gentleman, he supposed, was the first Minister who had ever asked the House of Commons to endorse a policy which a Committee appointed under the auspices of his own Department had not only declared against, but declared to be absolutely objectionable. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the courage he had shown in throwing over the men of tried experience and the public servants who had sat upon that Committee. But he must express his disappointment at both the time and the form of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Resolution which the hon. Member for Central Sheffield passed during the last Parliament. He would remember that the whole allegation against the then Liberal Government during that Debate was that they would not at once stop the importation of prison-made goods. The difficulty of preventing the importation was pointed out, and the critics were challenged to say what their remedy was
  400
  to be, and what was their reply? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), said:—
  "The thing is perfectly easy—give us the foes and we will give you the prescription."
  Well, they had been in office two years, they had had the fees all that time, and this was the result. The statement then made that they had the prescription in their pocket appeared to have been a very fruitless one, for after they had been in office some time, it was found that the only prescription they had been able to use was a proposal to send postcards to foreign Governments, and ask their co-operation. What did they ask the foreign Governments to do? They had the boldness, not only to ask them to deal with importations into this country, but also to set their own houses in order and stop the sale of prison-made goods even in their own countries—a matter which concerned them alone. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the original intention of the Government had completely failed. The foreign Governments refused to co-operate, and the result was that the prescription of a bad doctor had to be set aside, and they had that night, not the prescription of the President of the Board of Trade, but the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield five years ago. Well, if anyone was entitled to congratulate himself that night, it was the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. Although the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had shown a warm affection for this Bill, he was not the real father—he was the step-father. The real legitimate father was the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, and he thought, after the progress the hon. Member had made in this matter, that any private Member might take heart and rest satisfied that, no matter how strong the opposition to his proposals might be at one particular time, he need never despair, if only he was persistent enough, of getting a Government weak enough to adopt his proposals. [Laughter.] Let them see what was the case presented in support of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, he should have thought, would have come forward with some important statistics from his own Department; but what had he done? Instead

  401
  of giving the House Board of Trade returns, he had given them a paragraph from an obscure Belgium newspaper. Well, he knew that the Government were in the habit of going to Germany and other places for other portions of their policy, but he was surprised that they should find it necessary to go abroad for a justification of this particular Bill. The right hon. Gentleman gave them no statistics in favour of the Bill, because there were none to give. All the statistics he could give would be against the passing of the Bill. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say about the Bill himself? He confessed that, while listening to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, he wondered whether he was moving the rejection or the passing of the Bill. His whole speech seemed to be a speech against the Bill. Because what did he say? He said this was a grievance which was not large or serious.
  *Mr. RITCHIE: What I said was that it was not large or serious relatively to the trade of the country as a whole.
  MR. DALZIEL: If the right hon. Gentleman said that, it was hardly necessary to say it at all—it was so obvious. The grievance was certainly not large or serious, as he should be able to show. The right hon. Gentleman laid the whole case for the Bill on the Resolution passed by the late Parliament. Of course, he was perfectly justified in taking that view, but it was a new departure for the Government of the day to base the justification of its policy on a Resolution passed at the fag-end of a long sitting. The right hon. Gentleman admitted there would be difficulty in applying the law, if passed. He was safe in making that admission, because it was absolutely impossible, in his judgment, to make the Bill effective as it stood at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to show that any particular trade was suffering from the importation of foreign prison-made goods. Why? Because he could not. They had heard a great deal about the brush-making trade. What were the facts as to that trade? Ten years ago 14,000 people were employed in the brush-making trade in this country. At the present time the number was 17,000—an increase of 20 per cent., while the increase of the population had been only 8 per cent., and the trade societies were as complete in membership as ever. These were clear proofs
  402
  that the brush-making industry had not suffered. The importation of foreign-made brushes amounted in value to £40,000 a year. If they made a liberal allowance, and said that one-half of these brushes were made in prison, and took the cost of labour at one-third, they had a sum of from £6,000 to £7,000 as representing the whole question of importation in this trade. The leading brush manufacturers had testified that this question did not concern them in the slightest degree. They could make better brushes, and put them on the market at the same prices as those quoted by the agents for the foreign goods, and the trade was rapidly growing. Yet in 1he face of such facts they were asked to pass a Bill dealing with an imaginary evil by applying an impracticable remedy. In the mat-making industry, also, they found that there were more men employed than ever, while the unions, such as they were, showed a larger membership. In the face of facts like this, the Government had absolutely failed to make out any case for the Bill. Further, there had been no public demand for the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman could have done so, he would have quoted resolutions by the dozen from all parts of the country. he doubted whether he could have mustered more than half-a-dozen. True, the Trades Union Congress did pass a resolution on one occasion in favour of the Bill—["hear, hear!"]—but that was some years ago. He did not think the resolution had ever made its appearance since, and he should be surprised, indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite were going to pass the Bill upon that solitary resolution. So little interest was manifested that the mover and seconder of the resolution and the Trade Congress never replied to the letter from the Committee inviting them to give evidence. Advertisements were inserted in 12 of the leading papers of the country inviting people who suffered from the importation of prison-made goods to give evidence, and only two persons came forward. Subsequently advertisements were inserted in 19 provincial papers, and those only produced one witness. ["Hear, hear! "] But was the Bill effective for its purpose? Evidence was to be tendered to the Commissioners of Customs that goods imported had been made in a foreign

  403
  prison. Who was to give the evidence? Did the Government expect the consumer to come forward and complain that he got his goods too cheaply, or that the Germans were taxing themselves for his benefit? After these goods had passed through half-a-dozen hands, how was anyone to prove that they were prison-made? And if it were proved, was it fair that the last holder, who might be totally ignorant of the origin, should risk forfeiture? ["Hear, hear!"] No firm in this country would waste time or money in sniffing after goods made in foreign prisons; and what an agreeable duty to impose on our representatives abroad! The only person whose interest it would be to give evidence would be a rival importer; and while his allegation (perhaps anonymous) was being inquired into, the goods would be kept back and trade would be disturbed. The evidence in the Merchandise Marks Committee showed that all these restrictions were decreasing trade, and the House ought to be careful how they multiplied such restrictions. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole case for this Bill was that the brush-making industry was suffering. But how could the Government stop there? Every trade which was injured by unfair foreign competition had the same claim to protection. Was foreign sugar or Argentine beef to be stopped because its producers received a bounty from their Government? If this Bill was not protection, what was? It was simply to compel the consumer to pay more for brushes in the interest of the brush-makers. He could understand the hon. Member for Central Sheffield supporting the Bill, because he wished to extend its restrictions to all foreign-made goods. But was that the view of the President of the Board of Trade? Or was the right hon. Gentleman only the companion in arms of the hon. Member for the moment only? ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman would find it very difficult to get rid of the hon. Member for Sheffield, to whom the passing of this Bill would be an encouragement to persevere. [Laughter.] The President of the Board of Trade did not rely so much on the operation of the Bill itself as on the fear which foreign Governments would have of it. It required a stretch of the imagination to conceive any foreign Government being afraid of this Bill. [Laughter.] No cause had been shown for it; it em-
  404
  bodied a violation of the settled policy of the country for the last 50 years; and it did not achieve the object which the Government professed to have in view. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a bogus Bill—[cheers]—brought forward, not in the interest of the consumer, but as a Party manœuvre to redeem pledges which ought not to have been made. [Cheers.] Its object was to tickle the ears of a certain section of the working classes in this country, who entertained a prejudice in this matter. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] Surely it was not the duty of a strong Government to encourage a false prejudice; and it was not fair to take advantage of a depression in trade and induce working men to believe that it resulted from the competition of foreign prison-made goods. He begged to propose to leave out the word "now;" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  *MR. T. P. WHITTAKERseconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, because he regarded the Bill as an insidious attack upon the free trade policy of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The real objection to goods made in prison was that they were cheap, and, being cheap, they competed with goods manufactured in this country. The fact that they were made in prisons did not matter at all. If the people of this country suffered from the importation of cheap goods, then cheapness was the evil, and it mattered not where those cheap goods were made. That the goods now in question were made in prisons was merely an excuse for an attack on the policy of free trade. If the principle of the Bill were carried to its logical conclusion the importation of all goods competing with labour and production in this country should be prohibited. Why not deal in the same way with jewellery, paper, toys, laces, silk goods, woollen clothing from Germany; French gloves; American and Swiss watches; glassware and prints? ["Hear, hear!"] It was no consolation to a man thrown out of work by the importation of some foreign article to tell him that that article was not made in a prison. The real grievance and difficulty was that the man was out of work, and, if that were a sufficient justification for the prohibition of the importation of goods made in prison, it was sufficient to justify the prohibition of the importation of all

  405
  classes of foreign-made goods. ["Hear, hear!"] If the competition of imported goods was an evil everyone that suffered from it should be protected; but if it were not an evil, then no one should be protected from it. It might be said that the great objection was to foreign labour in prisons. He assumed that sweated labour on the Continent was more objectionable; and there was no proposed Bill to protect the working men of this country from that class of labour. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, if it was unreasonable to allow competition by the prison labour of other countries, it was just as unreasonable to allow competition by the prison labour of this country. Prisoners must be employed for their own benefit and, as a consequence, for the benefit of the community. The labour must be useful labour, for if it were otherwise it would be degrading; and, being useful labour, it must necessarily compete with the free labour of the country, even though the articles thus produced were not sold in the open market. If our prisoners produced something useful which would otherwise be produced by people outside, then our prison labour was competing with our free labour. But hon. Gentlemen opposite had not the courage to carry their principles to their logical conclusion. Again, if the importation of goods was to be forbidden because the conditions under which they were made were unsatisfactory, and little or nothing was paid for the labour employed; then carpets were made in Asia under very objectionable conditions, and they should prohibit the importation of articles made by our fellow subjects in India, where labour was paid at probably the lowest rate in the world. In fact, the whole principle of the Bill was unsound, and could not be defended from any point of view. He felt that this protective policy, this policy of interfering with trade, this policy of worrying industries at every stage had gone very much too far already. They had been making fools of themselves in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act. They had been advertising the foreign manufacturer too much. The mere passing of the Hill would be an announcement to the mat and brush buyers of the world that they need not come to England to purchase them cheaply, because those
  406
  articles could be bought cheaper elsewhere. This policy of endeavouring to create work by keeping foreign-made goods out of the country was a great mistake. He contended that the importation of cheap articles was a benefit to the masses of the people of the country; and that it did not throw people out of employment. When the hon. Member for Central Sheffield moved a Resolution on foreign prison-made goods a few years ago he flourished before the House a foreign prison-made brush, which he said could be bought for sixpence, whereas if it had been made by English, labour it could not be bought for less than a shilling; and the hon. Member argued that that was a very great injustice to the working men of this country. He ventured to assert that the importation of that brush to be sold at sixpence, which would otherwise cost one shilling, was a boon and a blessing to this country. If a man had to pay a shilling for a brush which he could get for sixpence, he would have sixpence less to spend on other articles. It was the common-sense teaching of experience that if they made an article dear it would be bought less frequently than when it was cheap. That would mean that there would be less employment for the people. He entered into an argument to show that the importation of those sixpenny brushes meant more employment for the people as well as the advantage of a wider use of brushes. The competition of prison labour was not, and never would be, serious. Prison labour was not cheap, it was dear; it was inefficient and not properly-trained labour. The evidence before the Committee on this point was conclusive, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman could not bring forward any weighty statistics as to the injury which had been done showed that this was very largely an imaginary grievance. The competition of the free labour even of Belgium was far more serious than the competition of the prison-made article. The fact was it was the custom in this country for both employers and workmen to assume that an article was prison-made simply because it was cheaper than one that they could make. It was curious and interesting that this particular agitation had been set on foot by the European agent of an American firm. Evidence was given by brush makers before the

  407
  Committee to show that by the adoption of improved machinery they could produce brushes vastly cheaper than those made in foreign prisons. It was free competition that led to the adoption and use of machinery, and it was by the development of machinery and by inventions that we must look to maintain our position in the commercial world. It had been given in evidence that the brush trade of this country had doubled in volume during the last ten years, and that the number of people employed in the brush and mat industry had increased far more rapidly than had the population. The Committee, which had before it the evidence of experts, reported against legislation in this matter as being impracticable and useless, and it must be evident to everybody who read the Bill that it was an unworkable scheme which was proposed. In the result trade would be harassed. It was impossible to trace where goods came from except from information obtained by trade rivals spying upon each other, and such a system would not be reputable. The Custom House authorities could only be put in motion by other people. He asked the House to show some backbone with reference to our great Free Trade policy, which had done more to develop our prosperity during the last 60 years than anything else, and not to allow it to be nibbled away by litle Bills of this kind.
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENTexpressed his gratitude to his right hon. Friend for having taken this early opportunity of giving effect to the Resolution of the House of February 19, 1895. A very large proportion of those on that side of the House had at the General Election pledged themselves to do all they possibly could to give effect to that Resolution. It was true that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen on that occasion offered a Committee to consider the Resolution, a proposal which was received with laughter by both sides of the House. His right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in the course of a very interesting speech said, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman:—
  "In presence of the universal demand from the constituencies, and an admission by the official head of the Department, we are asked to take a Committee. No, Sir: in that respect we are not the comrades of the hon. Member for West Ham."
  408
  After upwards of two months' delay the right hon. Member for Aberdeen appointed a Departmental Committee to consider this matter, and, although he would not challenge the constitution of that Committee, he could only say from his experience of it that it was carefully selected from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. [Cries of "Oh!"] After 13 witnesses had been examined, and after they found that they were unable by any means to hasten the proceedings of the Committee, Colonel Bridgeman and himself felt compelled to resign their membership of it. The Report which was subsequently made stated that two trades only, the brush and mat making trades, made serious complaint of injury; that in the case of the former trade the allegations were not sustained, and in the case of the latter the injury was found to lie very slight. He did not hesitate to say that that opinion of the five Members of the Committee who so reported was not justified by the evidence which was given. The President of the Masters' Cocoa Nut Fibre and Mat Association, however, said: "Many of the former workers are in a state of destitution"; the President of the United Cocoa Nut Matting and Mat-makers Society," Half of the mat-makers are now out of the trade, and can get no employment at all"; the Secretary of the. Society of Operative Brushmakers, "Ruin practically stares us in the face"; Mr. Thornton, Progressist member of the London County Council, and brush manufacturer, "There is a strong feeling among, not only masters, but men, that the competition of foreign prison labour with free labour in England is unfair"; the Secretary of the Manchester Branch of the United Society of Brushmakers, "During the last three years the competition of foreign prison-made goods has been most severely felt, we only ask to be protected against criminals"; and the Glasgow Branch, "The brush industry of this country will be destroyed." Hon. Members might say it was only a question of the mat makers and the brush makers, but if they would road the report sent to the Government by Mr. Tower, second Secretary of H. M.'s Embassy in Berlin, who had made inquiry into prison labour in Germany, they would see that almost

  409
  every trade was admitted to German prisons, and there was no industry in this country which, if not threatened, might not be threatened by this unfair competition in the near future. Speaking on February 19, 1895, in that House, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said:—
  "What will happen in the brush trade is that nobody will be able to make a profit, no workman will get decent wages. The Germans have sent over to this country for models of English manufactures, that they may reproduce such articles in their prisons. At the present time they are thus making some 20 different articles, and when they have fully ruined the English trade in these, they, no doubt, will be prepared to go on with 20 others. The simple fact is that no industry will be safe so long as this stale of things is allowed to continue."
  What was true in 1895 was even truer now. The resolution of the Trades Union Congress, in denunciation of the importation of prison-made goods, had been referred to. It was the agitation of the Trades Unions against the unfair competition of prison labour with free labour which had led successive Governments to put a stop to the competition in English prisons, and he asked whether it was fair, right, or proper, when the labour in English prisons was stopped that goods made in foreign prisons should compete with free labour in England. The employment of foreign prisoners was no concern of ours; the employment of English prisoners did concern us. It was absolutely incumbent on the Government of this country, having stopped the competition of English prison labour with free labour, to protect English working man from unfair competition coming from foreign countries. As to the amount of the competition, the report of Mr. 'Powers, dated June 20, 1894, and presented to Parliament in January last, clearly showed that a daily average of 29,200 prisoners in Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, and the Thuringian States were employed in work which eventually reached outside trade, and that in Prussia alone 8,290 prisoners were employed in cigar manufacture, machine knitting, basket weaving and cane furniture making, cardboard work and fancy paper making, cocoa, matting making, button making, lamp making, etc., wood carving, toy making, picture frame making, iron ware making, copper ware making, and
  410
  miscellaneous factory work. In Germany the production of prison labour was not allowed to be sold within a radius of the prison of origin; and in Belgium it could not be sold so as to compete with free labour. The bulk of prison-made goods then came to England —the only market which condescended to admit them. Steps had been taken in the United States not to admit them there. With regard to the practicability of restrictive legislation and of enforcing it, Mr. Charles Follett, C.B., for 17 years Solicitor to Her Majesty's Customs, gave most valuable evidence on this head, He said:—
  "The prohibition of prison-made goods, if it were agreed upon, would be nothing new. There are several classes of goods prohibited. Prohibition is a long-standing thing. I should have no difficulty in drawing a Bill in the sense of my views supervised by the Parliamentary counsel. I should consider it a feasible and effectual way, as the best means of preventing these goods coming in, would be to require that prison-made goods should be prohibited, and that the classes of goods which are believed to be made in foreign prisons should be, from time to time, specified by Customs regulations with Treasury approval. I should not think it would put any serious drawback on trade. It would soon cure itself. Although my experience during the past 17 years has been in a certain sense theoretical and legal. I am in a position to know the practical working and carrying out of all Customs laws and regulations."
  Surveyor General R. T. Churchill said:—
  "I have been nearly 40 years connected with the Out-door Customs Department, and I have passed through its different grades, examining and clearing goods. I am thoroughly acquainted with the administrative machinery. I have heard the evidence given by the solicitor to the Customs, and his general views as to the feasibility of drafting a practical Measure to prevent the importation of prison-made goods. I have no reason to dissent from any of these views. I generally concur. It is certainly my opinion that the importation of prison-made goods is injurious to the manufacturing and labour interests in this country, and should, in my opinion, be stopped if possible.
  Therefore the remedy suggested by the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of the Government would go a long wav to deal with the mischief. If the Bill did not go far enough its supporters could come to Parliament to strengthen it. The importation of foreign prison-made goods began, in a small way and had gone on increasing. Some years

  411
  ago the importation of foreign prison-made brushes was so small that the record of it was abandoned, but latterly it had increased 700 per cent., and the imports amounted to £40,000 a year. It was the duty of the House to take care of every trade and industry. The brush and mat trades were specially injured, and there was no reason why they should not receive protection. He earnestly urged every Member of the House to give his hearty support to the Bill. Although it might not be sufficient, at any rate it would do something to cure an evil which was recognised by the working men of every trade in all parts of the country, and he thanked the President of the Board of Trade and the Government for having done that which the late Government failed to do, and that was to give effect to the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons in the last Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last addressed the House complained of the delay of the late Government in this matter. He should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been wise to avoid that topic. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen caused a delay of two months, but the Government which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supported had been guilty of a delay of two years. He purposed briefly to show what the present Government had done in the matter. In the first place they entered into communication with four European Governments and the Government of the United States, suggesting that they should enter into an international agreement to exclude prison-made goods from both the home and foreign markets. That did seem to him to be a very wild-goose chase. That request was absolutely impracticable, and it would be unjust to the intelligence of the Government to suppose that they thought the other Powers would comply with it. However much two of those Powers might have been inclined to comply, there was a constitutional difficulty
  412
  which would prevent them—he meant the Germanic Empire and the United States —in those two countries the question was a State question and not a Federal question.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that that course was suggested by the Committee.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid that was not the case. The Committee referred to the great practical difficulty in the way of carrying such an agreement into effect, and added that the question whether it should be encountered was for the Government and not for the Committee to decide. He did not think the action of the Government was altogether prudent, and in view of the answers they had received to their communications, he was surprised they should still consider it necessary to legislate. The answers received from most of the Powers were not only friendly in their tone, but, as far as the main question was concerned, decidedly favourable. Then, Germany was not able to answer for all the States of the Empire, but the Prussian Government said that it was intended to restrict prison-made goods more and more and that they hoped to abolish it entirely. He did think the Government ought to acknowledge the extremely friendly way in which foreign Governments had received the communications. They had agreed to act as our own Government acted with regard to prison-made goods. They would so use them as to do no injury to anyone. He should like to know how any hon. Member of that House could distinguish a case of prison-made goods from other goods. There was no intention on the part of any foreign Government to injure England, and grounds of complaint had been largely diminished, if they had not been entirely removed. Then he came to the Bill. He never saw a Bill drawn like this. The right hon. Gentleman had expatiated upon the moral effect of enacting the prohibition of goods made in foreign prisons. Why, this Bill did not prohibit such goods. ["Hear, hear!"] It prohibited goods which, by the evidence tendered, were shown to be made in prison. There was an unconscious humour about this for which he did not give the right hon. Gentleman credit. He did not think that a lawyer had drawn the Bill. He rather thought that it had the Birmingham mark upon it. How was proof to be given?

  413
  To the Customs Department, so that they could act upon it? They might prove that the original consignor used prison-made goods, or labour, but if he employed other labour outside for producing the same class of goods who could distinguish between the two? ["Hear, hear!"] How in the world could they distinguish a particular bale of goods as made by prisoners and not by free labour? This Bill did not at all carry out the recommendations made to the Committee. The hon. Member referred to Mr. Follett, but he was not responsible for this Bill. What Mr. Follett would have proposed was not that Bill. Mr. Follett proposed to throw upon the importer the duty of proving that the goods were not prison-made. That was the way in which a lawyer would draw a Bill, but this Bill proposed to do everything against which Mr. Follett warned them. They had the experience of the Merchandise Marks Act. Out of the thousands of cases which came under that Act very few indeed had been seized on information; not I per cent. He did not hesitate to say that this was a bogus Bill. [cheers.] He did not believe that the Government thought it a workable Bill. It was like some Bills introduced into the Chamber at Washington which everyone knew were never intended to be acted upon. He would rather pass a bad Bill than a Bill like this, which the promoters knew would not be workable. As to prison labour, so long as they took care that it was spread over a number of industries it could not do any appreciable injury to the working classes, and he should be ashamed of the British workman if he disputed the right of the criminal to be employed. ["Hear, hear!"] It was wise, just, and merciful to employ the criminal in useful labour. They had been threatened with the resentment of the workmen if they opposed this Bill. He was not afraid of his constituents. He had a large constituency of working men, and he had not the least fear of offending them by voting against that Bill, because he thought the reasonable working man would see that this Bill wax a sham, and that it was a red herring drawn across the track.
  MR. JOHN BURNS, as the representative of a working-class constituency, maintained that if constituencies containing working men were consulted now, when trade was fairly
  414
  good, and were not subject either to the cry of the unemployed or to the bogus plaint of designing politicians, who had no other claim to represent them than their capacity to draft bogus Bills and get up artificial cries about tooth brushes being made in Belgium and eve-glasses in Japan, he believed that even in Sheffield the hon. Member would lose his case by a proportion of 20 to 1. When, however, this question was mixed up with Home Rule, alien immigration and grants to Voluntary Schools, its effect was lost sight of, and the constituencies voted on the major question, while taking for granted the minor but not less important questions. He asked the hon. Member for Sheffield to give the date of the Resolution and the speeches when the Trade Union Congress voted in favour of this Bill. The only time when the question of prison labour was argued out on its merits was at Belfast in 1893. A Motion was made condemning the competition of British prison labour with British free labour; but the Resolution was opposed by men who represented some of the trades alleged to be claiming the passing of this Bill. The Motion was unanimously rejected by the Congress. He pointed out that under the Bill there would be great difficulty in detecting what were and what were not prison-made goods. Were the prison-made foods lo be labeled? Goods made in prisons would be taken to the port from which they were going to be sent. They might be labelled, which he doubled; but long before they reached the port and were sent to this country the labels might be changed, and then it might be convenient for the free labour products to bear the prison label while the prison-made goods might be marked as made either in Belgium or Germany, but not as having been made inside a prison. The quantity of prison-made goods was indeed very small, not sufficient to warrant the introduction of a Measure like this, while the quality was invariably bad. The proportion of prison-made goods was diminishing. France was restricting it and confining it to hand labour; Belgium had pledged itself to have no machinery employed in the prisons; Germany had promised to confine it to non-competitive industries. He had visited 15 of the largest prisons in the United States, and there they were

  415
  confining the prison trade to new non-competitive work. The United States prisoners were hired out to contract; they were not engaged in milking the article from the raw material up to the finished state. On the ground of cheapness there was not much reason for the introduction of the Bill. If by the Bill the Government labelled or identified these goods, they affirmed to the English people the low-water mark of cheapness and dragged English competition down to the lowest possible limit, and by that means caused ruin to trade not only at home but abroad. If cheapness was the reason for the Bill, why did not the Government include corn, machinery, textile articles from India, and jute? The Government knew well that they dared not do this. Every workman in England, Belgium, or Germany would be only too pleased to know that the best way to get a man out of prison and to keep him in an honest path was to provide him with a decent means of employment in making useful articles, and that this was the best agency for reducing crime. But if the Bill was passed the tendency would be to restrict prisoners to the picking of oakum, in digging a hole here and filling it up there, to the punishment of the treadmill and to oilier demoralising forms of punishment. He bad been in prison, and he knew quite well what would be the effect of this silly proposition in England if universally applied. it would mean that when masons were out of work and were clamouring for harbours and breakwaters to be made, the prisoners at Portland would have to be stopped from working. To its credit, England had stuck bravely to Free Trade; it had done so to such an extent that Lord Salisbury, who generally spoke straight—[Ministerial cheers.]— slated the other day that any man who advocated a going back to Protection would be a fool. [Cries of "No!"] Well, if he did not say that, he implied it. But this Bill was an attempt to introduce the doctrine of Protection, and they had selected the trade of a people who were the least prejudicially affected by foreign competition.
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is not trade unionism a protection of labour?
  MR. BURNSsaid that trade unionism was a protection of labour inasmuch as it demanded a living wage, a maximum
  416
  number of hours, decent Factory Acts, and sanitary conditions, and over and above that it believed in fair play for a free people in the free production of interchangeable commodities. He did not believe the British workman feared competition to the extent alleged; certainly he did not in the mat and brush-making trade. And if that competition did prejudicially affect to the extent of demanding the attention and interposition of the House of Commons, he would ask that the interference should be applied, not to 300 or 400 men whose trade had not been diminished, but to half a million of men in the textile trades, three-quarters of a million of men engaged in the coal trade, half a million of men engaged in the engineering trade, and the million and a quarter of men engaged in agriculture. He never heard a weaker case presented by a Minister of the Crown on behalf of a Bill than that made out by the President of the Board of Trade on behalf of this Bill. If they wanted to employ the unemployed, let them do away with the pluralists, assimilate the Factory and Sanitary Acts, and apply them in India and all over the Crown colonies. Why bring in a paltry bogus Bill like this? This was a brutal and an inhuman Bill, a Bill which no one who had had the slightest experience of the treatment of criminals in this or any other country could justify. No doubt this House would pass the Second Reading. It seemed to him that this House was capable of committing any folly in the direction of Protection, though sometimes it had a lucid interval. It did happen that at times the constituencies were humbugged and chloroformed by Bills of this description, but he believed that when they thoroughly understood this Measure, their verdict would be that the Government wanted Protection, but had not the courage to apply it to every industry. A permanent injury had been done to British trade by the marking of foreign-made goods. This was a mischievous Bill, and on that ground he should vote against it.
  MR. CUTHBERT QUILTERsaid that, as the representative of a large number of men engaged in one of the industries which it was sought by this Bill to protect, he cordially supported the Measure. He was as good a free trader as the hon. Member for the

  417
  Spen Valley Division, but that should not prevent him rising to say that the men whom he represented felt it was a hardship to them that mats and matting made in the penal colonies of Belgium should be allowed to be imported into this country without any restrictions whatever. The hon. Member for Batter-sea spoke strongly of the attitude of the Trade Union Congress upon this matter. He had had the honour and privilege of conferring with trade union leaders on this matter, and he was thankful to say that after eight or nine years' hard work, and with the cordial assistance and wise counsel of those leaders, he succeeded in impressing the then Government with the propriety of discontinuing the unfair practice of contracting with prison labour in our own prisons. The consequence was that his constituents and their wives and families were starving.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid he must remind the hon. Member, as he had reminded another hon. Member, that the question was not the employment of criminals in English prisons, but the importation of goods made in prisons abroad.
  MR. QUILTERsaid he would obey Mr. Speaker's ruling at once, but would like to explain that he was going to point out that, having been a consistent advocate of their protection against prison labour in this country, it was quite natural he should press that position to its logical conclusion, and support the Government in now doing away with what they had found to be unfair in their own country. He could not conceive how any Gentleman, even on the opposite side of the House, could regard that to be fair in Belgium which was admitted to be unfair in this country. The result of the manufacture of these mats in the Belgian penal colonies was that the English market was flooded with them, and it was impossible for their workers to live. If the late President of the Board of Trade had been m his place, he would like to have reminded him of the many occasions on which he had brought this matter to his attention, and of the several occasions on which he said that if there was a ease at all for this Committee, or for legislation on the subject, it was the case of the mat weavers, especially in the district he represented. It was said what a small affair this was in the whole trade of the country, but
  418
  it was the day of small things. It was the people who attended to small things who won in the end. They had had too much legislation on a grand scale—too much interference with everybody's property, and too much upsetting of everybody's business. What they wanted was to put everything in order, and to try and undo, as far as they could, the mischief which had been done in the three years of the preceding Parliament. He thought it spoke well for the business-like qualities of the Government, and especially of the President of the Board of Trade, and the Colonial Secretary, that they had not thought it beneath them to try and remove the grievance of a small number of people. He thought the Bill should have received the support of the Labour representatives. The Labour representatives in Belgium were far more alive to the interests of their constituents than were the Labour Members in his country, for when they found out that these prison-made mats were underselling the free labour of that country, they put such pressure on their Parliament that they were obliged to take measures to stop it. He implored the Government to stand firm to the proposal they had made, and to do their best to see that the Belgian prison labour was treated in exactly the same way as prison labour was treated in this country. As to the carrying out of the Bill, he would deal with the question in a very simple way. He would put the onus on the importer. He would make him answerable for not selling in this country as free labour goods articles made in foreign prisons, and he thought that would very soon have the desired effect.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid he was inclined to think that the true defence of this Bill had yet to come. The authorship of the Bill hail been imputed to the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, and he understood he accepted the soft impeachment without demur. It had also been imputed to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced it, but there was another right hon. Gentleman on that Bench who, he imagined, would by-and-bye give the true defence of the Bill, and an explanation of it such as they had not yet had from that side of the House. The President of the Board of Trade convinced them that his heart, at all events, was not in the work he had to do. He

  419
  was an old and experienced Member and Minister. He had had to pilot many difficult Bills in that House, and on many occasions he had distinguished himself by the success with which he had discharged his functions as Minister; but he had never heard him resort to such arguments as he had resorted to that night. His main argument in support of the Bill was that the Government was bound to obey a mandate, not of that House, but of the preceding House. He had never heard that before held out as a principle of Ministerial action. Why, a Motion carried by a private Member on a Friday night was by universal consent of the Leaders treated as one which might be ignored. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were going to accept as mandates all the Resolutions passed by the last Parliament they would have their hands full. The President of the Board of Trade gave himself away at the very beginning by admitting that the grievance, if any, was a. small one. The right hon. Gentleman's chief piece of evidence was a quotation from a Belgian newspaper of which he never heard before. What was the dale of the article?
  *MR. RITCHIE: March 15.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the question because he could not gather from the extract that the writer had ever seen this Bill or was referring to it; it he was he was very easily alarmed. There were two main questions—Was this thing worth doing at all, and secondly, was this the way to do it? On the first question he was not a bitter opponent of the principle— [Ministerial laughter and cheers]— whether as against home prison or foreign prison produce he had no great objection to ordinary, free, non-criminal labour being protected. But the language of the President of the Board of Trade was very different from the mighty thing made of this grievance by the Secretary of State for the Colonies last year, and by every Unionist candidate at the last election.
  MR, J. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly quote the words in which I made a "mighty thing" of this last year?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to his whole speech. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "Oh!"] I appeal to
  420
  those who heard him that I am not giving an unfair account of the speech. [MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "I deny it!"] One of the right hon. Gentleman's expressions, as reported in the "Parliamentary Debates,"was:—"There is no industry which is safe if this thing continued." [Cheers.] Was not that making a mountain out of a molehill? [Cries of "No!"] That sentence was characteristic of the whole speech. The main question, however, upon which comparatively little had been said was— Was this the right way to do it? 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, were to be added to the table of restrictions and prohibitions in Section 42 of the Act of 1876. This addition was entirely out of line with the category therein set forth. In every prohibition in that category, a plain, imperative duty was laid on the Commissioners of Customs. But here the Commissioners of Customs were to take no action unless they were set in motion by somebody who tendered evidence to them that the goods had been made in prison. He invited the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir H. Vincent), who was the father of this whole legislation, to consider the sham his Leaders were palming off upon him. How the Commissioners were to satisfy themselves, what the procedure to be adopted—all this was left in nubibus in the Bill, and he declared that to offer such a thing as this Bill to so loyal a supporter of the Government as the hon. Member for Sheffield and his hon. Friend below the Gangway was to play upon their credulity. If they were to have these things prohibited, they should be prohibited in some effective way. Something might be said for the plan of the hon. Member below the Gangway, but for this proposal to be made by a strong Government which condescended to deal with small things was an experiment that ought not to be made. The Bill had been well described as a bogus Bill—a sham Bill. Apparently the Government were willing in this case, as they had not been willing in more important things, to accept Amendments; and while he did not approve the Bill in its present shape at all, if it was carried through the Second

  421
  Reading he should certainly consider himself free to strengthen the back of the right hon. Gentleman by withdrawing this condition about tendering evidence, and putting upon him and his subordinates the duty and responsibility of prohibiting goods when they came within the prohibition clause. ["Hear, hear!"] They now had the prescription for which they had waited two long years. Was that a policy— that? [Laughter.] Goods were to be prohibited, not because they were prison-made, but because evidence might be tendered which might prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for tile time being that they were prison-made. It was a policy that was not worth the name. He did not know whether this was the prescription of a regular practitioner or not, but it was a prescription that would justify one in applying strong epithets to the author, and if this was all they had to expect from a Government of social programmes on a matter which was regarded as of so much importance two years ago, then the sooner the House was up the better. [Opposition cheers.]
  MR. T. H. COCHRANEdid not desire to say much in support of the Bill. But there was one argument winch appeared to him to be very strong indeed, and which the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with. Why, if our own prison-made goods did not compete with our own free labour goods, should we admit the labour of convicts abroad to compete with free labour in this courtly? Was not the Government justified, nay, compelled to take these steps? Was not the Bill the logical consequence of the steps taken by Mr. Matthews to prevent our own prison-made goods competing with free labour goods? The right hon. Gentleman said there had been no defence of the Bill from the Front Bench. He ventured to say there had been no attack upon the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman himself had made no attack upon the principle of the Bill. He seemed to him to be rather a weak and faint-hearted supporter of the principle of the Bill; but he had not the courage of his opinions like his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had. [Laughter.] Well, he did not know why the right hon. Gentleman the ex-President of the Board of Trade expressed such derision; and he hoped that before the
  422
  Debate concluded they would hear why. That this Bill was of considerable importance to the country was, he thought, admitted by all hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Battersea, he thought, had said that party capital had been made of this, and nearly all the hon. Members who had spoken on the other side had spoken in a similar sense. How could party capital be made out of a Bill if the people of the country took no interest in it? He ventured to say this was a subject in which the constituencies, in which the working classes had and did take a very great interest. Even if only a few of their number were affected, they stood together and had a fellow feeling— ["hear, hear!"]—and even if only a small and isolated body of brushmakers were injured by the competition he ventured to par that the whole of the working classes had a feeling of sympathy for them. If that was the case he did think that the Front Opposition Bench had shown a spirit of singular indifference to the importance of this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman, one of the Presidents of the Board of Trade in the last Administration, made in 1895 a most valuable contribution to the Debate: and said in the course of his speech that if was only natural and reasonable that the working classes should feel aggrieved when their free labour came into competition with foreign convict labour. Had the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say now? He ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not intend to take any part m this Debate. The country would certainly remark, if he did not, upon the absolute indifference shown by the two men on the front Opposition Bench best qualified to form an opinion on the subject, viz., two ex-Presidents of the Board of Trade. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. SAMUELas one of the representatives of a town where brushes were made, accepted the challenge of the hon. Member who had challenged any one representing the working classes to take part in the Debate. He thought that the Gentlemen who pleaded for the Bill should give the House some statistics to show to what extent the importation of foreign prison-made goods affected the trade of this country. If they took the brush trade, no one who had read the evidence contained in the

  423
  Report presented by the Committee some time ago could avoid coming to the conclusion that so far as the brush trade was concerned, the evidence was not conclusive in favour of the theory that the importation of foreign prison-made brushes affected in any way the trade of this country. It was stated by almost every brushmaker who gave evidence before the Committee that, as far as the best brushes were concerned there was no decline in the manufacture in this country. As to the cheaper brushes, there was the evidence of the representative and part owner of the Star Brush Company, which had the bulk of the business in such brushes, and of Mr. Page, representing a large Norwich firm, that in supporting the agitation against these prison-made goods, the workmen of this country were on the wrong scent. During the four months ending April 30th, 1896, we imported £59,000 worth of brushes, while during the same period we exported £38,000 worth. As to mats and matting, during four months of 1895 we imported £25,000 worth, and exported £16,300 worth. The table presented by the Customs showed that out of £25,000 worth of mats and matting imported, no less than £18,331 worth came from China and Japan. Therefore, in that period only £2,800 worth of mats and matting was imported from Holland and Belgium, and during that same period we exported to Holland and Belgium £2,277 worth. The importation of prison-made goods could not be checked without enormous expense in obtaining evidence. There was astounding evidence before the Merchandise Marks Committee that since the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act the transhipment trade of the country had been deeply affected. This week a representative of the shipowners had stated that the interference with packages by the Customs was prejudicially affecting our shipping trade; and such a result would injure far more workmen than could possibly be concerned in the competition of foreign prison-made brushes. He thought that the House ought to have further evidence that this Bill would effect its object.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,), who was received with
  424
  Ministerial cheers: I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire that we have not heard anything in the course of this Debate from the representative of the Department chiefly concerned in the time of the late Government. I do not forget the very important Debate in 1895, in which the right hon. Gentleman examined the whole question very carefully, and I admit that I am surprised that he has not thought it worth while to give the House the benefit of his opinion, and to tell the House whether, like the whole of his followers, he has completely turned round in the course of the last few years. [Laughter and cheers.] I am well aware that we must not make too great demands on the Front Opposition Bench, and that we have already had a speech from the hon. Gentleman who represents the Opposition on so many occasions. The hon. Member for Dundee always speaks on matters connected with the Navy or with foreign affairs; and now he has undertaken the work of the Board of Trade. [Cheers and laughter] And it may be said, in the absence of his Leader, that the hon. Member for Dundee is the representative of the Leaders of the Opposition. [Cheers and laughter.] I have personal reason for desiring to magnify the office of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty—[laughter]—and I congratulate my hon. Friend the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty—[renewed laughter]—upon the greatness which is in store for him when the Government of the day is again changed, and when the hon. Member will have to answer for all our affairs. [Laughter.] I have said that this Debate is remarkable as showing a most extraordinary and at present unexplained change of front. For what happened in 1895? In February 1895 a Motion was made calling attention to this grievance, and demanding; that the Government should at once—the words "at once" were purposely inserted in the Resolution—["Hear, hear!"]—proceed to deal with the importation of these prison-made goods. The right hon. Gentleman who then represented the Board of Trade did not complain of the Resolution, did not deny that a grievance was established, and did not deny that a remedy was necessary. But he plainly said that, having consulted with his officials, he was unable to find a remedy,

  425
  and that he would be extremely pleased if the Opposition furnished him with something practical in that way. Then, as soon as he heard that the Opposition could not assist him in that direction, he proposed the appointment of a Committee, which we had reason to believe would take a long time to conduct its investigations, and would lead to no definite or satisfactory end. ["Hear, hear!"] We refused the offer of the Government. It was refused by my hon. Friend the then Mover of the Resolution; it was refused by myself, who was then an independent Member of the House and the Leader of a small section of the House; and it was subsequently refused by my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Bal four), then Leader of the Opposition. That was a direct challenge to the Government. [Cheers] We refused their offer; we insisted that they should deal with the matter in a practical spirit. What did they do? Did they divide against us? Not a bit of it. [Cheers.] In the first place, they tried to count us out. [Laughter and cheers.] I have said there was a singular inconsistency on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are at least consistent in this, that to-night they tried to count us out again. [Laughter.] Having failed to count us out on the former occasion, they challenged a. Division on our Amendment, but when the time came to divide—in the meantime there had been communication between the Front Bench and the Benches below the Gangway there was no one to call out "No," and accordingly our Resolution was carried nemine contradicente in February, 1895. But afterwards, the then Government, instead of complying with the Resolution, acted in direct disobedience of it by appointing a Departmental Committee, which certainly was not considered satisfactory by those who had supported the Amendment, and which had the effect of delaying the matter until after the general election, ["Hear, hear!"] Up to that period the Government, as I have shown, had admitted, but avoided, their obligations. But now it is entirely different. Here is a Bill to carry out an obligation which has been unanimously supported by the House of Commons, and yet Member after Member gets up on the other side of the House in order to show that the grievance is imaginary, that the evil
  426
  does not exist, or that if it does exist it ought not to be remedied. [Cheers.] And for this extraordinary change of views and action there is no explanation whatever, except it be the fact that in February, 1895, we were within a month or so of the General Election, and that now, in May, 1897, hon. Members opposite think the General Election is very far off indeed. [Cheers and Laughter.] But that is not all. This matter has not been allowed to drop even within the period of office of the present Government. The hon. Gentleman who has now moved the rejection of this Bill got up during the discussion on the Address at the opening of last Session and denounced the Government for not attempting even to fulfil their pledges, and among the pledges to which he gave prominence and importance, as a matter of serious obligation, as a matter to which the greatest attention ought to be paid, but which the Government had neglected, was this very question of prison-made goods. [Laughter and cheers.]
  MR. DALZIEL: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. I was on that occasion inquiring for information. [Ministerial laughter.] The Government on that occasion were pledged to do something, and it seemed as if they were not going to do anything. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course we perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman's desire for information. [Laughter.] When we attempt to carry out the promises we have given, it is declared that the Measures we propose to pass are absolutely unworthy of the support of the House; but if we do not bring forward Measures to fulfil our obligations and pledges, we are told they are matters of the utmost importance, and we are denounced for not bringing them forward. [Laughter and cheers.] We understand these tactics very well, and are fully satisfied. [Renewed cheer a and laughter.] But here is a fact which I wish the House to notice, and which I am sure the country will notice. Here is this Measure, and here is a broad issue. In February, 1895, we all appeared to be unanimous in favour of it. That is no longer the case. I want to emphasise that fact. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot go down to their constituencies and pretend that they

  427
  are in favour of the exclusion of prison-made goods. [Cheers.] I do not suppose that even they, for very shame, would dare to run away from the question once more. [Laughter.] They must take a division upon it. [Ministerial and Opposition cheers.] We are grateful to them for having given us the opportunity of separating—what shall I say?—the sheep from the goats. [Laughter.] Now we know what is the value of their support of a Measure in the immediate anticipation of a General Election. [Cheers.] The fear of a General Election being now removed from them, they oppose as bitterly and as strongly as they can the very Measure to which they had previously given their assent so far as its principle is concerned. [Cheer.] At all events, we are satisfied with having the opportunity of redeeming the pledges we have given. [Renewed cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot say after this Session that we have disappointed our friends, or that we have been false to our pledges. I undertake to say that at the end of this Session, after two working Sessions, we shall have fulfilled a, larger part of our programme than any Government have ever done before. [Loud cheers.] And this, although confessedly it was one of the minor Measures of our programme, is not a matter of that very small importance that the hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think. He will find that it will grow in importance as time goes on. [Laughter.] I feel perfectly certain that as soon as the next General Election is in sight, the hon. Member will begin to think that this is a matter of paramount importance. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dundee, referring to a speech I made in the House before the last General Election, said I declared it was a most significant Measure. I said nothing of the kind. In every instance in which I referred to the matter—and I did refer to it in the course of the General Election—I pointed out that in itself it was a small matter, that it was of small economical importance. In this House, however, I pointed out that it was a matter of great political importance. [Cheers.] Yes, and hon. Members have reason to thank me that they took my advice then. ["Hear, hear!"] My advice, given frankly, was that this was a matter to which constituents attached very great importance, and that they would be wise to remember
  428
  that, and that if they did not remember it we should. What was the result of that frank statement? I did not conceal it; I took advantage of it afterwards. But I gave them the information, and as a result none of them dared to vote against the Resolution. [Cheers.] Now, I say, we are justified, having fairly warned our opponents, in taking advantage of the extremely bad strategy which they have exhibited this afternoon. They have actually given this little Bill a more violent, and more strenuous opposition than they have given to any other Measure of the Government, except the Primary Education Bill. Very well, all I hope is that they will stick to this line of policy—["Hear, hear!"]—that they will on every platform of the country call attention to their magnificent action tonight — [laughter] — to the opposition which they have offered to this Bill for preventing the importation of prison-made goods, and that they will upon that demand the further confidence of their constituents. [Laughter.] If they do demand that, I hope they may get it. Now, Sir, I have said that I have never exaggerated the economic importance of this matter, but at the same time as a matter of principle it is of very considerable importance, and as a matter of fact it is of enormous importance to a small number of people, and when it is a question of justice, a small number of people have quite as much right to be considered as a large number. Just let us see what is the fact. We are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they admit there is a certain amount of public feeling in this matter. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley, I think, said that that was the case, that there was a prejudice among the working classes against having to compete with, and losing their employment in consequence of, the unrestricted importation of goods made by foreign convicts, principally Germans and Belgians. He admitted that, but he called upon us to sacrifice ourselves in the great cause to which he himself is a votary, and show our courage by disregarding public opinion. Well, Sir, that advice comes from a queer quarter. [Laughter.] Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite pay disregard to public opinion? Why did we not have all these admirable economic arguments at the time of the General Election of 1895? Why did not the hon.

  429
  Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs tell us that free trade was in danger on that occasion? He never opened his lips. All this, therefore, must either be new information, or, as I have suggested, hon. Members opposite think the circumstances have change and that they have still time to repent. I have said that, although it is not a gigantic evil, neither is it an imaginary evil. What is the fact? The fact is this—that these goods made in foreign prisons and imported into this country compete especially with the brush trade and the mat trade, two minor trades, and that they also compete to a less extent with a considerable number of other trades; and, further, that, if they are not restricted by legislation, we have it on the authority of some German speakers and politicians that it was the intention of the authorities in Germany to spread the industries in the prisons over a larger number of trades, so that we do not know what trade may not ultimately be affected. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, who gave the effort of a speech which I believe he had not heard, and refused to quote any language which justified—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg pardon; I listened to every word of the speech.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In 1895?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes; to every word of the speech.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can only say then that the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. [Laughter.]. But when challenged to produce proof of the statement that I have described this matter to be of extraordinary importance as an economical problem, he quoted as my statement that there was no industry which was safe as loner as this state of things was allowed to continue. What was the "state of things? "He did not quote the context, because the speech was only handed to him at the moment, and he had not time to make himself acquainted with it. It was that the then President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, had explained, as a reason for minimising the evil, that the Germans were benevolently going to extend the process to a great number of other trades.
  *MR. J. BRYCE: No, I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This is what I said on that occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman being present took no exception to it:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman made an admission. He said that the Germans had spread these prison industries over as many manufactures as possible."
  *MR. J. BRYCE: Certainly.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN:
  "What, a satisfactory state of things! How admirable it will read in the newspapers to-morrow! The right hon. Gentleman will be enabled to go to Aberdeen and say to his fellow-citizens there:—'At the present time the Germans in their prisons have not dealt with the jute manufactures;' but a member of the audience will say:—' Oh! but you say that the Germans have spread their prison work over as many industries as possible, and how do you know that the German prison system may not spread even to our industry?'"
  [Cheers.] And it was imputed to me, in reference to what I said as to the state of things described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, that I said that, under those circumstances, no industry would be safe! Now, Sir, I say that it is quite true that a very considerable number of industries might really be affected if this principle were unrestricted. But some of the hon. Members opposite have argued that this cannot be a matter worthy of any consideration on our part because prison labour is not cheap. I think it was the hon. Member for Battersea who said that. What an extraordinary ignorance of the state of things that argument shows! In what sense does the hon. Member say that prison labour is not cheap? Of course it is not cheap if a book of profit and loss were kept by every prison, and if a prison conducted its affairs as a private firm does, and opened capital, and interest, and depreciation accounts, and went into the actual cost and everything else. Of course it would not pay to make brushes in prisons in that case. But when practically it does not cost anything because you already have prisons, and do not pay for them, and when everything you get for a brush is profit except the cost of the raw material, then prison labour is by the necessity of the case the cheapest of all labour, and prisons can afford to make goods at what would be a loss to others. We employ

  431
  prisoners, as the hon. Member for Batter-sea has said, in making breakwaters, or for work of that kind; but of course it has been found by comparison with ordinary labour to be the most extravagant business possible. At the same time it would be perfectly possible for us to hire out these men at 4d. a day, and the profit would be 4d. a day, although the expense, because of the article manufactured, would be very much more than the cost under ordinary systems of trade. There is no doubt about it, and it is useless for the hon. Member or anyone else to deny it; they do not wish to know where the shoe pinches, but the people engaged in these industries do. They know perfectly well, and it has never been contradicted, that this particular trade has been injured; not merely that the amount of the trade has been diminished, but the profits of the industry altogether destroyed; and it means also that wages are reduced and the workers put in an unfair position. The hon. Member for Battersea says," Why do not you deal with any other trade? "I defy him to find any other trade in the same position. What is the case here? You have actually by Resolutions in this House prohibited prisoners in this country from working on this productive industry. ["Hear, hear!"] Do let the House bear that in mind when we are dealing with such arguments as those put forward by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley. The hon. Member for Battersea asserts that criminals should be taught an industry and make goods which will be afterwards sold. Why then does he not, to be consistent, propose that prisoners in English gaols should be allowed what they are not now allowed to do—compete with British industry?
  MR. BURNS, interposing, said the right hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. The Government did not prohibit British prisoners from competing with free labour to the extent he represented. What the Government, to its credit, did was to confine the employment of prison labour to certain areas.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Out of 18,000 prisoners in gaols 300 are employed on work of a kind which comes into competition with free labour. In Germany and Belgium all prisoners are employed on productive work, and this
  432
  is not allowed to be sold in Germany. It is ear-marked for consumption in this country. [Cheers.] I said "in Germany, "I should have said" in these foreign countries." This is what is said by the Belgian newspaper referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee: —
  "The fact that a Bill of this kind wins to be introduced into the British Parliament shows that public opinion is much occupied with this Measure, which may have a serious effect on Belgian trade. Owing to the extreme cheapness of these goods "—
  see how this article by anticipation contradicts every one of the arguments of hon. Members opposite against this Bill—
  "England has been the principal market for articles manufactured in our prisons, and particularly in our penal settlements. That market once closed to a trade of this particular kind—England no longer condescending to take prison-made goods—they will naturally begin to raise serious and even disloyal competition against the regular trade of Belgium."
  [Cheers.] I call the attention of the House to these friends of the working classes. [Cheers.] Here is their proposal—that goods made in Belgian prisons, and which Belgians will not sell in Belgium because it would be disloyal competition with Belgian working men, should come unrestricted into this country to engage in loyal competition with British working men. [Cheers.] The Opposition may be divided on questions of foreign policy, of South African policy, and colonial policy. On this question it is indeed united! [Cheers.] Here is a policy to go to the country with—" Convict labour; convict goods for the British consumer! "[Laughter and cheers.] The hon. Member for Spen Valley said the Bill was a violation of the principles this country had adopted during the last 50 years—" an insidious attack on free trade." He put it forward as a principle of free trade that cheapness to the consumer was the one thing to be regarded. We had nothing to do with where the goods came from, or how they were made.
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid this was not quite his point. It was said that prison-made goods, because of their cheapness, displaced labour here, and he submitted that, if that argument was sound, it ought to be applied to all classes of goods, whether made in prisons or anywhere else. [Cheers.]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite true. Bill, unless my memory deceives me, the hon. Member went further. He emphasised it by saying that the great object was that the consumer should buy his goods in the cheapest market. The hon. Member for Kirkealdy adopted the same line of argument. Were the hon. Members consistent? Why, under these circumstances, do they support a resolution against sweated goods. The other side has again and again pressed the view that we are not to buy sweated goods—goods made cheap—because the labour employed in making them is badly paid. Very well; do they mean to say in the same breath that you are not to buy goods cheap when made by ill-priced labour, but you may when they are made cheap by prison labour?
  *MR. WHITTAKERsaid his argument was that the conditions of labour in prisons were not as bad as many other conditions of labour.[Ministerial cries of"Oh!"] His contention was, if they opposed the importation of floods because made in prisons, why not oppose the importation of goods made under worse conditions?—and he referred to carpets made in Turkey and Asia and to the cheap labour of India. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I should be abusing the time of the House if I followed the hon. Member into all his arguments. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] But I am unable to see the consistency of refusing to avail yourself of cheapness, when the result of low wages, and accepting all the conditions of cheapness when the result of foreign convict labour. Yet that is the position to which hon. Members have reduced the theory of free trade. I have said that I hope even now, before the Debate closes, we may hear something from a more prominent Member of the Opposition than the hon. Member for Dundee. If we are favoured to-night with any expression of opinion from either of the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke in 1895—the Member for Aberdeen and the Member for Montrose—then I am sure they will repeat the language which they then used, and which will convey a most valuable lesson to their followers in regard to the true principles of free trade. [Cheers.] Here is what was said by the Member for South Aberdeen:—"He did
  434
  not consider that the question of free trade arose in the matter at all." [Ministerial laughter.] Has he changed his mind since 1895 with regard to that point? He cannot say. [Renewed laughter.] I make all allowance for the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. ["Hear, hear!"] I now come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. J. Morley). He said:—
  "If there is an ardent free-trader in the House it is the humble individual who is addressing you. But can I for one moment think I am bound, in the interest of free trade, or in order to be a consistent free-trader, to admit into the markets of this country convict-made goods made in this country, or convict-made goods made elsewhere? "
  [Ministerial laughter and cheers.] Has my right hon. Friend changed his mind? [Mr. J. MORLEY was understood to intimate that he had not.] No; my right hon. Friend is not so coy as his right hon. colleague. [Laughter.] I no longer implore the right hon. Member for Aberdeen to speak. I do not think in the circumstances he could add much to the Debate. ["Hear, hear!"] I am sure I do not mean any disrespect to him, but I mean that, until he has made up his mind about the principles of free trade, I do not see that he can assist us. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, if he would repeat the lesson he gave in 1895 to his followers below the gangway—if he would teach the hon. Member for the Spen Valley and the hon. Member for the Kirkealdy District the true principles of free trade—really might do the whole House very considerable service. [Cheers.] I say that under these circumstances it is perfectly absurd for hon. Gentlemen opposite at this time of day to pretend that the principles of free trade are in question. It has nothing to do with the principles of free trade; it has only to do with the principles of common sense and common justice. [Cheers.] I want to point out to the House that every speech to which we have listened, with the possible exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, has been a speech directly against the principle of this Bill. It is true the hon. Member for Dundee said everything he could think of against the Bill, professed his disbelief in it, and minimised the evil,

  435
  and undoubtedly, if his arguments were accurate, there ought to be no Bill. But still he did not venture to say, as the other hon. Members opposite did, that he opposed the principle of the Bill. That had hitherto been the main argument, and it is the argument to which I should tie hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition. It is true they added another argument, which is almost one of those works of supererogation. They said the Bill would be ineffective. Of course it is open to them, and if they think they can make it more stringent—if they can make a Bill which is wrong in principle, mind you, which is dealing with a matter which ought not to be dealt with, and does not deserve to be dealt with, more effectively, we shall welcome their assistance. [Cheers.] But in the meantime we, who gave this promise and believed there was a real injustice which ought to be remedied, are satisfied with, this Bill, and we believe it will be a remedy. [Cheers.] We have produced our prescription, after all, with very slight delay. [Ministerial cheers.] The Opposition consider there is no disease. You cannot argue the thing from both points of view. Their point is there is no disease. We have produced our prescription and we believe it will be a remedy. As to the persons who think there is no disease, I should say, on the whole, it would be unwise to ask them for a prescription, because under these circumstances it is probable that their pills would be flour and their draughts would be plain water. [Laughter.] But we, who believe there is a grievance, have honestly endeavoured to find a remedy; we believe we have found a remedy, and if in the course of examination in Committee any defect can be shown, we shall be perfectly ready to improve our Bill and to improve our remedy. [Cheers.]
  *MR. JAMES BRYCEwould very frankly satisfy the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman as to why he did not speak earlier in the Debate. He was very curious to listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and was very anxious to hear how he would reconcile his speech of two years ago with the Bill of to-day. He was very curious to know how he would reconcile the extreme and extravagant language which he used in speaking on this question of foreign prison-made goods in February, 1895, with the
  436
  minimising and deprecatory language which had been used that night by the President of the Board of Trade. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] He was very anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the prescription, and to hear him explain and defend a Bill which, on the face of it, seemed an absurd and preposterous remedy. He had been disappointed. [Ministerial cheers.] He had been entertained and amused, and he had listened to an admirable exhibition of political agility. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] But he had had no light cast upon the question with which the House was asked to deal. It was all very well to make a jest and sport of the matter as the right hon. Gentleman had tried to do. [Opposition cheers.] They had been amusing themselves for the last five hours. They had not been dealing with a serious matter in a serious way at all, but had been merely amusing themselves by putting up a sham Bill on whose behalf not a single word of argument had been offered on the Government Bench. The right hon. Gentleman opposite endeavoured to escape from the language which he used in February, 1895. He would compare the right hon. Gentleman's language then with that which he had used on the present occasion. He had just told them that there was a very small number of people who were affected by it; but what did he say in 1895? He said:—
  "There is no question upon which the working classes of this country have more, generally made up their minds than upon this."
  [Ministerial cheers, and Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: "I say it now!"] The right hon. Gentleman said it, but it was a different thing to prove it, and he had not attempted to prove it. At the General Election this question was treated with complete contempt. [Ministerial cries of "No !"]
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Fifty per cent. of the Unionist Members put it in their programmes. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. BRYCEsaid that, anyhow, the question had failed utterly to excite the interest of the people of this country. [Ministerial cries of "Prove it!"] He could prove it from his own experience, and he had consulted a great many of his friends, who all said that the question made no difference to them at the

  437
  election. [Ministerial cries of "Where are they? and Opposition cries of "Order !"] If hon. Members would refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee they would find that that Committee endeavoured to obtain trade opinion upon this subject. They appealed to the trade union councils, and advertised in a great many newspapers, but they had scarcely any response to their appeals, and they were satisfied that the working classes of this country did not take any interest in the question. [Ministerial cries of "Oh !"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, on the occasion to which he had referred:—
  "We are face to face with what is practically a national and almost unanimous demand."
  Where was the evidence of such a demand, and if there was such a demand, why had the Government waited for two years before responding to it? The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a question of great practical importance. They knew what that meant. Practical importance meant in his eyes electioneering importance, and nothing else—["Hear, hear!"]—and even in regard to the electioneering importance of the question the right hon. Gentleman was utterly mistaken. [Laughter.] He adhered himself to every word which he used in the Debate in February, 1895. He said then that this was an infinitesimal grievance not worth notice, much less legislation, and that it was useless to legislate for this grievance, such as it was, unless they could legislate effectively. The Bill before the House would not effect a remedy; it would be futile. Let him recall to hon. Members' minds the Report of the Departmental Committee. It was a perfectly impartial Committee.[Ministerial cries of "Oh !"] Its impartiality was not challenged at the time of its appointment.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I took every opportunity of saying it was packed. [Cheers and laughter.]
  MR. BRYCE: At that time no one ventured to say that it was not a fair and competent Committee.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg pardon. I said so always. [Laughter.]
  *MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman never said so in this House.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I never had the opportunity. It was a hole-and-corner Committee packed in the right hon. Gentleman's own office. [Loud laughter.]
  *MR. BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman generally found an opportunity of saying a thing which he wanted to say. [Laughter.] He repeated that, although the subject was frequently mentioned in the House, the impartiality of the Committee was not challenged. The hon. Member for Sheffield was himself upon it. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "Yes, but I left it !"] [Laughter.] The Report of the Committee went to show that the quantity and value of all prison-made goods imported into this country were extremely small, that it was too small to have any substantial influence on the trade. ["Hear, hear!"] It was an interesting fact that the number of persons employed in the brush and mat making trades had increased during the few years in which the competition of prison-made goods was stated to be injuring the trade; and another interesting fact was that it appeared that in those countries which sent brushes and mats to this country goods were produced by free labour quite as cheaply as by prison labour, so that, as far as the interests of the British workman were concerned, nothing whatever would be gained by prohibiting the importation of prison-made goods. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary error in his statement about the Germans, when he said they ear-marked these goods for British consumption. That was not the case. ["Hear, hear!"] What the Germans did was not to sell them in the immediate vicinity of the prison—[Ministerial cheers]—that was to say, within eight miles of the prison—but they sold them in other parts of Germany. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to twist some words of his in the former Debate into a meaning they did not bear. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to represent that he said that the German Government were increasing the production in a variety of industries in order to

  439
  compete with British goods. What he did say was:—
  "The policy of the German Government had been to spread prison labour over as many trades as possible"—
  ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. CHAMBERLAIN]—
  "in order that it might have no injurious effect on any particular trade."
  [Cheers and Ministerial laughter.] That was to say, in order that it might not be said that in Germany they were competing with any particular trade, they spread their prison production over a variety of trades—["Hear, hear!"]—and it was shown before the Committee that no practical harm could come to British trade from that, or, of course, to German trade. There was not, a title of evidence to show that any harm was done, and the right hon. Gentleman had never tried to produce any.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I? I did not offer myself as a witness before your Departmental Committee. [Ministerial cheers and laughter.]
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman did what was much more important. He offered himself as a witness before the House—[cheers]—and he made statements before the House which were utterly baseless, which he had never even attempted to substantiate, and which he now defied him to substantiate. [Cheers.] Another interesting point was brought out by the Committee—namely, that British machine-made goods, even in the lower kind of brushes, could be produced just as cheaply as foreign-made, and the reason why foreign-made goods were allowed to come in, particularly prison-made goods, was because the British manufacturers found it better worth their while to bestow their attention on the production of the superior. This Committee gave every possible opportunity to the brush and matmakers to state their case, and these were the conclusions they came to, and no one had ever disputed them. [Cheers.]
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: That was a majority Report. There was a minority Report.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that was the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member left the Committee because he did not
  440
  like the way the evidence was going. [Cheers.] However, the Committee went further. They inquired not only whether there was a substantial grievance, but also whether, if there was a grievance, it could be remedied. The Committee called some of the officers of the Customs before them and cross-examined them at some length, and they came to the conclusion that the suggestions put forward were unworkable, that they could not be made effective, and that in whatever form they were tried they failed. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not want to detain the House on minor points; they would be found set forth in the evidence and summarised in the Report of the Committee. He was accurate in stating that the suggestions put forward by the Customs were held to be impracticable. He read the words of the Report on this point which declared that the suggestions would do more harm than good, and went on to urge that they were entitled to have some substantial case made out. When they pressed for some kind of figures the Colonial Secretary was obliged to fall back on some anonymous article in a Belgian paper. [Opposition laughter.] He could only say they must have some other evidence than that of an anonymous writer, who might be the Member for Sheffield himself. [Loud, laughter.] It was little short of an insult to the House of Commons—["Hear, hear!"]—to ask them to pass legislation on the authority of some writer in a Belgian paper. [Cheers.] They asked the promoters to tender evidence, but they could not get it. How were they to get evidence that a brush was made in a prison or not? A brush did not tell its own tale as to where it was made. It was not stamped that it was made in a German prison. The idea was absurd. The Colonial Secretary seemed to have an idea that some persons would be watching round the doors of German prisons, and that they would follow the brushes from one wholesale warehouse to another until at last it came here. [Laughter] They knew that in, the case of the Merchandise Marks Acts traders would not come forward to help the Board of Trade to enforce those Acts. The Board of Trade must do it themselves; yet the Merchandise Marks Act was much easier of application than this Bill would prove

  441
  to be. There was not the slightest reason to believe that the evidence would be attainable. They had some experience of other countries. In America, and, he dared say, in Canada, there were a good many laws which looked well on paper, but not in fact. The authorities had received power to make regulations, but none were made, and it was impossible to make out what the authorities were doing. It was easy when there was some trivial demand, or when some one was playing an electioneering card, to bring forward a Bill like this; but the business of responsible and worthy statesmanship was not to bring in Bills unless they could make them work. [Cheers.] The "prescription" of the right hon. Gentleman had been referred to. He remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman well; it was a curious speech, and it was remarked at the time as being noteworthy for an unaccountable bitterness of tone and language. It culminated in the expression, "We are not going to lend them our prescriptions while he takes the fees." It was observed at the time that it was not, at any rate, a very patriotic course if he had the prescription and was not going to give the country the benefit of it. But now we know that he had no prescription at all. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman went a little further. He did a thing on that occasion which he never remembered a responsible Minister doing before. He turned upon and accused the officials of the Department over which he once had presided. [Cheers.] A less becoming act on the part of a responsible Minister had never been done before. [Cheers.] Now the House knew what the "prescription" was. It was a bread pill. [Laughter.] Any one could prescribe a bread pill; the late Government could have prescribed it then; in fact, there was a Bill of the hon. Member for Sheffield before the House which was like this Bill, only a little better. [Laughter.] That Bill might, at any rate, have been tried: this Bill was not worth trying; and he thought that the bread pill of the right hon. Gentleman would be received in every quarter with that unconcern and indifference it deserved. [Cheers.] The Bill was a sham and an imposture from beginning to end. [Cheers and "Divide !"] He went further and said that the Bill and the whole of the agitation on this subject had been a
  442
  piece of demagogy—[cheers]—which was not creditable to those who had practised it. [Cheers.] He did not think that the Bill could do any harm — [ironical laughter]—but he thought it was not creditable to the House to pass Bills which would do no good, and which would be an unworkable remedy for an insignificant grievance. [Cheers.]
  MR. SAMUEL HOARE, as the representative of a constituency which did not look on this Bill as a trifling Measure, protested against the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He also protested against the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman that when, this question was brought before the electors at the last election it was treated with contempt. The contrary was the fact. It was also said that because it was a small matter the House ought not to take up the question. Hon. Gentlemen might as well say that because a man had his pocket picked of 6d., the thief ought not to be punished, because he had not taken more money. In his constituency they considered that this prison labour had robbed the working people of their labour and wages, and he hoped that the House would pass the Bill by a large majority. He mentioned the case of a manufacturer who found that the competition of prisons and reformatory colonies in Belgium was so strong that he had been compelled to go to Belgium and attempt to contract for the labour himself in order that he might be able to compete. The evidence of another brush manufacturer was that he could not possibly compete with prison-made goods, and he knew of three firms, employing 120 hands, who had had to give up their businesses owing to the competition of such goods. We did not allow our own prisoners to compete, except to a very trifling extent, with free labour. Surely, therefore, we ought not to allow the authorities of foreign prisons to send their goods here, goods which were not sold in their own countries. If might be that this Bill would not prove a remedy

  443
  for the grievance, but, at any rate, it would express the opinion of the House of Commons that some remedy for the evil should be devised, and experience would enable them to amend it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire had said he was filled with disappointment by the statement of the Colonial Secretary. In 1895 the right hon. Gentleman said he did not believe it was possible to introduce a Bill—[Mr. BRYCE: "An effectual Bill!"]—and therefore, no doubt, he was filled with disappointment because this Government had introduced a Bill, one which would be very acceptable to the country. It might be true that only a very small number of people were affected by the Measure, but the country would realise that though the numbers concerned were small, the Government were desirous of seeing justice done to the working classes. In face of the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite had supported a Motion which declared that it was necessary to take at once some step to remedy this evil, he could not understand why they now thought the remedy could be put off. By going into the "No" lobby upon this occasion they would express their opinion that it was impossible to remedy the evil by legislation, and that therefore they would not make any attempt at a remedy. The supporters of the Bill would vote for it with the conscientious feeling that they were trying to find a remedy for the evil, that they were trying to prevent honest labour being interfered with by the work of prisoners in foreign prisons.
  MR. W. ALLANsaw in the Bill a portion of that policy which they heard of a few nights ago for the taxation of corn. It was said it was meant for the benefit of the working classes, but it did not go far enough to do that. It was honestly meant for that purpose; why did not they go further? What did they do for the working classes who were out of employment by window-sashes and frames being
  444
  brought into this country, or by flooring, planed, beaded and grooved, being brought in; or what did they do for the glass trade? Had they ever shown any desire whatever to look after these trades? [Ministerial cries of "Yes!"] None whatever; and, forsooth! the House was asked to deal with brushes and mats. Had they come to this, that they had to spend hour after hour in discussing shaving brushes and door mats? The whole amount involved per annum was an absolute trifle, and, above all that, they were the cheapest rubbish that came into the country, and that was the reason so few of them were sold. The Bill was simply an absurdity. It was of no use at all, and would not benefit the working classes one iota. The House of Commons was wasting its precious time by such legislation. They wanted something more in keeping with the traditional greatness of the House than trifles of that kind. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite want Protection? [Some Ministerial cries of "Yes!"] Now they knew where they were, and he would tell those hon. Gentlemen that he would fight them to the death on that question. Speaking as a working man, and as one who knew the working men as well, perhaps, as anyone in that House, he said honestly and fearlessly that this Bill was a sham.
  MR. J. LOWLESmaintained that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had shown his characteristic prescience when he said that no industry was safe while the present state of things existed. He had canvassed every house and workshop in his constituency, and there were in it numbers of brush factories and mat factories, and boot factories too, which today were suffering from the unfair competition of penal labour in foreign countries. In the London County Council he had had something to do, in conjuntion with the hon. Member for Battersea, in drafting a clause, which appeared in all their tenders, to provide that fair

  445
  wages should be paid to all the employés of those who competed for contracts, but such a clause was largely neutralised while they allowed contractors to supply asylums and other public institutions with goods imported from abroad, some of them the very goods of which they now complained. As a close student of the matter he asserted that, while this might be a small question in the main, yet in a constituency like his own it was a very large question.
  SIR J. BRUNNERappealed to the Government not

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lane. S. W

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dane, Richard M.

  Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. Grice.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Knowles, Lees

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lahouchere, Henry

  Barry, A. H. Smith. (Hunts.)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan

  Lafone, Alfred

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windson)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lawrence Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bass, Hamar

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Fielden, Thomas

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Finch, George H.

  Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bethell, Commander

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Bigham, John Charles

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R (Essex)

  Bigwood, James

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bill, Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Rt. H n. Walter (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Garfit, William

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lowles, John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Loyd, Archie Kirkham

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gordon, John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maclure, John William

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gretton, John

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greville, Captain

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Monk, Charles James

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Morrison, Walter

  Cox, Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Holder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  to continue the system of legislation by reference, but to make their Bills self-intelligible.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:— Ayes, 221: Noes, 90.—(Division List, No. 208— appended.)
  The announcement of the numbers was received with cheers and counter cheers.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Allen, Wm. (Newc. under Lyme)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord Arthur (Down)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lane. S. W

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dalbiac, Major Philip Hugh

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dane, Richard M.

  Hutchinson. Capt. G. W. Grice.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Knowles, Lees

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lahouchere, Henry

  Barry, A. H. Smith. (Hunts.)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James Bevan

  Lafone, Alfred

  Barry, Francis Tress (Windson)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawrence, Edwin (Cornwall)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lawrence Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Bass, Hamar

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

  Fielden, Thomas

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Finch, George H.

  Leese, Sir. Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Bethell, Commander

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bhownaggree, M. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Bigham, John Charles

  FitzGerald, Sir R. U. Penrose

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R (Essex)

  Bigwood, James

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bill, Charles

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Rt. H n. Walter (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Garfit, William

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lowles, John

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Loyd, Archie Kirkham

  Butcher, John George

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Carlile, William Walter

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gordon, John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Maclure, John William

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McKillop, James

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Edw. Wm. J.

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gretton, John

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Greville, Captain

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Monk, Charles James

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Morrison, Walter

  Cox, Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Holder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Myers, William Henry

  Robinson, Brooke

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Round, James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Northeete, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Penn, John

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Shaw-Stewart, M H. (Renfrew)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon.

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Whiteley, H. (Aston-under-L.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pretyman, Capt. Ernest George

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.)

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. Mc Taggart

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H (Yorks.)

  Quilter, William Cuthbert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Rankin, James

  Stock, James Henry

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Strauss, Arthur

  Young, William

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Richardson, Thomas

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W.

  Thorburn, Walter

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maden, John Henry

  Acland, Rt. Hon. A. H. Dyke

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mundella, Rt. Hn. Anthony John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Fowler, Matthew (Durham)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Owen, Thomas

  Billson, Alfred

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale.

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Burns, John

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Price, Robert John

  Burt, Thomas

  Holden, Angus

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Fredk. J.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Spicer, Albert

  Commins, Andrew

  Kilbride, Denis

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Crombie, John William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Daly, James

  Lambert, George

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

  Leng, Sir John

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Davies, W. Rees. (Pembrokesh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ure, Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Ellis, Thos. Edw. (Merionethsh.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

  Evershed, Sydney

  McArthur, William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Whittaker.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  McLeod, John

  Main Question put, and agreed to.— Bill read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Etc."—(Mr. Ritchie.)—Debate arising,
  448
  And, it being after midnight, and Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. GEORGE LAMBERTasked whether the Education Bill would be taken on Monday.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I had hoped to take it to-night; but I am afraid there is not much chance of taking it on Monday, as we have promised to put down the Employers' Liability as first Order.
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked what Irish Votes would be taken on Friday.
MR. HANBURY: The Land Commission first and the Local Government Board second, and then the others in the ordinary order.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
VOLUNTEERS BILL
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
APPEAL IN CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be Read the Third time upon Monday next.
DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday; next.
PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
FINANCE BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Committee deferred till Monday next.
BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Monday next.
BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
SUPPLY.
Committee deferred till To-morrow.
RATING OF MACHINERY SUSPENSORY BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
IDIOTS INSTITUTIONS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday 1st July.
PRISONERS' PERSONAL CORRECTION PROHIBITION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
ESTATES TAIL BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for Wednesday next.
STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February) further adjourned till Tuesday next.
MERSEY CHANNELS BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Clause 1,—
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 31st May.

CORN SALES BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
RESTRAINT OF EVICTIONS (LONDON) BILL.
Read a Second time, and committed for this day.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] a further adjourned till Thursday next.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
POLICE APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
House Adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'Clock.

COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.],
A Bill to amend the law relating to copyright in periodical works, lectures, abridgements, and otherwise—Was presented by the Lord Monskswell; Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 79.]

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of ONSLOW)moved the Second Reading of the East India Company's Officers' Superannuation Bill, the object of which is to set at rest certain doubts which have arisen as to the powers of the Secretary of State with regard to officers who were originally upon the establishment of the East India Company, and have now, under the Act of Parliament, been transferred to the control of the Secretary of State for India, in Council. There were, he said, only 12 of them in still in the service.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

REGULAR AND ELDERS' WIDOWS' FUNDS BILL.
*THE EARL OF ONSLOW, in moving the Second Reading of the Regular and Elders' Widows' Funds Bill, said this, again, was a Bill to set at rest certain legal doubts respecting the vesting in the Secretary of State the surplus funds belonging to this institution. By actuarial calculation it had been discovered that the assets were considerably in excess of the liabilities, and as the object of the fund would in the course of a very short time come to an end, it was deemed advisable that whatever might be left over should be vested in the Secretary of State in Council instead
314
of in the hands of trustees who were under legal disability from transferring them to any other person.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.],
Considered in Committee (according to order).
[The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES, The Earl of MORLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 1,—

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.],

  SHORT TITLE.
  1. This Act may be cited as the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2,—

  PERSONS RETAINING OR RECEIVING FOR HIRE INFANTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTENANCE TO GIVE NOTICE THEREOF.
  (1.) Any person retaining or receiving for hire or reward in that behalf more than one infant under the age of five years for the purpose of nursing or maintaining such infants apart from their parents for a longer period than forty-eight hours, shall within the said forty-eight hours give notice thereof to the local authority.
  (2.) Such notice shall truly state the name, age, and sex of such infants, the name of the person receiving the infants, and the dwelling within which such infants are being kept, and the name and address of the person or persons from whom the infants have been received.
  (3.) If any such infant is removed from the care of the person who has received the infant for the purpose aforesaid, such person shall forthwith give to the local authority notice of the removal, and of the name and address of the person to whose care the infant has been transferred.
  (4.) If any person who has retained or received any infant as aforesaid omits to give the said notices, or any of them, or knowingly or wilfully makes or causes or procures any other person to make any false statement in any such offence, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3,—

  APPOINTMENT AND POWERS OF INSPECTORS, ETC.
  (1.) It shall be the duty of every local authority to provide for the execution of this Act within its district, and for that purpose it may appoint male or female inspectors, paid or unpaid, and may appoint or authorise in writing other suitable persons to execute the provisions of this Act, subject to such terms and conditions as may be stated in such appointment or authorisation.
  (2.) Any local authority may combine with any other local authority for the purpose of executing the provisions of this Act, and for defraying the expenses of such execution.
  (3.) Any inspector or other person duly appointed and authorised in writing by or on behalf of the local authority shall from time to time inspect any infants referred to in any notice given under this Act, and the premises in which they are retained or received, in order to satisfy himself as to the proper maintenance of such infants or to give any necessary advice or directions as to such maintenance.
  (4.) If any person retaining or receiving such infants refuses to allow any such inspector or other person to inspect such infants or the premises in which they are retained or received he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  (5.) If any such inspector or other person is refused admittance to any premises in contravention of this Act, or has reason to believe that any infants under the age of five years are being kept in any house or premises in contravention of this Act. he may apply to any justice of the peace, who, on being satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that an offence against this Act has been committed, may grant a warrant authorising such inspector or other person to outer the house or premises for the purpose of inspection or of ascertaining whether any offence against this Act has been committed, and if the occupier of the house or premises or other person obstruct any inspector or other person acting in pursuance of such warrant, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  LORD BELPERsaid he had two or three Amendments to move on behalf of the Home Secretary. They were as follows: —
  Sub-section (1), after the word "district," to insert the words: —
  "and for that purpose it shall from time to time make inquiry whether there are any persons residing therein who retain or receive infants for hire or reward within the provisions of the preceding section."
  Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and may," and to insert instead thereof the words:—
  "(2.) A local authority may, if it think fit, appoint male or female inspectors to enforce this Act, and, if any such persons as aforesaid are found in its district, it shall either appoint such inspectors or arrange for the infants being visited by ladies nominated by the local authority and authorised by it in writing to enforce the provisions of this Act.
  "(3.) A local authority may also, if it think fit."
  The object of these Amendments was to make the Bill more effectual for its purpose than the Act at present in force had proved to be, and also to make it enforceable, particularly in the country districts, without throwing unreasonable expense on the local authority. According to evidence given before the Select Committee, and also returns made to the Home Office, the present Act was really a dead letter in a very large number of places, although it was very efficiently carried out by the London County Council and in one or two other large towns. As the Bill stood, the onus was thrown on the person who takes in more than one child for hire or reward to give notice of the fact to the local authority, and he was afraid that in many cases the local authority, if they did not receive such notice, would practically do nothing. Accordingly, he proposed to lay it down as a distinct obligation on the local authority that it "should from time to time make inquiry." Under the Bill as it stood, moreover, there was no absolute obligation on the local authority to appoint inspectors, and he proposed that, where it was found there were houses where children were kept, in that case steps should be taken to provide proper inspection either "by appointing inspectors or arranging for the infants being visited by ladies nominated by the local authority, and authorised by it in writing to enforce the provisions of this Act." He believed that Boards of Guardians who had visiting committees would have no difficulty in asking such ladies to visit the houses, and make an inspection if necessary.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHthought the Amendments moved on behalf of the Home Office were calculated to make the Act more efficacious, and would do away

  317
  with the reproach which had up to now been very justly levelled against the local authorities in connection with the present law.
  Several Amendments mentioned agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4,—

  NUMBER OF INFANTS RETAINED.
  It shall be the duty of the local authority to fix the number of infants under the age of five years which may be retained or received in any dwelling in respect of which notice has been received under the Act, and any person retaining or receiving any infant in excess of the number so fixed shall be guilty of an offence against the Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 5,—

  PUBLICATION OF ACT.
  It shall be the duty of the local authority to give public notice of the provisions of this Act, by the publication of an abstract thereof or otherwise as a Secretary of State may direct.
  Clause 6,—

  REMOVAL OF INFANT IMPROPERLY KEPT.
  (1.) Should any infant, in respect of which notice is required to be given under this Act,—

  (a) be kept in any house or premises which are so unfit as to endanger its health; or

  (b) be retained or received by any person who, by reason of negligence, ignorance, or other cause, is so unfit to have its care and maintenance as to endanger its health;

  any inspector or other person appointed for the purposes of this Act may apply to the local authority for an order in writing directing him to remove such infant to a workhouse or place of safety until it can be restored to its relatives or guardians or be otherwise lawfully disposed of.
  (2.) Any person refusing to comply with an order under this section upon the same being produced and read over to him, or obstructing the inspector or other authorised person in the execution thereof, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and the inspector may apply to any justice of the peace for an order directing the removal of the child, and such order may be enforced by any police constable.
  (3.) The master of any workhouse shall receive into the workhouse any child brought there under such order, and such child shall be maintained in the workhouse until it can be otherwise disposed of.
  (4.) Infants shall not be retained or received for hire or reward by any person from whose care any infant has been removed under this section, unless with the sanction in writing of the local authority.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved, in paragraph (a), Sub-section (1), after the word "unfit" to insert the words "or so overcrowded." He moved them, he said, as an additional protection to children, and in deference to urgent representations he had received from people interested in the question, and more especially from various medical authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "Infants shall not," and to insert the words, "No infant shall." He explained that this was a drafting Amendment, intended to make it clear that no person who had been convicted of cruelty to children should be allowed to keep even one child for hire or reward.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved the following consequential Amendments: —
  Sub-section (4) after the word "section" to insert the words:—
  "or by any person convicted of any offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to and Protection of Children Acts."
  Sub-section (4) after the word "authority" to insert the words: —
  "and any person retaining or receiving any infant contrary to this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."
  Amendments agreed to; Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 7,—

  NOTICE TO CORONER.
  In case of the death of any infant respecting whom notice is required under this Act, the person having the care of such infant shall, within twenty-four hours of such death cause

  319
  notice thereof to be given to the coroner of the district within which the body of such infant lies, and the coroner shall hold an inquest thereon unless a certificate under the hand of a registered medical practitioner shall be produced to him, certifying that such registered medical practitioner has personally attended or examined such infant, and specifying the cause of its death, and the coroner shall be satisfied by such certificate that there is no ground for holding such inquest. If the person having the care of such infant shall neglect to give the notice in this section mentioned he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 8,—

  PENALTIES.
  Every person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, as a court of summary jurisdiction may award.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 9,—

  EXPENSES.
  All expenses incurred by or on behalf of the local authority in and about the execution of this Act shall be defrayed out of the local rate.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10,—

  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES.
  Any offence under this Act may be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 11,—

  APPLICATION OF FINES.
  Any moneys arising from penalties under this Act shall, notwithstanding any provision in any other Act, be paid to the local authority, and be applied to the purposes to which the local rate is applicable."
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill
  Clause 12,—

  NOTICES.
  Every notice by this Act required to be given to the local authority shall be in writing, and shall be sent by post as a registered letter to the clerk of the local authority, or to such other person as the local authority may appoint, or be delivered at the office of the local authority.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13,—

  EXEMPTIONS.
  The provisions of this Act shall not extend to the relatives or guardians of any infant by them retained or received as aforesaid; or to any person receiving any infant for the purpose of nursing or maintaining such infant under the provisions of any Act for the relief of the poor or of any order of the Local Government Board made under such Act; or to hospitals; convalescent homes or institutions established for the protection and care of infants and conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 14,—

  DEFINITION.
  The terms "local rate," "local jurisdiction," and "local authority," mean in reference to the districts mentioned in the first column of the schedule to this Act, the rate, jurisdiction, and authority mentioned in the second, third, and fourth columns of the said schedule, and such schedule shall be deemed to be part of this Act. The term "place of safety" shall mean any suitable place, the occupier of which is willing temporarily to receive such infant. The term "relatives" shall mean and include the parents, grandparents, and uncles, and aunts by consanguinity or affinity of the infant retained or received as aforesaid, and in the case of illegitimate infants the persons who would be so related if the infant were legitimate.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 15,—

  APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
  This Act in its application to Scotland shall be subject to the following provision: The sheriff shall be substituted for a justice of the peace; the procurator fiscal shall be substituted for the coroner, and an inquiry by him into the cause of death for an inquest; and poorhouse shall be substituted for workhouse.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in deference to the wishes of the Irish Office, moved to insert the following new clause. After Clause 15,—

  APPLICATION TO IRELAND.
  "In the application of this Act to Ireland, the Chief Secretary shall be substituted for a Secretary of State, and the Local Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board."
  Clause Read a First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

THE SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN THE FOREGOING ACT.
ENGLAND AND WALES.

District.

Local Rate.

Local Jurisdiction.

Local Authority.

County of London

Rate or fund applicable to the payment of the general expenses of the Council

Area of the County of London (except the City of London)

London County Council.

City of London

Consolidated sewers rate

Area of the City of London and the liberties thereof

Common Council.

Boroughs

The borough fund or borough rate

Area of borough

Council.

Other places

The district rate

District of the district council

The district council.

Clause 16,—

REPEAL.
The Infant Life Protection Act 1872, shall be repealed from the date of the commencement of this Act.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17,—

COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.
This Act shall commence on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

IRELAND.

District.

Local Rate.

Local Jurisdiction.

Local Authority.

Towns corporate

The borough rate or borough fund

Area of borough

Town council.

Towns having commissioners appointed by virtue of an Act made in the ninth year of the reign of George the Fourth, intituled: "An Act to make provision for the lighting, cleansing, and watching of cities and towns corporate and market towns in Ireland in certain cases"

Any rate leviable by the Commissioners

Area of town

The commissioners.

Towns having town commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 103), or under any other local Act

Area of town

The commissioners.

Townships having commissioners under local Acts

Area of township

The commissioners.

Places in Ireland not included in the foregoing descriptions

The grand jury cess

Area of petty sessional district in which the place is situate

The petty sessions for the district in which the place is situate.

LORD BELPERmoved the following Amendment: —
Schedule (England and Wales), to leave out lines 12, 13, 14, and 15, and to insert: —

"Other places.

The poor rate.

The poor law union.

The board of guardians."

He said that the effect of the Amendment was to substitute the Board of Guardians as the authority for the Borough or District Council. He pointed out that the duties of the District Council were not similar to those imposed by the Bill; and the Home Office and the Local Government Board were both fully agreed that it would be better to intrust the duties to the Boards of Guardians. Those bodies had in the relieving officer a suitable person to make the necessary inquiries;
324
and they would be more in touch with the persons employed for inspecting houses. Further, the Boards of Guardians had already certain duties under the Bill in respect of children in a house certified to be an unfit place for keeping them.
Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHmoved the following Amendment: —Schedule (Ireland), to leave out from the end of line 2 to the end of the schedule, and to insert instead thereof:—

"In all places.

The poor rate.

The poor law union.

The board of guardians."

He said that it was similar to the Amendment which had just been agreed

325
to, and simply carried out the wishes of the Irish Office.
Amendment agreed to; Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 80.]

CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.],
*LORD DAVEY, In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was to simplify the titles to real estate, and also, in order to achieve that end, to assimilate the settlement of real estate to the settlement of personal estate. One of the chief causes of complexity of title, and of the consequent expense of purchasing real estate, was the great number of interests capable of being created as legal interests, and involving proof of births and deaths. All these questions had to be inquired into by any one purchasing real estate; and no purchaser could be advised to complete until it was certain that all the interests had been disposed of. In personal estate the case was different. If a man wished to settle stocks and shares, all he did was to vest them in trustees, who were registered, and the legal title then passed from hand to hand without any inquiry as to the equitable interests attached to the legal ownership of the trustees. The Bill proposed to make all the interests which could be at present created in real estate by settlement equitable interests, so that there would always be a succession of legal owners; and purchasers would not be bound to see to the disposition of the equitable ownership, and would be concerned only with the legal owner who had power to deal with the estate. In that way much of the complexity and expense would be done away with. It was not intended to interfere at all with the present power of settling estates; but the Bill provided that settlements should take effect only by way of equitable interest, capable of being enforced against the trustee, but having no effect on the purchaser who had obtained his title from the legal owner. The way
326
in which this was done was by an adaptation of the machinery of the Settled Land Acts, known as Lord Cairns' Act. Under that Act the tenant for life had power to dispose of the fee simple of an estate, subject to the consent of certain trustees who were appointed trustees for the purposes of the settlement. He was under no restrictions, except that he must sell the fee simple for the best price that could reasonably be obtained, and no person entitled in remainder had any right to interfere with his disposition of the estate. There had now been some years' experience of that procedure, and it could be said to have worked well and with safety to those who were interested in real estate, while, on the other hand, it had been a great boon to many persons by enabling real estate to be disposed of in a way that was not before possible. What the Bill proposed was to convert the legal tenant for life, who had the power of disposition over the fee, into an owner in fee—to make the legal tenant for life own the fee over which he already had the power of disposition, but in trust for himself and the others persons entitled. The Bill was drawn so as to he applicable to existing settlements and to those which might be made hereafter. By the ownership of the fee being given to the tenant for life the trouble of obtaining trustees and the difficulty of dual ownership through trustees would be done away with. Upon the death of the tenant for life it was proposed that the estate should vest in his real representative. The Bill contained provisions for the appointment of a real representative, who would normally be the executor or administrator. In that way a succession of legal ownership would be secured, and the purchaser need no more trouble himself about any of the complicated interests involved than need the purchaser of railway stock. There was one clause of the Bill which it was probable their Lordships in Committee might consider one that ought not to be sanctioned by the House. That was the clause providing that Succession Duty and Estate Duty should be a charge on the estate owner, and not on the estate. But he was informed that there was nothing that created greater trouble and difficulty in dealing with the purchase of estates than the charges in respect of Estate Duty and Succession Duty being

327
placed on the estate. The scheme of the Bill was not inconsistent with the Registration of the Title Bill of the present Session. Indeed, it would facilitate the work of registration contemplated by that Measure. The Bill had the support of the representative body of the solicitors, the Incorporated Law Society. It introduced no novelty in principle, while on the other hand it rendered much technical and complicated law obsolete as regarded both purchasers and mortgages. He was quite conscious that the Bill would require careful consideration in Committee, when, no doubt, improvements would be suggested in its machinery which would greatly facilitate its working.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said the Bill was something in the nature of a new departure. He did not think the House ought to refuse to accept the Second Reading; but, at the same time, the Bill would, as the noble Lord who introduced it had frankly admitted, require careful consideration. He would, therefore, support the Second Reading, without expressing any absolute concurrence with this new scheme, subject to the arrangement that it should be referred for consideration to a Select Committee.
*LORD DAVEYsaid he had no objection to that course being taken.
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to a Select Committee.

ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order), Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be Read 3a To-morrow.
NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order), Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
PREFERENTIAL PAYMENTS IN BANKRUPTCY ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.
TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
*THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR)rose to call attention to the present system of private Bill legislation as affecting Scotland, and to present a Bill. He said he need not go at any length into the history of the system of private Bill legislation, because its principle was as well known to the great majority of their Lordships as it was to himself. But he might mention that the system as now known only dated from 1837. Prior to that time the House of Lords, like the House of Commons, carried its private Bill legislation through open Committees of the whole House. It was in 1837 that this House adopted the system of appointing Select Committees constituted of Members of the House who had no interest in the subject of the Bill. The same course was followed by the House of Commons seven years later in the case of railway Bills, but it was not until 1855 that all opposed private Bills were remitted to Select Committees in the House of Commons. Since that time attempts had been made at intervals in both Houses to reform the system. These efforts at reform had proceeded on two main lines. It had either been proposed that the private Bill should originate in Parliament, as at present, and that the Committee stage should be taken before some outside permanent tribunal, or else that the whole system of private Bill legislation should be referred to some such outside tribunal, and that the completed schemes only should come before Parliament for confirmation. The main object of every one of those proposals had been to relieve Parliament of the inconvenience and of the call upon the time of Members which was necessary for the due consideration of private Bills in the Committee stage. In 1869 it was suggested that this object should be attained by referring all private Bills to a Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of to a Select Committee of each House in turn, but that proposal did not at that time meet with much favour. In 1872 a series

329
of Resolutions were proposed in the House of Commons by Lord Monk Bretton, then Mr. Dodson, which had for their object to test the opinion of the House upon the system which would be involved in the setting up of a permanent tribunal of judicial persons for the consideration of private Bills. A very long discussion ensued, and the proposal was a good deal criticised, mainly upon the same ground that he thought would be advanced against it at the present time— namely, that such a tribunal would become tied by its own precedents, and that it would not yield to the varying desires of public opinion with sufficient rapidity. The Government of that day accepted a Resolution, which was unanimously carried, that the system of private Bill legislation called for the attention of Parliament and required reform. Following upon that, the proposal for a reform of private Bill legislation was taken up by the late Mr. Craig-Sellar, who introduced Bills in the House of Commons in the years 1885, 1886, and 1887. In none of those years, however, was a Bill fortunate enough to obtain its Second Reading. In 1888 a Joint Committee of both Houses was appointed, of which he had the honour to be a member, and the terms of reference instructed them to report how the system could be modified in the interests of suitors, of the economy of the time of Parliament, and of the reduction of costs and charges. A Report was presented, not unanimously, but by a majority of that Committee, with the object of constituting, not a wholly permanent tribunal, but one which differed from the tribunals which they now had for the consideration of the Committee stage of private Bills. Of course, the reference to that Committee was in regard to the whole system of private Bill legislation for the United Kingdom. In 1889 the Government of the day tried to introduce a reform, so far as Scotland was concerned, as a part of their scheme of local government for that country, but that part of the scheme was dropped, and it did not receive the assent of either House of Parliament. In 1890, 1891, and again in 1892, Bills were proposed by the Government, and in one case a Second Reading was obtained, and the
330
Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It was, however, a good deal altered by the Committee, and was not proceeded with. It was not too much to say, he thought, that every one of these attempts at reform of the system had failed either upon the question of the tribunal to which the Committee stage of Bills should be referred, upon the question of procedure, or upon the difficulty of defining to what Bills the new procedure should be applied. It was obvious that in the case of railway Bills it was not easy to find a definition which should be applicable to all cases. A small branch railway in Scotland was in all probability a purely local concern, but, if an attempt were made to amalgamate two of the large Scottish railways, it was quite clear that that was not only a Scottish question, but one which affected great English interests, and which should therefore be reserved for the consideration of Parliament. Then there was a class of Bills dealing with banking, insurance, and other companies; and, as the company law of the two countries was almost identical, it would be very inconvenient if new principles were established for one country which were not shared in by the other. It was very important that that class of Bills should not be withdrawn from real examination in Parliament. The need for some alteration in the present system was, however, really urgent, and it arose from two somewhat different causes— first, on account of the increasing dislike of Members of both Houses to the growing demands made upon their time; and, secondly, for local reasons. This desire for local inquiries he could assure their Lordships, was one which was very generally felt in Scotland; the demand by public authorities in Scotland to have the applications for Parliamentary powers in regard to local interests made the subject of local inquiry had recently acquired a very considerable addition of strength. There had been petitions from a great number of municipalities and County Councils in Scotland; and resolutions urging upon the Government the desirability of a change had also been passed by political associations, chambers of commerce, and many other bodies. The reasons advanced were the great expense attendant upon the present system, which was

331
a bar to many small schemes on account of the great initial cost, and the unfairness which, the great cost of Parliamentary inquiry entailed upon the opponents to large schemes who might not have the pecuniary means to present their objections which might be real and serious. He thought there was also a strong objection from a Scottish point of view to the entire centralisation in London of inquiries for purely local objects. Many such matters as extensions of municipal boundaries, proposals for fresh supplies of water, for tramway enterprise, and other matters ought, in the opinion of those interested, to be inquired into nearer the locality than was the case at present. He did not forget that, although separate Private Bills might affect only individual interests, yet the sum of all the interests that were involved in all the private Bills which came before Parliament was of very large importance. He certainly would not say anything which could be interpreted into hostility to the present form of tribunal. He dared say that mistakes were sometimes made, but upon the whole he believed the decisions of the Private Bills Committees, both of that House and of the other, were generally accepted as wise and fair. He believed that, so far as the individual tribunal was concerned, there was almost complete confidence in the system; the desirability of a change was based on other grounds. Certainly not the least valuable part of the present system was the general supervision over private Bill legislation, which was exercised by the Chairman of Committees of that House, and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other. As the result of many years' experience in the examination and amendment of Private Bills, the authorities of both Houses had settled the contents and phraseology of what were termed model Bills, which, with the necessary modifications, must be applied to all private Bills to which they referred. It was quite clear that Parliament could not part with authority over such matters as those, and he thought he should carry the House with him when he said that in such matters the proper amount of uniformity could only be maintained by keeping the ultimate control in the hands of both Houses through their Chairmen of Committees. So far as he was personally concerned he was not in favour of
332
the appointment of one permanent tribunal to do the work of examining private Bills. Such a tribunal, however able, would get into fixed habits and form fixed prejudices out of which it would be difficult for them to raise themselves, and he was pretty certain that if such a tribunal had obtained in the past it would not so readily have adapted itself to the changed circumstances and demands of public opinion as had been the case with Private Bills Committees conducted and controlled by decisions of both Houses. In the consideration of possible reforms they were face to face with the fact that no scheme which had ever been mooted had attempted to do away with the ultimate control of Parliament. But the problem which had been fatal to many of these schemes had been this—how to make the control of Parliament real and effective, and yet get rid from Parliament of the labour of the Committee stage. As he had said, all the proposals that had been made had been on one of two main lines—one, that Bills originated in Parliament should be referred to the tribunal for the Committee stage, and come back again after consideration; another, that Bills should originate before a permanent Commission, and only come to Parliament in the form of completed schemes. It seemed to him that there were two objections which would always prove fatal to such proposals. Was the tribunal in either case to give reasons for its decision? If it did not, Parliament would have no material on which to form a judgment on appeal. If it did give reasons he was nearly certain it would become hidebound by precedents of its own creation, and it would be unfair to promoters. Either of these proposals would lead to more of the time—certainly of the House of Commons—being occupied in discussing private Bills on their merits, and whether they should be referred back to the tribunal or rejected. From the present demands on the time of the other House he felt that any system which led to an extension of the practice of private Bills in the whole House would not meet with general acceptance. The main, objection to the present system, was the demand it made on the time of Members, and the expense to which it put those concerned. The main object to be aimed at in any reform was to do away with these two

333
objections, or to obviate them as far as possible. Now, there was a well-tried system in existence which exactly met the conditions he had laid down. He referred to the system under which Provisional Orders were granted, and the main proposal of the Bill was to assimilate Scottish Private Bill procedure to that which was now pursued in the case of Provisional Orders. As he had said there might be some schemes of such magnitude or nature as were not fitted for this procedure. He did not attempt to define them in the Bill. But it was proposed that if anyone interested in a Provisional Order, whether petitioner or opponent, thought the subject-matter of the Order was of sufficient magnitude and importance to be dealt with in the form of a Private Bill, he could petition the Secretary for Scotland to that effect. The Secretary for Scotland would lay the petition before the Chairman of Committees in each House, and these three—the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairman of Committees of each House—would be the tribunal to decide whether the subject-matter of the Order should be dealt with by Provisional Order, or was one that might be more properly dealt with by a Private Bill. The Private Bill system was at the present time worked by no less than 14 Government Departments, which worked under about 30 different Acts of Parliament. The procedure was well known, and he would not describe it in detail. A petition was presented by the corporation or individuals who desired Parliamentary powers, to the Department to promulgate a draft Order. The petition and draft order were referred to a tribunal selected by the Department, and on the report of that tribunal the Department decided whether it would grant the order and lay it before Parliament, or whether it would refuse the petition. The Provisional Order system had been successful in the past. Certainly it was cheaper than the present system of private Bill legislation, and it afforded facilities for local inquiries which might be in any part of the Kingdom affected. During the last 10 years the Board of Trade had made 624 Provisional Orders. Of these, only 62 were petitioned against, and only 19 of the 62 were rejected or amended. So he might claim that the system of Provisional Orders had been successful in the past, and there was no reason why, under the
334
safeguards of the Bill it should not be applied to matters of greater importance and larger magnitude than had been the case hitherto. During the last 10 years the Scotch Office had put 28 Provisional Orders before Parliament, of which only three had been opposed, and two rejected. The system proposed under the Bill was that the promoters of a scheme should lodge a draft Provisional Order with the Secretary for Scotland, and copies with all the Departments concerned, and the Private Bill Office of both Houses. The object of this was to preserve general control over the model clauses, and the Chairman of Committees of both Houses, or anyone interested, might petition in the manner described to have the matter dealt with by Private Bill rather than by Provisional Order. Assuming that such a petition were not presented, or the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees decided that the proposal was a proper one for procedure by Provisional Order, the special procedure would be this: the Secretary for Scotland, acting with the Chairmen of Committees, would settle the tribunal which was to hear the opposition, if any, to the Order. This tribunal would be selected in the following way. It would consist either of a Judge of the Court of Session, or the Sheriff of one of the counties, either of whom would be selected by the President of the Court of Session. Along with this judicial person would be two lay Commissioners, who would be selected from a panel of twelve, and would remain in force for five years. The panel of twelve would be convened in this way. The Conveners of the County Councils of Scotland and some representatives of the boroughs would meet under the Chairmanship of the Secretary for Scotland, and would select twelve persons in whom they had confidence to form the panel from which the individual two would be selected by the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees to try each case that might be brought before them. If that tribunal made any alteration in the draft Order it would be the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to submit to the Chairmen of Committees of both Houses the Order in its new form, and if there were anything in their opinion contrary to the general legislation sanctioned by Parliament, it would

335
be their business to communicate them to him. If against the Order so adjusted no memorial were presented, it would become final. But if anyone felt himself aggrieved and desired to take the opinion of a Parliamentary Committee it would be possible for him to present a petition to the Secretary for Scotland, upon which the Secretary for Scotland would be bound to lay the Order before Parliament in the form of a confirming Bill. When it got to Parliament a Joint Committee of both Houses would be formed to consider it, before whom, subject to liability for costs, any opponent might be heard. The proposal for a Joint Committee might not meet with universal acceptance. But he contended that it was a rational proposal, would economise a great deal of time, and it was the only method he could think of —if there were other methods he should be glad to hear of them—by which the control of Parliament could be effectively preserved without taking an undue amount of the time of Members or putting to undue expense those who had to appear before the tribunal. If, in addition to a local inquiry, they had first a Committee of one House, and possibly a Committee of another, they would not do anything to cheapen the cost of Private Bill procedure. But he believed there would not be many cases in which after a local inquiry an appeal would be made to Parliament. The experience of Provisional Order procedure strengthened that belief. No doubt the scheme he had endeavoured to outline was in some points open to criticism. The difficulty of the whole subject was great, as had been proved by its past history. He had done his best to make this a practical scheme. If it preserved the control, of Parliament it would be found to have many advantages. It provided for a local inquiry before a, competent yet not permanent tribunal. It enabled Parliamentary powers to be obtained without coming to Westminster, if opponents and promoters were satisfied. The Parliamentary inquiry, if demanded, would be a single one by a Joint Committee and not a double one by a Select Committee of each House, and certainly the supremacy of Parliament would be preserved in every case in which anyone who was interested desired to appeal to it. At the same time adequate safeguards were provided against any Parliamentary powers being granted which would be
336
inconsistent with the general practice of Parliament or the due protection of the public interest. He was sure the House greatly regretted the absence from its precincts of Sir Joseph Warner, who was along and well-tried servant of successive Chairmen of Committees. He thought it right to consult Sir Joseph as to these proposals, and he had had a letter from him in which, while making some criticisms— to some of which he had endeavoured to give effect—he said that he considered this—
"the best practical scheme for localising Private Bill legislation that he had yet seen suggested by a competent authority."
The scheme was put forward with a full consciousness of the many difficulties of the question. He hoped he had been able to give an intelligible account of the Government's proposals, and he had thought it right in a matter of this magnitude to explain the scheme before the Bill was read a First time. ["Hear, hear!"] After this explanation he begged to move that the Bill be read a First time. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought that men of all parties in Scotland were agreed that a change in Private Bill procedure in regard to that country was desirable, therefore he was able heartily to congratulate his noble Friend in having seized that opinion, and having endeavoured to some extent to meet it. It seemed to him, however, that the best ground, both for attack and defence of the Bill, would be found in the sentence: "It is such a little one." Without entering into any criticism of the Bill, he would point out that practically it would only deal with one very small section of private business—namely, that which was likely to be unopposed. If a Bill were likely to be seriously opposed it would, under the scheme, naturally come before Parliament in very much the same fashion as now. He quite admitted that, with regard to matters which were sometimes now dealt with by Provisional Orders, and sometimes by unopposed Private Bills, it would give new facilities and prove less expensive than the present system. But the necessity of this change had always been urged on the ground of the desirability of devolving from Parliament a great deal of its business down to the country, not merely unopposed, but also opposed, private business, and so giving

337
larger scope to the expression of local opinion. It seemed to him that the Bill would not carry out this idea, except in the case of those Bills which were not likely to be opposed; and in the case of all great Bills it would still be necessary to come to Parliament. He did not think that Scotch opinion would be satisfied with merely having facilities given for the easier passage of unopposed private business, but would demand that private business as a whole should be dealt with by Scotsmen in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNdesired to ask two questions. The noble Lord had said that any person wishing to proceed by Provisional Order would petition. In that case who would draw up and start the Provisional Order? In regard to the panel of 12 men from whom the tribunal of two was to be selected, was it proposed to pay the members of that panel?
*LORD BALFOURreplied that the promoters would lodge the draft Order which they desired should be made. With regard to the second question, it was proposed that the two lay commissioners should be paid for the time they sat on the tribunal. It was not proposed that they should be salaried officials, or that any vested interest should be created. They would be eligible to serve for a period of five years, and might be re-appointed to that office or might not. It would rest with the Secretary for Scotland and Chairmen of Committees to select those who were to sit with the Judge or Sheriff on each case, and for the time that they sat such remuneration would be paid them as might be fixed by the Treasury.
LORD MORRISregarded the Bill as one which made a step in the right direction, but desired to know why a Measure of this kind was made applicable to Scotland and not to Ireland. There had been much agitation on the part of the Chambers of Commerce, leading merchants, and others interested in Ireland on this question, complaints being made of the enormous expense to which the country was put in Private Bill legislation. Every reason his noble Friend had given applied a fortiori to Ireland. It was a poorer country, more distant, and it was more oppressive and expensive for her people to come over her to pass unopposed Bills, or Bills to which there might be some opposition. He should be glad to know why this Bill had not been made appli-
338
cable to Ireland, as it could have been by very slight alteration.
Bill to provide for improving and extending the procedure for obtaining Parliamentary powers by way of Provisional Orders in matters relating to Scotland; presented by Lord Balfour; and Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Read 2a on Thursday next.—[No. 81.]

LAND VALUATION (IRELAND).
*VISCOUNT CLIFDENrose to ask the Prime Minister if he would have printed and laid on the Table the
"instructions to the valuators and surveyors appointed under the 15th and 16th Vict. cap. 3, for the uniform valuation of lands and tenements in Ireland."
by Colonel Griffith in the year 1853. He thought it was a very good time for these instructions made some 45 years ago, to be brought to light again. he was sorry to say that by the action of Parliament any valuation of that sort had become obsolete. Comparisons, if fairly conducted, might lead them to some tangible and reasonable result, and if noble Lords would look through these rules they would find that they were a marvel of honesty, industry, and intelligence. For instance, there were 64 instructions in connection with the valuation of tenements. How many of these instructions would the Land Commissioners who were now valuing Ireland look into? These men were reducing the landlords to abject poverty, and were taking the land out of the hands of one set of people to give it to another. They had had the official announcement from a noble Earl—who, he was sorry to say, was leaving them for the Antipodes— that there was no test or examination whatever for the new Sub-Commissioners when they were appointed, but that all of them had been seen by that eminent agriculturist, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. [Laughter.] Whether that was or was not sufficient for the English people he did not know, but it was not sufficient for him and those who thought with him, and he wanted English peers to understand what was well done some 45 years ago under instructions which were now thrown into the waste-paper basket.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHobserved that, at the request of the Prime Minister, he would reply to the Question, of the noble Lord. He was afraid the Government considered that, as it was some 44 years since the instructions referred to were issued, it was not advisable to have them reprinted and laid on the Table as suggested. When the Question was put down, it was not known whether the noble Lord was asking for information, or whether, as it now appeared, he was asking that the rules should be printed for the information of their Lordships; and he had brought down with him a copy of the instructions for the benefit of the noble Lord, who he now found did not require it. He was sorry the noble Lord had fault to find with the valuations as now carried on, but the House would hardly expect him to embark at this time upon such a thorny subject as the treatment of the land question in Ireland.
*VISCOUNT CLIFDENthought he had gathered the noble Lord's determination, but he had not absolutely said he would not have the instructions printed. Again, the noble Lord had only very incorrectly noticed what had been put down in the Question on the Paper. He wanted to have the instructions which the noble Lord held in his hand, printed and laid on the Table of the House. Why should they not be put into the form of a Parliamentary Paper, and laid on the Table? ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF DENBIGHbelieved that the instructions were obtainable by any noble Lord who wished to see them. His instructions from the Irish Office were that the Government considered it to be inadvisable to print them, inasmuch as they were printed so long ago.
*VISCOUNT CLIFDENsaid that this might be a good reason against reading the Bible, though he did not agree with it. [Laughter.] The statement containing the rules would be just as good now as it was when printed. It was very difficult to get the book. He had a copy of the volume, though it was not his own; but the book was a very different thing from having the instructions laid on the Table of the House as a Parliamentary Paper with the imprimatur of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] He gathered, however, that the Government did not wish English peers to know how land should be valued in Ireland.
EARL SPENCERsupported the appeal of the noble Viscount. He failed to see the force of the argument of the noble Earl against granting this Return. There could be no doubt that this was a matter of deep interest to all who were connected with Irish land. Griffith's valuation had always been looked upon as a. valuable and excellent document. He was not sure whether these regulations were confidential; but, if they were not, he thought that the argument which the noble Earl had used as to their being printed so long ago ought not to prevail. ["Hear, hear!"]
House adjourned at Five minutes past Six o'Clock, till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.