Sitting of 17 July 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
    WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
    Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [Lords].

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL [Lords].
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL [Lords].
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords].
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
    Read the third time, and passed, without Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. PERKSBefore this Bill is read the third time I want to point out that the clause relating to preaching on the sands at Rhyl has no doubt been greatly modified. But the provision in the Provisional Order does not really do more than maintain the old common law. What I wish to say without opposing this Bill and putting off the Third Reading in consequence, is simply that the Wesleyan Church has had furnished to it a very long list of bye-laws of county councils and boroughs which contain the original powers which have been modified in this Order, and we shall do our best, when opportunity offers, to get the law altered so that the right of public preaching may be unrestrained, and in any case that these bye-laws may conform to the improved conditions which the Committee have unanimously imposed on the town of Rhyl.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Shillington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  Petition from Southampton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKHOUSES (CONFINEMENT CASES) (DETENTION OF MOTHERS OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN).
  Petition from Orsett, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 30th June—Mr. Pirie]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Return as to the Capital, Traffic Receipts, and Working Expenditure, etc., of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]
  GLANDERS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into and report upon the working of the Diseases of Animals Acts in so far as they relate to Glanders; together with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendixes, etc. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2318 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TUNIS (EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE.)
  Address for "Return showing the value of goods exported into Tunis by Great Britain and France respectively in the years 1880, 1885, 1890, 1895, and 1897."—(Mr. Crombie.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    BRITISH NAVAL OFFICERS IN THE SOUDAN.
    LOARD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that British military officers serving in the Soudan were allowed to count their time for promotion, under Article 22 of the Royal Warrant for Pay and Promotion, and for retirement, under Article 500 (a) and (c), will he explain why British naval officers serving before the enemy in the Soudan campaigns are not allowed to count their time for promotion and for retirement; and in view of the fact that the naval officer commanding the Naval Brigade in the 1884–5 campaign was not allowed to count that time towards promotion, and the naval officer commanding the Naval Brigade in the 1896–8 campaign was not allowed to count his time towards retirement, whether he can see his way to recommending Her Majesty that in future all naval officers on active service before the enemy, assisting the Army in land campaigns, shall be allowed to count such time for promotion and pension after they have served three years in command of a ship-of-war at sea, whether such command takes place before or after their service on shore.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The noble Lord is in error in supposing that the British naval officers serving in the Soudan on the occasions in question were not allowed to count their time for retirement. Under the regulations the time has been allowed to count in full towards retirement, but not for promotion. With reference to promotion, the conditions of the naval and military services are obviously dissimilar. The Admiralty have always attached the greatest importance to the strict fulfilment of the conditions which require for the promotion of naval officers certain fixed periods of service in a ship-of-war at

    991
    sea. Although, in the case of captains, service obtained previously to the fulfilment of this condition counts towards increase of their full and half pay, and pension, and retirement, it is not allowed to count towards promotion. To this rule it is intended to adhere. The previous qualification of three years' service required in the case of captains has, by a recent Order in Council, been reduced to two. In no case has it occurred that officers employed in such services as those mentioned in the question have failed to obtain the necessary time for promotion.

    ARTIFICIAL DYES FOR NAVY SERGE.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a firm of dyers in Wellington, Somerset, have purchased forty tons of foreign artificial indigo, and are using it for dyeing Navy contract cloth; and whether, to ensure the Navy getting the class of goods paid for, he will have the word "natural" inserted before the word "indigo" in all future Navy contracts for cloth.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY,): I have no information as to the purchase alluded to in the first paragraph of my noble friend's question; but no contract is at present held by any firm in Wellington for cloth. I am considering whether the use of a natural dye can be secured by an alteration in the specification.

    ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
    CAPTAIN GREVILLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the dates fixed for entry, 17th July, and of examination, 28th July, of candidates for the Army Medical Service will have the effect of excluding from competition young men who may have obtained their diplomas at the Victoria University and other examining bodies during the month of July, but the results of whose examinations are not published till 27th July; and whether it would be possible to postpone the dates of entry and examination for a few weeks in order to allow successful students to compete.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The
    992
    date of the examination was notified on the 10th May, and appeared in the newspapers on the 12th May. The first intimation that the date would debar University candidates reached the War Office on the 11th July, when it was too late to alter the arrangements.

    BARRACKS, NEW AND OLD.
    SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will cause a map of the United Kingdom to be placed in the Tea Room for the information of Members, distinguishing by coloured dashes and combination of coloured dashes sites of barracks in existence in 1871; sites where barracks were altered or built under the provisions of the Localisation Act, 1872; sites where barracks were altered, or built, or are in process of building, under the provisions of the Barrack Act, 1897; sites where barracks were altered, built, or are in process of building, under the provisions of the Barrack Act, 1890; sites where barracks are to be altered or built under the provisions of the Military Works Bill; and enclosing in a black circle those sites disused, and the date of their disuse, since 1871.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot promise a map exhibiting all the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, but I will have one prepared giving as much detail as can be collected without undue delay.
    SIR. J. COLOMB: Will it be in the Library before the Committee Stage of the Works Bill is reached?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That will depend on the arrangement of the business of the House. I hope to get it done within the week.

    NAVAL OFFICERS IN WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the official statement that the work in Woolwich Arsenal would be carried out jointly by naval and military officers, will he state how many naval officers are now employed in the Arsenal, and whether any of them are under notice to leave; if so, how many, and how many naval officers will remain; also, how many inspecting officers there are, and how many are naval men; and,

    993
    whether, in view of the experience of naval officers in gnus and gun mounting, and their special knowledge of naval requirements, he will consider the advisability of employing as many naval officers as military officers in the Arsenal.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Two naval officers were formerly employed in the Arsenal. The posts held by them have been abolished, and a fresh post will be created, which will always be filled by a naval officer. Only three naval officers have qualified for the Inspection Staff, and they are all now employed as inspectors, one of them at Woolwich. It is not easy to find highly qualified naval officers willing to give up the sea service necessary to advancement in order to take an appointment on shore. The Secretary of State and the First Lord of the Admiralty have not failed to confer with reference to the employment of naval officers in the Arsenal.
    SIR J. COLOMB: Does "naval officers" include officers of the Royal Marine Artillery?
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, some officers of the Royal Marine Artillery employed, but the figures I have given I think refer only to officers of the Royal Navy.

    CANTEEN AND MESS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reference to the contract for groceries, provisions, &c., in Cork Military District, whether he has seen a list of the prices for articles largely in consumption at which a local firm and the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society respectively tendered to supply; whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to why the contract for groups 2 and 4, groceries, provisions, etc., was placed with the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society at prices higher than tendered for by a local contractor who had previously satisfactorily supplied the Cork District for many years; and can he state whether the General Officer at present commanding the Cork District is bound by the promise of the Secretary of State for War in April, 1895, to the effect that the Department was moving in the direction of procuring good articles at
    994
    a moderate price in the district itself; and, if so, will the attention of the General Officer commanding be called to the declaration of general policy in regard to contracts for military supplies.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (M r. J. POWELL WILUAINIS,): In answer to the first paragraph of the question, I have to say that I have seen an incomplete list of prices furnished to me by the hon. Member. Comparison of articles by price list irrespective of quality is no guarantee of value; the contract for groups 2 and 4 was placed with the Cooperative Society on account of the better value offered to the soldier. I find on inquiry that the board which selected this society for groups 2 and 4 also selected local firms for other groups, and there seems no reason why their judgment should have erred in one case and not in the other. In answer to the third paragraph, the General Officer commanding, Cork, favours the placing of canteen contracts locally, provided that the interests of the soldier do not suffer thereby.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion referred to in the question the late Secretary for War expressed the opinion that the sounder system was to permit canteen committees to exercise their own discretion in these matters?
    MR J. POWELL WILLAMS: That is precisely what they do do.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office is he aware that Major Rawnsley, who has recently been appointed Inspector of Canteen Supplies in Cork Military District, was connected with the board of the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society in 1896: and whether it is in accordance with the rules of the Service that a trading society so closely connected with officers on active service should compete with ordinary traders in the contracts for military supplies, in view of the fact that these officers are concerned in the approval or rejection of tenders.
    MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS: It is a part of the duty of Major Rawnsley, as an officer of the Army Service Corps, to assist in inspecting canteen supplies; but the canteen management of each district is subject to the periodical independent

    995
    inspections of the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-Generals for Supply Inspection, neither of whom are interested in the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society. The second paragraph of the hon. Member's question has already been answered.

    RED SEA TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the sum in rupees payable this year from the revenue of India to the late Red Sea Telegraph Company; how much has been contributed from the revenues of India to that company since 1865, when its cable was lost; on what ground has this contribution been made; and can any plan of commutation or compromise be arranged with the representatives of the late company for the relief of the Indian revenue from this charge.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODTICK, Surrey,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer the question addressed to him to-day. The reply to this question is as follows: In round figures the payment this year on account of Red Sea and Indian Telegraphs is estimated at 274,000 rupees; the exact payment will be £18,027. The payments since the 1st of April, 1865, have been £18,027 for thirty-four years (excluding, the current year), amounting to £512,918. The contribution is made to Her Majesty's Exchequer under the provisions of the Red Sea and India Telegraph Company Act of 1862 (25 and 26 Vict., c. 39, sec. 7). The last payment will be made on the 4th of August, 1908.

    CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL BILL.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state whether any recommendations have been made by the Viceroy to the Legislative Council of Bengal in regard to the composition of the corporation and of the general committee under the Calcutta Municipal Bill at present under consideration; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state their nature.
    MR. BRODRICK (for Lord G. HAMILTON): The Government of India, after receiving the Calcutta Municipal
    996
    Bill as amended by the Select Committee of the Local Legislative, is consulting the Bengal Government as to the attitude of the Government on the further stage of the Bill. At the present time, while discussion between the two Governments is proceeding, it would not be convenient for me to make any statement regarding the views of the Government of India on the subject.

    PRINCE RANJITSINGJI.
    The following question appeared on the Paper:—
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether in September, 1878, Kumar Shri Ranjitsingji Vibhaji, commonly known as Prince Ranjitsingji, was formerly raised by his adoptive father, the late Jam Saheb of Nowanagar, to be the heir and successor of His Highness to the Gadi of Nowanagar, in accordance with Rajput custom, with the sanction and approval of the Indian Government, subject to the condition that nothing should be allowed to disturb his settled status and succession except the birth of a son born to Jam Saheb by one of his Rajput wives, wedded to him by such nuptial ties as alone were sanctioned amongst Rajputs by law, custom, and religion, and were then entitled to the rank, dignity, and appellation of a Rani; whether he is aware that the late Jam Saheb had thirteen legitimate Rani wives and five Mohammedan concubines, four of whom were sisters, and that none of the Rani wives bore him a son who survived; will he explain why in 1885, notwithstanding the above arrangement, the Indian Government, without any previous notice to Prince Ranjitsingji or his natural father, and without public and legal inquiry into the facts, decided to allow the Jam Saheb to set aside Prince Ranjitsingji as heir to the Gadi in favour of Jasvantsingji, the son of one of the aforesaid Mohammedan concubines, who was not a Rani, and whose son, even if born to the Jam Saheb, was excluded from the succession by the instrument to which the Government was a party, under which Prince Ranjitsingji's adoption and heirship could only be nullified by the birth of a legitimate son to a Rani; whether, in spite of repeated applications, Prince Ranjitsingji has not been informed

    997
    by the Indian Government of the grounds on which the Gadi was taken from him, and has been refused any inquiry into his rights; and whether he will order that a commission of inquiry shall issue as to the legal rights of Prince Ranjitsingji in the circumstances, under Rajput law and custom, and the engagement of the Indian Government.
    The Question was not asked, the hon. Member in whose name it stood having postponed it at the request of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I desire to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for an hon. Member of this House to suggest, as is done in this question, that a native Prince who has been duly recognised by the Government of India may not be the son of Ids supposed father, and that his mother was one of a family of four sisters, who were all concubines of the late Rajah?
    MR. SPEAKER: The question, I understand, is not asked at present. The hon. Member had better wait until it is asked.
    SIR H. H. FOWLER: May I call your attention to the question, Sir, and ask you whether it is in order to put into a question a great many disputed questions as statements of fact? It is a very serious mode of making accusations both against the Government of India and certain native Princes which, I think, when the Question comes to be answered, will be found to be without basis in fact.
    MR. SPEAKER: My attention has not been particularly called to the exact framing of the question, but I will look at it carefully; and if I think it is irregular I will take care that it is put down in an amended shape or not at all.

    PRECAUTIONS AGAINST PLAGUE.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the danger of the advance of plague by way of Persia and Turkey into Europe; and whether they are taking, or will take, steps to obtain the co-operation of the Great Powers in inducing the Governments of Persia and Turkey to
    998
    take effectual measures for checking the advance of plague in those countries.
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government believe that the principles of the Venice (Plague) Convention of 1897 are sufficient to protect any country adopting them from the danger of an invasion of plague. That Convention is based on the principle that a country should place its sanitary organisation in such a condition that it can easily deal with any case of plague that may be imported into or be detected in its territory. Her Majesty's Government would be very glad to see the Governments of Persia and Turkey place their sanitary organisation in a condition that would enable them to adopt the Convention and carry out its provisions, and have, in concert with the other Signatory Powers, taken steps to make their views known to the Governments in question.

    TRANSVAAL AFFAIRS.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could, consistently with the public interest, now state the number of Uitlanders in the South African Republic that would within a reasonable time receive the franchise for the first Volksraad; and how many seats they would be able to command under the latest proposals of President Kruger.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not know what the hon. Member means by a reasonable time, but Sir A. Milner considers that under President Kruger's scheme the number enfranchised would be considerably less than half of those who might come in under Sir. A. Milner's. As regards the second question, Sir A. Milner says it is uncertain whether they would be able to command any of the four seats, although it cannot be positively affirmed that they would not.
    MR. J. M. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that is President Kruger's own version of the law, as he is now in communication with him?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening to my reply, he would have heard that I had stated it on Sir Alfred Milner's authority.
    MR. COURTNEY: Is my right hon. friend able to say within what time the half would come on. Would it be immediately?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that it means immediately. There would immediately be something considerably less than one-half of the number that would come on under Sir Alfred Milner's scheme. But whatever number comes on, in Sir Alfred Milner's opinion it is not certain they would gain a seat.
    MR. DAVITT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon half of the people of India will be admitted to the franchise?
    (No answer was given to the question).
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the three batteries of artillery stated by him to be under orders for South Africa are reliefs or reinforcements.
    MR. WYNDHAM: They are sent as reliefs; but if circumstances should require such a step, the batteries now in South Africa might be retained, and the reliefs in that case would become reinforcements.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any foundation for the statement in the Cape Times that Sir Alfred Milner's despatch of 4th May was not intended for immediate publication.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    SOUTH AMERICAN LIVE STOCK TRADE.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state how many vessels in the South American live stock trade were blacklisted; and how many of those have been released, and for what reason.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on the 7th inst. with regard to this question, which reappears on the Paper in the same form later on.

    THE DOG MUZZLING ORDER IN YORKSHIRE.
    COLONEL GUNTER:: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is now in a position to say when the muzzling order will be taken off the agricultural parts of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    MR. LONG: I am not yet in a position to make any definite announcement on this subject, but I recognise the patience and co-operation which has been extended to me in the performance of a difficult duty, and I hope it may not be long before I am able to give effect to the wishes of my hon. and gallant friend and his colleagues in this matter. In the case of the West Riding the only obstacle is my desire to complete the arrangements, necessary for preventing the re-introduction of the disease.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
    MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the amounts which will be deducted from the sums payable to the Counties of Devonshire, Exeter, Plymouth, and Devonport, respectively, out of the. Local Taxation Grant under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill.
    MR. LONG: The share of the counties and county boroughs named in a sum of £87,000 distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants" would amount to £1,297, £123, £183, and £100, respectively.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Sheffield City Council are correct in estimating that the effect of the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill will be to diminish the amount receivable by Sheffield in aid of the rates to the extent of about £700 per annum, none of which will, under the Bill, be receivable by Sheffield clergy.
    MR. LONG: The share of Sheffield in a sum of £87,000 distributed on the basis of the "discontinued grants" is £686. I cannot say definitely what operation the Bill would have so far as the incumbents of benefices within the borough are concerned, but my impression is that in the case of one of the townships some little relief will be given. In most of the others land appears to have been allotted

    1001
    in lieu of tithes prior to 1836; but whether the land is rateable, and if so, on what basis, I have no means of knowing.

    IRISH CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a uniform is issued to, and must be worn on duty by Customs Officers in Ireland; what is the first cost of the uniform for each grade of officer to the State; and what is the amount which the officer of each grade is obliged to pay for the uniform. I beg further to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government supply uniforms to Customs Officers in Ireland: what is the price paid per uniform by the State; and what is the price charged for the uniform to each officer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): Uniform must be worn by Customs Officers when on duty. There is no charge by the State to Customs Officers of any rank for their uniform. Some of the lower grades of officers are supplied with uniforms at the public expense. Other Customs Officers procure their uniforms at their own expense. In the latter case, I have no means of knowing the amounts paid by individual officers.

    BURIAL LAWS.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State fur the Home Department whether, in view of legislation for the amendment of the Burial Laws, he will refrain from compelling burial authorities who have to provide additional unconsecrated ground in cemeteries to also provide additional consecrated ground, although it is not at the present time required.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): While the law as to the consecration of burial grounds stands I must, of course, enforce it; but it is quite consistent with the practice of the Home Office in doing so that where sufficient consecrated ground exists for present uses the consecration of a portion of any additional ground should be postponed.

    CASE OF MARY ANSELL.
    MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question of which I have given him private notice; whether, with reference to the decision arrived at in regard to the case of Mary Ansell, consideration was given to the fact that her two sisters are insane; that all her. mother's sisters died ill asylums; that Dr. Forbes Winslow, the eminent specialist, has pronounced as his emphatic opinion that the prisoner was not responsible for her actions; and, further, that no evidence on the question of insanity was produced at the trial; and whether he has any objection to the publication of the Report of the two experts appointed to inquire into the case.
    SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Following the course which has always been adopted by my predecessors, I must decline to lay before the House a Report made for the purpose of assisting me in giving advice to Her Majesty, for which I alone am responsible. I may, however, state that all the circumstances of the case, including the family history of the convict, were most anxiously considered by me as well as by those who assisted me. The opinion of Dr. Forbes Winslow—who was, however, not consulted by me—was also before me and was fully considered.

    THE COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will bring to the knowledge of boards of guardians by circular the portions of the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill which can be carried out under the existing law; and what portions of the Report would need legislation.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire,): The Report of the Select Committee referred to was only delivered a few days since, and the evidence taken by the Committee has not yet been issued. I am considering the Report, but I am not at present in a position to say what course should be adopted with regard to it. Legislation would apparently be required to give effect to some at least of the recommendations, but the question of legislation is

    1003
    not urgent, for in any case it could not be attempted this session.

    MARYLEBONE INFIRMARY.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has sanctioned the Marylebone Board of Guardians' expenditure of £12,000 on a new infirmary, probation wards, and receiving house at their schools at Southall; and if he will state what is to be done with the old infirmary, probation ward, and receiving house.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The expenditure will include the conversion of the present infirmary into class rooms. There is at present no probationary ward or receiving house at Southall. There will be no addition to the number of children certified for the school.

    TREATMENT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
    MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return of the number of children who are in infirmaries, workhouses, schools, scattered homes, certified homes, or are boarded out; of the number of such children who are under the care of each inspector, with the areas in winch the inspection is arranged.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The particulars which my hon. friend asks for in the first part of his question will be found in the half-yearly Returns of pauperism which are presented to Parliament of the number of children maintained by the guardians. The latest of these Returns was ordered on the 8th March and issued in May, 1899, and I would draw the attention of my hon. friend to the figures in this Return. With regard to the second part of the question, these children are inspected by a variety of different inspectors, according to the class to which they belong. I am not quite clear whether my hon. friend refers to all or to some of these inspectors, nor would it be easy in any case to give the information on these points.

    SUTTON SCHOOLS.
    MR. TREVELVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Metropolitan Asylums Board have purchased the Sutton Schools at a price
    1004
    of £203,000, and propose to transfer the improvable children from Darenth Asylum to the boys' and infants' blocks; whether the Local Government Board have assented to this expenditure for this purpose; how many children these blocks will accommodate; and whether the Local Government Board are advised that the strong recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Defective and Epileptic Children, that no more than twenty children should be accommodated in one home, can safely be neglected in this case; if not, whether he proposes to take any steps to see that the recommendations are not neglected.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The Metropolitan Asylums Board have agreed to purchase the property referred to, and the necessary Order will shortly be issued by the Local Government Board. It is believed that the Asylums Board contemplate using the infants' block for the reception of improvable imbecile children; but the scheme has not yet been formally submitted to the Local Government Board. The exact accommodation in the blocks in question cannot yet be stated, but the Committee of the Asylums Board, who visited them, estimated that the infants' block would accommodate 250, and the boys' block 450 imbeciles. The Local Government Board are advised that the premises can be rendered suitable for the proposed purpose, but the details have not yet been settled. It must be borne in mind that the children at Darenth are certified imbeciles, and are not defective children of the kind to which the Report of the Departmental Committee mentioned in the question related.

    LONDON SCHOOL BOARD EXPENDITURE.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the auditor of the London School Board having disallowed important items of expenditure in connection with science and art classes under the Board, the Education Department will take steps to prevent the Board from continuing to incur this illegal expenditure for the new school year, beginning next September, in defiance of the auditor's decision; whether continued illegal action by the Board renders it liable to be declared in default; and what steps will the Department take.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Committee of Council have no reason to believe that the London or any other School Board will deliberately break the law. But it is not their duty to supervise the expenditure by School Boards of the school rate, and they are advised that anillegal application of such rate would not justify them in declaring a School Board in default.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is my right hon. friend aware that the School Board referred to has, within his own knowledge, specifically broken the law?
    SIR J. GORST: It is not within my official knowledge. I have seen in the ordinary channels of information that the Auditor has surcharged certain items, but I am also informed, through the same channels, that the London School Board has appealed against the decision.

    SECRETARY FOR SECONDARY EDUCATION.
    MR. JEBB: I Beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the appointment recently announced of a Principal Assistant Secretary of the Science and Art Department, and a Principal Assistant Secretary of the Education Department, is to be understood as indicating that it is contemplated to organise the Education Office in two principal departments only—one for elementary and the other for technical education, secondary education proper being treated as subsidiary to, or included in the latter; whether he is aware that the willingness to accept inspection which has been intimated by the authorities of many public secondary schools rested on the belief, created by the speeches of the Lord President of the Council on 1st August, 1898, and 2nd May, 1899, that in the re-organised Education Office there would be a department for secondary education proper, separate from that for technical education, or including the latter as a sub-division; and whether he can give an assurance that, in any re-constitution of the Education Office which may follow the passing of the Board of Education Bill, secondary education shall be represented by a secretary distinct from, and not subordinate
    1006
    to, those who have charge of elementary and technical education respectively.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg at the same time to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, with a view to allaying certain apprehensions entertained by teachers in the higher secondary schools, he will state, either now or when the Board of Education Bill comes again before the House, the administrative arrangements which Her Majesty's Government contemplate for enabling the proposed Board of Education to discharge the new duties proposed to be entrusted to it with regard to secondary and technical education, so far as any conclusions regarding those arrangements have yet been reached.
    SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council are of opinion that the work of the Board of Education in relation to secondary education will differ widely in character and extent from that which relates to elementary education and science and art teaching. The division of the Board charged with secondary education proper cannot be completely organised till some experience has been obtained of the extent and character of the work. But it is not intended to entrust this work to either of the existing Departments, but to a third official, whose responsibility to the principal secretary will be distinct from and equal to that of the two existing assistant secretaries. Instructions to that effect will be given to the Departmental Committee which will consider the organisation of the Department.
    MR. BRYCE: Is it intended that this Departmental Committee shall begin to consider this question as soon as the Bill now before the House has passed?
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will a representative of secondary education be placed on this Departmental Committee?
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I must also have notice of that question.

    ORKNEY SHERIFF CLERK.
    SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the condi-

    1007
    tions on which the Sheriff Clerk for Orkney was appointed, and particularly whether these terms precluded him from acting as factor for local proprietors.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The commission of the Sheriff Clerk of Orkney, who was appointed in 1892, is in the same terms as that of his predecessor. I have no information as to what duties the Sheriff Clerk is able to perform for local proprietors, but he is not precluded from undertaking them by the terms of his commission.

    CABLE COMMUNICATION WITH IRELAND.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can state how much money has been spent upon laying cables between England and Ireland, and what has been the financial result to the Government; whether complaints have been received regarding insufficient means of telegraphic communication; and whether he will increase the number of wires to meet public convenience.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): I cannot state how much money has been spent upon laying cables between England and Ireland, or what has been the financial result. Some of the cables were laid by the old telegraph companies, and the price paid for them by the State cannot be distinguised in the purchase-money of the undertakings of the companies. There has been little complaint recently regarding insufficient means of communication, as an additional cable containing four wires has been laid and brought into use this year. So far as the requirements of the public are concerned, there appears to be no necessity to further increase the number of wires.

    DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that "learners" employed at a salary of 6s. per week in the Dublin Post Office have been compelled to perform despatching duties similar to those performed by officers in receipt of salaries of from 20s. per week upwards; if, on protesting against performing such duties,
    1008
    they were informed by a paper from the Controller of the Sorting Office, Dublin, that if they did not wish to do these duties they could go and seek work elsewhere; and if arrangements will be made to allow the officers in question to perform none but learning duties until they are paid a higher wage than 6s. per week, i.e., when they are placed on the established list and receive the initial salary of 12s. per week.
    MR. HANBURY: The learners to whom the hon. Member refers perform half a day's work in the Dublin Sorting Office on the minor despatching duties as part of their training, and for this they receive 6s. a week, or half the minimum pay of the established class for a full day's work. During the remaining four hours of the day's attendance they are employed in learning telegraphy and other postal duties. It would not, of course, be possible to certify that the learners are fit, for permanent employment until they have had practical experience of the work, and the Postmaster-General sees no reason for altering the arrangement, which is obviously in their own interests. Certain of the Dublin learners appear to have objected to this arrangement, and they were properly informed that, if they were not prepared to comply with the regulations of the office, it would be better for them to seek other employment.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that, owing to insufficiency of staff on evening duty in the Dublin Sorting Office, despatching officers are not allowed sufficient time to do their duties carefully, and therefore the missending of correspondence to the inconvenience of the public is inevitable; and that the said despatching officers are punished month after month by being compelled to do extra duty without payment owing to this system; and whether a number of officers have been called upon for explanations to know why their annual salary increments should not be arrested for missending irregularities which occurred under such conditions, and if he will order the withdrawal of those explanations, and have arrangements made by which the officers are allowed sufficient time for the performance of their duties.
    MR. HANBURY: The staff employed on the evening duty in the Dublin Sorting Office is sufficient, and under ordinary circumstances the despatching officers have ample time to perform their duties properly. Cases of missending are now less frequent, and the amount of punishment inflicted on that account is considerably less than formerly. Certain of the officers, however, who were frequently reported for careless missending of correspondence have been properly called upon for explanation and for any reasons they might have to urge why their increments of pay should not he arrested. In only one instance, however, has it been found necessary to withhold the increment.

    FEMALE TELEGRAPHISTS IN LONDON.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why female telegraphists in London, who are in receipt of 38s. per week, and receive in addition 3s. 6d. per week as risk money, paid weekly, have recently been called upon to furnish a receipt stamp for these payments, seeing that for neither amount can it be legally demanded and that separate receipts are given for the two amounts.
    MR. HANBURY: The amounts in question, though shown separately on the pay sheets for departmental purposes, really form the remuneration of the officer for the week, and in cases where the total is £2 and upwards a receipt stamp is required by law.

    BELFAST TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if in the branch telegraph sub-offices of Belfast, which are offices for the despatch but not the receiving of telegrams, there is any established system of reliefs through which assistants in such offices may have practice occasionally in the receiving of telegraphic messages; are all branch sub-offices in Belfast sufficiently provided with lavatory and other necessary sanitary accommodation for the assistants employed therein; and, if not, will he state whether the official in charge of the Department is responsible; and will the Postmaster-General permit, as he has so satisfactorily done in the case of
    1010
    the Belfast central office, the sanitary authority to inspect these sub-offices.
    MR. HANBURY: There are two, branch post offices in Belfast, which despatch but do not receive telegrams. In these cases the staff is established, and their duties rotate with those of the head office staff. There are also several town sub-post offices, which despatch but do not receive telegrams. In these cases the assistants are not established, but are servants of the sub-postmasters, and they have no opportunity of receiving telegrams. Both the branch post offices are provided with adequate lavatory and sanitary accommodation, and there is no objection to the local sanitary authority inspecting them; but the sub-post offices being on the private premises of the sub-postmasters, the Department has no power, as regards them, to give permission for an inspection, but they are subject to the ordinary sanitary regulations of the town.

    IRISH LAND COMMISSION REPORT.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Annual Report of the Irish Land Commission for the year ending the 31st March, 1899, will be published; and whether any efforts will be made to place it in the hands of Members at the earliest opportunity.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): This Report is almost ready and will, it is expected, be laid on the Table in the course of the present week.

    ESTATES IN THE LAND JUDGES' COURT.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complete returns of the estates in the Land Judges' Court to which the 40th section of the Land Act, 1896, applies have been published; and, if not, will be explain why; and whether he can give any assurance that the work in arrears will be expedited.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Three returns of estates over which receivers have been appointed, prepared in relation to proceedings under the enactment referred to, were laid on the Table of the House in May, 1897, and March, 1898. A further return on the subject will, it is expected, be ready for presentation early next year.

    TRIM UNION NIGHT NURSE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the guardians of the Trim Union have a night nurse whose hours of duty are ten hours a night for seven nights in the week, and is also bound by the guardians to attend all maternity cases in the day time, as there is no qualified day nurse for the maternity ward; has this fact been brought under the notice of the Local Government Board; and what action, if any, has the Board taken in the matter.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The hours of duty of the night nurse, from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., are not as a rule objected to by night nurses. The duty devolving on the night nurse of attending on maternity cases is seldom exercised. Only six cases of the kind have occurred during the last fifteen months. The attention of the Local Government Board has recently been drawn to the matter, and they have called upon the Medical Officer for a report as to the nursing arrangements in the workhouse. This report has not yet been received.

    THE WILLIAM BUTLER ESTATE, COUNTY CLARE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the delay in completing the sale to the tenants of lots 5, 8, and 10, part of the William Butler estate in County Clam and County Galway, ordered by Mr. Justice Ross to be sold under the 40th Section of the Land Act, 1896, on the 18th of December, 1897.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am informed that several difficulties have arisen as to the resettlement of the rental of the holdings on the lots mentioned, and that considerable delay has also been occasioned by the tenants on lot 5 subdividing the holding among themselves without the authority of the Court, and the refusal of two of the tenants to comply with the undertaking given by their solicitor when the Order of December, 1897, was made.

    BALTIMORE RAILWAY AND PIER.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
    1012
    land whether the Congested Districts Board, the Treasury, and the Cork and Bandon Railway Company guaranteed £3,500 each for the completion of the Baltimore Railway and Pier to deep water; whether the Cork and Bandon Railway Company have not fulfilled their agreement; whether the Congested Districts Board will take up the completion of this work; whether he is aware that in consequence of this want of connection the large amount previously expended cannot be utilised for the transit of fish; and whether he will recommend a grant for the purpose.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: This question is a repetition of one put to me on Monday last by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, and I must refer to the answer then given by me.

    IRISH GOLD ORNAMENTS AND TREASURE TROVE.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government have taken the opinion on the Question of treasure trove of the Irish law officers with regard to the Irish gold ornaments; and, if so, if he will state what that opinion is.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Irish law officers have advised, but a question has been raised by the trustees of the British Museum as to the exact effect of their opinion. Further reference has therefore become necessary.

    THE VOLUNTEER VOTE.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for the Rye Division of Sussex, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when the Army Estimates are next discussed, he will be able to arrange that a portion of the time thus expended may include the Volunteer Vote.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take the Navy and Army Votes on Friday; and I believe that the Volunteer Vote stands first among the Army Votes at present undiscussed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First

1013
Lord of the Treasury whether he will make a statement to the House as to public business.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I propose to make the statement to-day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On making your motion?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.

TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—

GOOLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,
with Amendments.
Amendments to—

LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords],
  ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords],

    GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords],
    LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords],
    TOTLAND WATER BILL [Lords].
    without amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove doubts as to the Validity of certain Marriages." [Marriages Validity (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

MARRIAGES VALIDITY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS).
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that it was, almost to a day, this time last year when I asked the House to grant the privileges with regard to business which I ask for again in the Resolution which I propose to move. Last year it had the result that we finished our work without difficulty and without friction at a reasonable period of August; and I think I may hope that the same privileges, granted at the same time of the year, would have a like result now. The House would naturally desire to know what business we hope to get through before August 12th—or before the date of the prorogation. I mention August 12th because it happens to be the last day of a week, and, I may parenthetically say, that it is convenient for other interests and avocations. I will tell the House briefly exactly how Government business stands. I begin with a certain number of Bills which cannot pass if they are opposed and to which, if my information be accurate, no opposition need be feared. In this list are the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Bill—a Bill introduced the other day by the Chief Secretary, with the approval of the Irish Members; the Congested Districts Board (Scotland) Bill, the Bodies Corporate Bill, the Law Charges Bill, the University of London Act Amendment Bill—a small measure pressed upon the Government by the Commissioners under the London University Act, the sole object of which is to include Holloway College within the University of London; the Inebriates Act (1898) Amendment Bill—which is simply to correct an error in drafting; an Elementary Education Bill, dealing with defective and epileptic children; and a Bill of which I know nothing, but which has come from the Lords and deals with oysters. Then there are two Bills which I should like to believe were in this category, but of which I confess I have some doubts. One is the Lunacy Bill, which also comes from the Lords, and in regard to which I may be permitted to say that I believe part of it is intended
1016
to remedy an administrative inconvenience. The Government are quite prepared to drop any portions of the measure which prove controversial if they could hope without discussion to get this administrative portion of the Bill. Then there is the Charitable Loans (Ireland) Bill, about which questions have been asked we from time to time by the Irish Members, but which I fear may necessitate an amount of discussion which will render its chance of passing rather faint. Then in the next category of Bills come what I may describe as the two annual Bills—the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the Public Works Loans Bill. They have not yet been introduced, and it is not usual to introduce them until the end of the session, but I have no reason to believe that they will lead to more controversy in the course of the present year than they have done on previous occasions. Then I come to certain departmental Bills which I do not believe require any lengthened discussion—the Durham Palatine Court Bill, the Telegraph (Channel Islands) Bill, Electric Lighting Provisional Orders, the Lands Improvement Bill—which I think has passed the Grand Committee, and to which not much objection is taken. The Metropolitan Police (Salaries) Bill is also a small departmental measure. This list of Bills may sound a rather long catalogue, but I think it is felt on all sides that they are not Bills which will occupy any material portion of the time of Parliament. In the next class are Bills of greater importance, and involving greater controversy, which I may call administrative Bills, to distinguish them from the projects of legislation of a somewhat different character. These Bills are the Niger Company Bill, the Naval Works Bill, the Military Works Bill, and the Colonial Loans Bill. They are all important Bills, and some of them, no doubt, will require a certain amount of discussion; but I should hope that they will pass without any serious difficulty. The House will remember that under the Colonial Loans Bill, power is taken empowering other Bills to be introduced. I think it possible that another Colonial Loans Bill, a daughter Bill, if I may so describe it, may be necessary. Then there is the Khartoum College Bill, which I do not think will take any time. Its only object is to enable the trustees of

1017
the fund contributing to the Khartoum College to invest the money in Egyptian securities, which they cannot do with personal safety under the law as it at present stands. I should add that negotiations are now pending about the conversion of the Turkish Guarantee Loan of 1855. I do not know whether those negotiations will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion before the end of the session. If they are, as I have reason to believe, a Bill will be founded on them, and in the absence of opposition we shall deal with it also. But I recognise that it cannot be carried through without leading to some debate. There remain Bills dealing with general legislation. Of these, the Government propose only to pass those which have reached the Report stage, or those which are on the verge of it, and likely to pass, such as the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill. Among those Bills are the Telephones Bill, the Tithe Rent-charge Bill, the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Bill, the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill, the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill, and the Board of Education Bill. There are a good many other measures of general legislation which are not so fortunate as to have reached the Report stage or to have made any serious advance through Committee. Such, I am afraid, it will be impossible to deal with in the present year. Some of them I drop with particular regret, like the Money-lending Bill, the Parish Churches (Scotland) Bill, and the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Bill. Of these measures I will only say that I hope they may be introduced at an early period next session and that they may have a better fate than that which we have been able to accord to them in the present year. In addition to these there is the Companies Bill, which I do not think has yet reached us from the Lords, the Undersized Fish Bill, the Metropolitan Streets Act (Amendment) Bill, the Trout Fishing Annual Close Time (Scotland) Bill, the Licensing Exemption (Houses of Parliament) Bill of my right hon. friend near me, the President of the Board of Trade; the Universities (Scotland) Bill, and the Land Tax Commissioners Bill. That, I think, really completes the account I have to give of the legislation which we hope to pass and the legislation which we recognise cannot be passed; and I do not think that if the Bills be attentively
1018
examined they will throw any necessary or undue strain upon the time or the labours of the House. In order to avoid any misunderstanding for the future, I ought to explain that it is, of, course, conceivable that some administrative necesssity may arise for bringing in some short measure in connection with one or other of the departments of the State. I do not consider myself precluded from that should the exigencies of the public service render it absolutely necessary, but I hope that no such necessity will arise. I do not think I can add anything to this statement, which, if brief, is at all events, I hope, clear and not unsatisfactory in its character. I forgot, however, to add the Resolution brought in dealing with the new judge about which I have spoken. I need only conclude by saying that, while asking the House to give up its cherished privileges as regards the Twelve o'clock rule, I am only adopting an expedient found necessary at the close of every session. The House need not be afraid that the Government will abuse the privileges so granted to them, and I hope we may regard ourselves as being now within a measurable distance of a not ill-earned holiday. I beg to move.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That for the remainder of the session Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and that at the conclusion of the Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the House will be generally disposed to get over as early as possible the melancholy part of our proceedings, and to bid an affectionate farewell to those Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has told us he is not going to proceed with. I can only say in regard to those which he has condemned to that category, I think some of the Bills are measures of great importance in which the public took a great interest, like the Money-Lending Bill and others which could be named. I think the general public would have been better pleased if one or other of those Bills had been proceeded with and that

1019
the Bill which recently occupied a considerable portion of the attention of the House had been left alone. With that remark I dismiss the melancholy part of the subject. I understand that what the right hon. Gentleman meant with regard to the first list of Bills which he estimates as unopposed is that the prosecuting of those Bills will be subject to the fact of their being unopposed, but that if in the course of things serious opposition is disclosed their fate will be necessarily endangered. I have very few observations to make on the statement of the First Lord. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two administrative Bills. I am afraid that a good deal of time may he spent over them, as for example the Niger Company's Bill and the Naval Works Bill—a measure which was promised at the beginning of the session and which really was part of the elementary and fundamental business of the session. It ought to have been in our hands long ago. The same remark applies to the Military Works Bill. These Bills should have been under our consideration together with the Estimates of the year. Instead of that we are still in the middle of the discussion on the Military Works Bill, and the Naval Works Bill has not yet been presented to the House. I think that is a circumstance which is so remarkable that it ought to he referred to in order to invoke some degree of condemnation on the part of the House, because the sums of money involved are large. The expenditure involved is an expenditure which runs into the ordinary expenditure dealt with in the Estimates, and the House of Commons is placed at a disadvantage when so important a matter is not even before us at the end of July. However, we admit the importance of the Bill, and I can only hope that when it is introduced it will be of such a nature as not to provoke prolonged discussion or serious opposition. I understand that the programme which the right hon Gentleman has put before us is a reasonable one from his point of view; but, of course, it is distinctly understood that it excludes the possibility of the Government taking up any other Bills. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of some possible contingency, some administrative Bills, the necessity of which may become apparent. That we quite understand, but the motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made involves, of course, that the House
1020
will be adjourned as soon as Government business is concluded each night, and that there will be no "starring" of private Members' Bills, and no taking advantage of the motion to take up some Bill which at present is not within their list. I hope also the Twelve o'clock rule which governs our business will not be transgressed, except when occasion really arises for it. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that the Twelve o'clock rule was not to be overridden day by day continually. At any rate, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use the liberty conceded to him in a lenient manner agreeably to the wishes of the House. On those conditions, the exclusion of what I may call the Uitlanders alien Parliamentary Bills which have not yet been admitted to the full franchise, and the promise of a lenient use of the powers that are given to him, I do not think there is anything in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman which is inconsistent with the ordinary practice of the House at this period of the session.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The promise which the Leader of the Opposition has asked for with regard to Private Members' Bills not being starred is made the more necessary this year, because last week a sort of half promise was given in another place to push forward in the course of the present session a Bill introduced by Lord Burghclere—the Commons Bill. Had that Bill remained in the form in which it was introduced, it would not have been opposed! on this side, but it has been altered, and the Lords' veto inserted, and I am afraid it will meet with severe opposition. It is notorious, too, that there is another Private Member's Bill which is fiercely opposed, and that is the Service Franchise Bill. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there will be very fierce opposition if he attempts to pass those Bills with the assistance of the present motion. Some reason ought to be given also for the dropping of the Land Tax Commissioners Bill, a most necessary Bill, because the Land Tax Commissioners appoint the Income Tax Commissioners, and, unless new names are put in, the whole appointments fall into the hands of the county magistrates, and urban interests are not represented in the collection of income-tax. This Bill has always been passed in the first session of a new

1021
Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire when he was Leader of the Opposition pointed out that this was a measure for which the House was responsible, and with which the Government had nothing to do. Last year the Leader of the House told us he could not give the time necessary for passing it, because the Radical Members had seized the opportunity to raise the question of the qualification of magistrates. We did not think that a sufficient reason, but at any rate no such motion is down this year, and that being so we surely ought to have some explanation of the reasons which have induced the Government to drop this most necessary Bill, as to which, too, we ought to have a distinct promise for next session. There is a motion on the Paper for to-night in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster (employment of women over-time in the jam industry), and, in order to allow that motion to be brought on, I intend to move to amend the right hon. Gentleman's motion by providing that it shall take effect "on and after To-morrow." The motion is a statutory one, and relates to one of those matters that for forty days are laid on the Table in order that the House may have an opportunity of expressing its dissent from administrative action. If this Amendment is carried the right hon. Gentleman will have exactly the same time left to him as was granted last year for winding up the business of the session. I would further point out the importance to the House of having this opportunity of discussing this matter. You, Mr. Speaker, in correcting last year a malpractice which had grown up in these matters, stated that the House should be able freely to exercise the privilege which the Statute gives it, and inasmuch as this motion was put down for to-day out of courtesy to the Government, instead of being taken, as it could have been, at the close of the Home Office Debate, I hope the Government will assent to my Amendment.
SIR JAMES RANKIN: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will accept the Amendment, for there is a great deal of interest felt in this matter. The discussion will not take long, and we hope to be able to bring it on before One o'clock. I think the House has a right to have an opportunity of giving an opinion
1022
upon such an Order as that made by the Home Secretary, as by Statute the Order must lie on the Table of the House of Commons for forty days, so that a Motion disagreeing with the Order may be raised if the House so desire. I trust, therefore, the Leader of the House will afford facilities for this Debate.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'That,' to insert the word; `on and after To-morrow.'"—(Sir Charles Dar. )
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR,: I entirely agree that nothing should be done materially to interfere with the statutory rights of Parliament. After all, if the House was given by Statute the right to consider certain matters it would be like an evasion of the Statute by a side wind to take the course I propose without any mitigating provision. The best. plan to meet the case would, I think, be that I should enter into an engagement with the House that any motion brought forward under statutory authority shall be "starred" by the Government, and shall therefore share the privileges accorded by the motion of the Government If that be acceptable I shall adopt that course.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It occurs to me it might be maintained, if the course suggested is followed, that "starred" motions are in the nature of Government business. This is a Government Order in Council which has to be submitted for the opinion of the House, and I therefore think the right hon. Gentleman will be justified in taking the course he mentions.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: When is it proposed to take the motion about the overtime of women? I do not think anything would be lost by taking it Tonight.
DR. CLARK: One of the inconveniences of the Government's motion is that it prevents questions being put on the adjournment of the House. These powers have not been used for obstructive purposes in the past, and I would suggest that you are gratuitously limiting the very small amount of power which Parliament now possesses by preventing the discussion of motions of which the statutory forty

1023
days' notice has been given, and by disallowing questions on the motion for adjournment.
MR. COGHILL: It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition must be a singularly innocent man if he supposes the First Lord is going to make a lenient use of his powers. We have had experience of the way the First Lord uses his powers. The right hon. Gentleman has sketched out enough work to last a whole session.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the Leader of the House answer the question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Although technically these motions are not Government business, yet practically they have to be starred if they are to be taken at all after the rule is passed; therefore, I will propose to "star" my hon. friend's motion and take it To-morrow.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: I should have preferred it to be taken to-night, but, of course, we are in the hands of the Government. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I simply wish to enforce the appeal of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean with regard to the Land Tax Commissioners Bill. According to my recollection it was formerly the universal practice to pass the Bill in the first session of a new Parliament, and now we are in the fourth session. The passing of this Bill ought to be no longer delayed.
SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I quite understand the objection to bringing Private Members' Bills under this motion, but I submit it is very hard indeed that even at this stage of the session opportunity should not be given of discussing Bills to which there is practically no objection on either side. In the case of non-contentious Bills I think it is very little to ask that if it can
1024
be shown that they are really non-contentious, and that they are supported on both sides of the House, they proceeded with.
MR. BROADHURST: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific in his statement with regard to the Lunacy Bill—I mean the Lords Lunacy Bill. Do I understand that he expressed an intention to drop it. Will he drop it if some portion of the Bill is dropped?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I thought that dropping all the administrative clauses would secure its general acceptance from the House I should be happy to take that course.
MR. BROADHURST: Is there any means of ascertaining that?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall take every means in my power.
MR. BROADHURST: I should also like to ask when the Board of Education Bill will be taken.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not this week.
MR. DILLON: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on dropping the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, which was one of the most iniquitous measures which have ever been brought before this House, and I trust that in the interval between this and next session he will come to see that it would be nothing less than an outrage to reintroduce it. With regard to the Charitable Loans Bill, that is a Bill which I think ought to pass, because the present state of things is nothing less than a scandal. It cannot pass, however, this year, because in its present shape it will inflict greater injury than benefit. I notice that in his statement the right hon. Gentleman said not a word upon the question of Supply. There are only two free days left for discussing Supply, in spite of the fact that three extra days have been voted, and I think we might fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman to inform us now what Votes he proposes to take on the two days at our disposal. I can hardly believe that the Government intend to allow this session to pass without affording the House an opportunity for discussing the Colonial Office Vote, and I shall

1025
listen with confidence to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the day on which he will take that Vote this session. I contend that one day is not enough fur the discussion of that Vote, and for the Government to give us no opportunity to discuss the present state of South Africa, which would come upon that Vote, is nothing short of an outrage.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I also think that as the days are limited it becomes a matter of extreme importance that we should know what Supply is going to be put down. I was given to understand that Vote 8 and Vote 12 of the Navy Estimates would be taken on Friday next, and a number of hon. Members interested in those particular Votes have made arrangements under the belief that these particular Votes would be taken. Now I understand that the Army Votes are put down, and, as I presume, no other Votes. I wish to ask whether it is possible to take Votes 8 and 12 of the Navy Estimates at such time as will permit a discussion upon them.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall begin with the Navy Votes.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: Might I ask when the Third Reading of the Tithe Rent-charge Bill will be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Thursday next.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office Vote has not been discussed, and I cannot understand why that Vote has been passed by, seeing that it is one of the earliest Votes in the Army Estimates. I think some opportunity ought to be given for its discussion.
MR. LOUGH: There is one point which I consider of the greatest importance, and that is the point raised as to the selection of Private Members' Bills. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not pick out any of those Bills to be taken this session as against others. I have been told since that the statement which the right hon. Gentle-man has made will not preclude his selecting some of them. I believe that such a course would considerably prolong dis-
1026
cussion and be otherwise unsatisfactory. If any Private Members' Bills are to be selected they ought to be mentioned in the statement he has made. I would ask hint to add to the list which he has given, however, one important measure, the Shop Assistants' Seats as I understand an important Amendment has been made in the Lords which we shall have to consider, and therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an opportunity of considering it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: With regard to the demand of the Government for the time of the House, I might point out that the Naval Works Bill has not yet been introduced, and I should like some information as to what the Government are going to do about it. It is a similar Bill to the Military Works Bill, and I think ought to be introduced before Friday next, when the Works Vote of the Navy Estimates comes on, and not at a time when the Government are put to such straits as to be compelled to ask for further facilities with respect to time.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That shall be done.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is another important measure which I should like to call attention to, and which I should regret to see the Government give up. That is the Metropolitan Streets Bill. It is a measure of very pressing importance; the traffic of the metropolis is daily growing to an alarming extent, and it is of great importance that the police should have requisite power to deal with it, and it will he a matter of great regret if that is postponed until next year. The Oysters Bill is in another position. I know enough of these matters to know that every Bill concerning fisheries is a Bill of prohibition and the imposition of penalties, and this is probably one of that character. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to pass that this session. I am glad that the Undersized Fish Bill is not to be passed. There is another Bill for the Conversion of the Turkish Loan, 1855. I do not see why a Bill is necessary for the purpose of converting that, but perhaps that will be explained. The right hon. Gentleman also sins he may have to ask this House for administrative

1027
measures. Does that mean a Vote of Credit? I sincerely hope not.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If I might interrupt the hon. Gentleman here, I may say I certainly was not thinking of a Vote of Credit; but if such a Vote became necessary I should not regard the Government as being precluded from introducing it.
SIR J. JOICEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the Telephone Bill is likely to be taken?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not take it to-night.
SIR J. JOICEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea when he will take it?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has created same alarm by saying that no further discussion is to be allowed on the War Office Vote. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office has made a Report upon itself and has had ample time to act upon that Report, and it seems to me it will be an extraordinary state of things if that Report is not allowed to be discussed. There has been absolutely no discussion on the War Office Vote this session. Then, within the last few days the Secretary of State for War has made a statement of the most alarming character with regard to the results of the Government's policy in the matter of the recruiting of the troops. I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to withhold from the House of Commons at least one opportunity of discussing these two very important aspects of the policy of the War Office—namely, its own Report upon its own procedure, and its success in carrying out its own policy.
MR. LAMBERT: I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the Bill to give tenant farmers greater compensation for their improvements. Notice of the introduction of that Bill was given on the first day of the session of 1896, and it has figured in every Queen's Speech since, but we have
1028
not seen the Bill yet. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he intends to proceed with the Lands Improvement Bill. May I suggest that it would be better to give tenant farmers compensation for improvements already made than to extend the provisions of a Bill which purposes to give money to landlords to make further improvements.
MR. COGHILL: The list of measures we are to be asked to pass into law is such a very long one that it seems to me there will be no work left for the remaining two sessions of this Parliament, and some of the Bills mentioned might very well be left over. As far as Supply alone is concerned, there are a number of questions which must inevitably crop up which would fully occupy the time at our disposal this session. I am extremely sorry the English Moneylenders Bill is not to be proceeded with. We were told at the General Election that the period of Irish legislation was over, and that the time of Parliament would be taken up in discussing English and Scotch measures. Instead of that we have had another instance this session of English Bills being put out of the way in order that Bills affecting Ireland may be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that, in addition to the Bills which he enumerated, be intends to proceed with the appointment of a new judge, and that in face of a Report of the Bar Committee pointing out the great waste of time under the present system. May I ask whether it is intended to bring forward that resolution at a time when most Members are present, and when there may he a full opportunity of discussing the question, or whether an attempt will be made to smuggle it through in the early hours of the morning?
MR. TENNANT: On the last occasion when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement of this character allusion was made to the Factory Bill. That Bill has never yet been introduced. The Home Secretary, when asked to introduce the Bill so that its provisions could be discussed throughout the country during the recess, said he was unable to do so without the consent of his colleagues. I therefore venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give an assurance that that shall be done.
AN HON. MEMBER: I should like to ask whether the Leader of the House can give us any information by which we may judge whether or not the Conversion of Turkish Loans Bill will be opposed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I wish to ask a question with regard to two Bills. The first is the Land Tax Commissioners Bill. That Bill ought really to be passed. It is the first time it has ever been postponed, and as it affects an important question of administration, the delay is rather upsetting the arrangements of the Income Tax Commissioners in the country. There is no desire in this part of the House to obstruct, but every wish to assist the passage of the Bill, which cannot possibly take much time. The interests of the towns have been neglected sufficiently by this Government, and they might recognise the necessity of passing this Bill this session. The second measure I desire to refer to is the Service Franchise Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has declined to state that he is not going to press any Private Members' Bills this session. I should like to know whether that reluctance is due to the fact that he has given a pledge with respect to the Service Franchise Bill, because if so, it may alter the whole course of conduct on this side of the House, not only in regard to tins Bill, but in regard to other measures.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I may now answer the various questions which have been put to me from different parts of the House. Perhaps the most important it points raised were those mentioned by the hon. Member who has just sat down, by the right hon. Baronet who sits near him, by my hon. friend the Member for North-West Manchester, and others, with regard to Private Members' Bills. I think the practice has been that Private Members' Bills which are either far advanced or not opposed should not necessarily be destroyed by such a motion as that which I am now making. Particular reference has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down to a Private Member's Bill which is in the hands of my hon. friend the Member for Dulwich. No pledge has been given with regard to the Service Franchise Bill by
1030
the Government to my hon. friend. I am told that this Bill is very far advanced.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: It is down for Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree that no Bill which is likely to occupy any large time of the House ought to be dealt with at this period of the session. Perhaps I may point out the happy inconsistency which afflicts some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for West Islington, while taking up what has been said and reproaching me as to Private Members' Bills, said,—"After all, there is one Bill which you must deal with, and that is the Shop Assistants Bill." It does not seem to have occurred to him that the Shop Assistants Bill is a Private Member's Bill. I hope that that reflection will mitigate the judgment which is passed on this point on the course which we propose to pursue or shall pursue with regard to Private Members' Bills. Then I have been asked as to the Land Tax Commissioners Bill. I was glad to hear the chorus of approval which the mention of that Bill now appears to call forth on the other side of the House. We shall be extremely glad to pass it, and if the speeches which have been delivered are any sample of the opinions which are held on the other side of the House, I see no reason why that Bill should not be taken out of the category of Bills that are condemned, and elevated to the happier list of Bills that may become law in the present session. An hon. Member has asked me about the Tenants' Improvement Bill, and other questions have been asked me about Bills which have not been introduced. As to the latter point, the statement I have made to-day is with regard to Bills which have been introduced. I think that if we were to discuss questions as to Bills which have not been introduced, we should be travelling far out of our proper course. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn and another hon. friend of mine asked questions about the conversion of the Turkish Loan. What I said to the House on that subject was that negotiations were pending, that those negotiations had not arrived at any conclusion, that if they did arrive at any conclusion, and it was desirable de to deal with them, we should be glad to do so if a Bill on that subject was likely to pass

1031
without controversy. I cannot now put it differently from that. The negotiations have not been completed, and no Bill has yet been drawn up on the subject. Another hon. Member has asked about the Resolution as to the appointment of a new judge. I do not know whether I have correctly interpreted his remarks as indicating that such a Resolution will raise much controversy. I should hope that it would not. I believe that sufficient grounds can be adduced in the interests of suitors for the appointment of a new judge which are of such an over-whelming character that the House will readily agree to the motion. I can promise my hon. friend that in any case the motion shall not be brought on after twelve o'clock at night. The hon. Member for Berwickshire asked whether it would be possible not to pass, but for my right hon. friend the Home Secretary to introduce a Bill for discussion in the country dealing with factories. I will consult my right hon. friend the Home Secretary as to whether such a course would be desirable; but I am not sure that anything would be gained by bringing in such a Bill without any chance of passing it into law during the session. I think that meets all the points raised.
MR. DILLON: What about the Colonial Office Vote?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Member for East Mayo and other hon. Members have asked me questions as to Supply. A statement of the kind I am now making usually, I think, deals with the legislative work of the session, but I make no complaint, I need not say, with regard to the questions which have been put to me. The hon. Member asks me, there only being a few days left for Supply, that we should devote one of those days as suggested, and whether we contemplate the possibility of Parliament being prorogued without a discussion on colonial policy. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel that it is absolutely necessary that there should be an adequate discussion on the Colonial Vote before the House adjourns. We feel that, in the present condition of South African affairs, it would not be treating the House of Commons fairly or rightly if they did not have an opportunity of hearing our views and of expressing their own in return. Whether the Debate which I have in my
1032
mind can best take place on the Colonial Vote or not is a matter which is open to controversy. I will consider the question, but, whatever the decision may be, I promise the hon. Gentleman and the House that they shall have an opportunity of fully discussing the colonial policy before we separate for the holidays. A. question has been asked by my right hon. friend behind me about the War Office Vote. I indicated at Question time that the Volunteer Vote, which stands first on the Paper, should be taken first, but, considering that the amount of time we can give to the War Office Vote next Friday must necessarily be limited, I think it would be more in accordance with precedent and more convenient that I should follow the views expressed by my right hon. friend the Member for West Belfast, and put the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State first among the War Office Votes. I think that is a complete answer to all the questions. To-morrow we shall continue the Food and Drugs Bill. I propose to take the Second Reading of the Niger Company's Bill on Wednesday, and the Third Reading of the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill on Thursday.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman when he moved his motion did not mention a word about the special privilege of the House in respect of the half-past five o'clock rule on Wednesdays, in fact he did not say anything at all about Wednesdays. On previous occasions Wednesday has been excepted. With regard to Wednesdays it is very important to know whether we can rely upon having one evening at least free so that we can fulfil our engagements. When the rule was suspended towards the close of the session last year I think it was found that the House never sat later than half-past five on Wednesdays, and I think, therefore, it would be well to exclude Wednesday from this rule. In order that there shall be no uncertainty in this matter I beg to move to insert after the word "session" the words "except on Wednesdays."
MR. WARNER: I beg leave to second this Amendment, and in so doing I desire to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking the Naval Works Bills as soon as

1033
possible, so that this measure may be properly discussed by the whole House.
Amendment proposed—
"After the word 'session,' to insert the words 'except on Wednesdays.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I have not spoken to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury on this subject, but I apprehend that his intention is to include Wednesday in the operation of this rule. I apprehend that on the earlier Wednesdays there is no intention of pressing the sitting to the inconvenience of hon. members, but certainly towards the end of the session it may be necessary to prolong our sittings beyond half-past five on Wednesdays. I may say that this rule worked well last year.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: If that is the decision of the Government I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, and I will ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question again proposed.
SIR J. BRUNNER: I think it is only reasonable that we should have an undertaking that nothing but the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill shall be taken to-night.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I can assure the hon. Member that if the Bill is completed to-night nothing else will be taken.
MR. DALZIEL: We have had a very satisfactory statement that the War Office Vote will receive full discussion, but in reference to the Colonial Vote it is not quite certain whether it will take place in Committee of Supply or not. There are remaining at this moment only two clear days for Supply, and I wish to get a promise that the Colonial Office Vote will not be taken an either of the subsequent two days, because to limit the discussion of such an
1034
important question as the Colonial Office Vote, which might come on at a very late hour of the evening, would be grossly unfair, and it would be impossible to adequately discuss the Vote under such circumstances. If we are to have this Vote fully discussed it is obvious that we must take it on Friday week. There is only one other free day, and that is Friday week, and it would simplify matters very much if the Government would take the Vote on that day. With regard to Supply generally, I think the attention of the House ought to be called to the Paper which we received this morning. We have already got to pass seventy-seven Votes. It is true that as regards one or two of the Votes we have already had a few hours' debate upon them, but there are a number of very important Votes which have not yet been passed, and which it is reasonable to assume that some hon. Members desire to discuss. There is the Foreign and Colonial Service Vote, and the Votes for the Stationery Office, House of Lords, House of Commons, the Treasury, the Local Government Board, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Colonial Office. These are only a few out of the seventy-seven Votes which we have to pass in the two clear days before us. With regard to Private Members' Bills I think we should have some declaration at once as to what the intention of the Government is. It is quite reasonable to suppose that the Government will be assisted by the Opposition in passing some of these measures through the I House. I think the measures mentioned by the First Lord of the Treasury constitute the most modest programme from a non-contentious point of view that we have yet had. We may be able to assist in passing this programme if the Government will declare what Private Bills they intend to "star," if they intend to "star" any. With regard to late sittings I think we ought to have a promise that unless there is some very substantial reason the House shall not sit after one o'clock. It is not fair to keep Members sitting here without knowing how long they are going to be kept, and it is not right for important legislation to come on before a small House.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I only desire to support what my hon. friend has said in regard to Private Bills. There is he Service Franchise Bill, to which

1035
we are going to offer the greatest possible amount of opposition. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House gave us no pledge in reference to that question, and we wish to know whether that Bill is to be brought forward. There is also the Metropolitan Streets Bill. I should like to know whether both
these Bills have been definitely abandoned.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 93. (Division List, No. 272.)

AYES.

Aird, John

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Greene, W. R.-(Cambs.)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gretton, John

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Gull, Sir Cameron

Arnold, Alfred

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gunter, Colonel

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Arrol, Sir William

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles.

Asher, Alexander

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cranborne, Viscount

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hardy, Laurence

Bailey, James(Walmorth)

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Baird, John George Alexander

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Batch, Ernest Frederick Geo,

Balcarres, Lord

Curzon, Viscount

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

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

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hedderwick, Thos, Charles H.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Helder, Augustus

Banbury, Frederick George

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Davies, Sir H D. (Chatham)

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs.

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S-(Hunts.)

Dewar, Arthur

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Bartley, George C. T.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hobhouse, Henry

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Digby, John K D. Wingfield-

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

Doughty, George

Houston, R. P.

Beckett, Ernest William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Howard, Joseph

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Howell, William Tudor

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Drage, Geoffrey

Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Duck worth, James

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Beresford, Lord Charles

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Bethell, Commander

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Biddulph, Michael

Evershed, Sydney

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

Bill, Charles

Fardell, Sir T. George

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Bond, Edward

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

Boscawen, Author Griffith-

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mncr.

Kemp, George

Boulnois, Edmund

Finch, George H.

Kenyon, James

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kimber, Henry

Brassey, Albert

Fisher, William Hayes

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fison, Frederick William

Kinloch, Sir John George S.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Kitson, Sir James

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Lafone, Alfred

Bullard, Sir Harry

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Burt. Thomas

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Butcher, John George

Flower, Ernest

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leighton, Stanley

Carlile, William Walter

Fry, Lewis

Leng, Sir John

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Galloway, William Johnson

Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

Garfit, William

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a

Causton, Richard Knight

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Liverpool

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lorne, Marquess of

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Charrington, Spencer

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Macdona, John Cumming

Chelsea Viscount

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Coddington, Sir William

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Maclure, Sir John William

M'Crae, George

Purvis, Robert

Stock, James Henry

M'Ewan, William

Pym, C. Guy

Strauss, Arthur

Malcolm, Ian

Rankin, Sir James

Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Richardson, J (Durham, S. E.)

Tennant, Harold John

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

Thorburn, Walter

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Thornton, Percy M.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tollemache, Henry James

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Milward, Colonel Victor

Round, James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Monk, Charles James

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Ure, Alexander

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Rutherford, John

Usborne, Thomas

Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Valentia, Viscount

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Myers, William Henry

Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col E.J.

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

Newark, Viscount

Savory, Sir Joseph

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd.

Nicholson, William Graham

Seely, Charles Hilton

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Seton-Karr, Henry

Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sidehottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.

Wills, Sir William Henry

Palmter, George W. (Reading)

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Paulton, James Mellor

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

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

Pease, Herbert P.(Darlington)

Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

Wrightson, Thomas

Pender, Sir James

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

Wyndham, George

Percy, Earl

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Spencer, Ernest

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Pierpoint, Robert

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Sir William Walrond and

Priestley, Sir W Overend (Edin.

Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Perks, Robert William

Allan, William (Gateshead

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Pickard, Benjamin

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Joicey, Sir James

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bainbridge, Emerson

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Barlow, John Emmott

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Billson, Alfred

Kearley, Hudson E.

Runciman, Walter

Broadhurst, Henry

Kilbride, Denis

Schwann, Charles E.

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

Lambert George

Souttar, Robinson

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Langley, Batty

Spicer, Albert

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Stanhope, Hon. Phillip J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Lough, Thomas

Steadman, William Charles

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

Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

Stratchey, Edward

Clough, Walter Owen

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Macaleese, Daniel

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Colville, John

MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qu'ns C)

Wallace, Robert

Crombie, John William

NacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Ghee, Richard

Wedderburn, Sir William

Davitt, Michael

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Weir, James Galloway

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Leod, John

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dillon, John

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Doogan, P. C.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

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

Dunn, Sir William

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Emmott, Alfred

Moulton, John Fletcher

Woods, Samuel

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Fenwick Charles

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Flynn, James Christopher

Oldroyd, Mark

Goddard, Daniel Ford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)

Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

Mr. Dalziel and Captain Norton.

Horniman, Frederick John

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That for the remainder of the session Government business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS).
Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans, and for other purposes relating to loans out of the Local Loans Fund, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.
"To grant money for the purpose of certain local loans, and for other purposes relating to loans out of the Local Loans Fund"; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Order for consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), be now considered."
MR. STRACHEY: I beg to move, Sir, that the consideration of the Bill be deferred for three months on the ground that it does not sufficiently guard the interests of the consumer and the producer, and only to a slight extent prevents dishonest trading. This Bill was sent to a Grand Committee in the hope that it might be improved. I admit it was slightly improved in two respects, but those two improvements were inserted against the wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and were carried against the Government. One was the question of the inspection of margarine factories, which was an important matter though small when compared with the many blots on the Bill. The Government never gave an adequate reason why they were so much in love with the idea that margarine should be coloured like butter. I cannot find that they are supported in their objection to
1040
the prohibition of colouring margarine to resemble butter by any society or association whatever. Let me take first of all the traders, both wholesale and retail. Certainly their organ, the Grocer, has condemned the sanctioning of margarine to be coloured. In a leader on the 4th of March on the subject it says:
"The Bill gives no assistance in the way of rendering the two articles distinct. It simply forbids and penalises. It will worry honest traders by more inspection and prosecution, while the real rogues will laugh at the law."
The Bill would do little but worry the honest trader. In many respects also it would have a bad effect upon the consumer, who will have margarine foisted upon him as butter when coloured to look like butter. It is very remarkable to find that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which represents a great community, where five million pounds' worth of dairy produce are distributed every year, have, in a report on the subject, condemned the colouring of margarine to represent butter. Then, again, you have the wholesale traders objecting to it, as well as the retail dealers, and the Manchester and Salford District Grocers' Association. Honest traders desire that there should be a means by which the fraudulent sale of margarine coloured to imitate butter should be put down. I desire to secure the reconsideration of this Bill in the interest of the consumer. No doubt the President of the Board of Agriculture may get up and say that consumers who buy margarine coloured like butter will not be taken in, and that they will not pay a higher price for it than if it were not coloured to look like butter. On the other hand, I draw attention to the fact that my friend the hon. Member for Battersea, one of the most respected and representative of the Labour Members in the House, voted in favour of the Amendment for prohibiting the colouring of margarine, and he spoke strongly more than once on the subject. Again, I was supported in the Division in the Grand Committee on this subject by the hon. Member for Morpeth, than whom no one is more respected as a representative of the working classes, and whose opinion will carry greater weight than any other man on questions of this sort as affecting working men. I am indebted also to the hon. Member for Chester, who showed the attitude taken on the question by the organised associations of work-

1041
ing men, I mean the trades unions. No fewer than 288,099 members of these trade unions, including miners, masons, shipwrights, compositors, Lancashire weavers, and railway servants, expressed the opinion that it would be a fraud on the consumer to allow margarine to be coloured to represent butter. I have said enough from the traders' and consumers' point of view to show that there are many blots on the Bill. I need hardly say that if the consumers and the traders had not objected to the Bill I would not have attempted to move its postponement with the object of allowing the Government to bring in an unproved Bill. There is every reason to believe that if this were postponed the Government would bring in a better next year; for this is the third Bill, and every succeeding one has been an improvement on its predecessor. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that in the country the agricultural classes are to a great extent agreed in saying that they would rather not have this half-hearted Bill; they say it is worse than nothing, and I have resolutions from farmers' clubs stating that the Bill is not of any use at all. The opinion of the farmers in an agricultural county like that which I represent should have some weight with the Government compared with the half-hearted support of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. Why is it that the sale of margarine under false pretences is supported? Is it that the Government think that it could not be sold if it were not coloured, and that no one would buy this article unless their eyes were deceived when eating it? I venture to think that that argument is wrong. The only people who wish that the margarine should be coloured are the margarine manufacturers, who get larger prices for their margarine when it is coloured than its real worth. I agree that margarine is a perfectly wholesome food, but that is not the point. The point is, why should not the working classes be able to buy margarine at the lower prices when it is not coloured? The working classes buy as tenpenny butter what has been purchased by the retailer as margarine at 3d. or 4d. per lb. It is said that the prohibition of colouring would decrease the consumption of margarine, but in Denmark, where no margarine can be coloured, the consumption has not decreased at all, but has rather increased, and amounts now to
1042
12 lbs. per head. In Australia, also, where colouring margarine is prohibited, the margarine trade has largely increased since the prohibition of colouring. I am perfectly ready to see the sale of margarine increased in this country so long as it is sold for what it is and not for what it is not. There is no foundation for the assertion wildly made by the margarine manufacturers and those directly interested in the margarine trade that the trade would be killed if colouring is prohibited. It is absolute nonsense to talk in that way. I have dealt with the question from the consumer's and to a slight extent from the producer's point of view, but I wish to emphasise how the honest trader will be prejudiced by the operation of the Bill. It is a very serious matter indeed for him, because he will be responsible for the acts of his servants. A man might have a large number of shops, and a single servant who wanted to do him a bad turn out of spite or in revenge for some fancied grievance might purposely sell margarine as butter without difficulty, owing to it being coloured to imitate butter. And if that happened three times then the unfortunate, innocent man would be liable to imprisonment. Again, those charged under the Bill ought to have the benefit of trial by jury; but unfortunately the Government refused to permit that in Grand Committee. In conclusion I hold that in this Bill the interests of the consumer have been neglected, and the interests of the traders prejudiced in a most objectionable way for no useful purpose; and it is desirable, therefore, that it should be considered at a later date in order to allow the Government to introduce a better Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be considered this day three months.
MR. WARNER: I beg to second the motion.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Strachey.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The form in which the hon. Member has submitted his motion to the

1043
House is, I imagine, forced upon him as a matter of Parliamentary practice, and I suppose he had no other alternative to moving the rejection of the Bill. In saying a few words on the subject, however, I desire to dissociate myself from any wish, at this stage, to arrest the progress of the Bill. As regards the particular question of colouring margarine so as to imitate butter, I am at a loss to understand how the Government have taken up the ground they have done; for if there is one subject which unites all the agricultural community it is this one. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that this proposal was influentially supported in the Grand Committee. We have no authentic record of the proceedings of the Grand Committee. But I understand, from what the hon. Gentleman has told us, that certain hon. Members representing very important sections of the working classes supported this proposal in the Grand Committee. As to the colouring of one article to look like another, we are asked why persons should be denied the liberty of making the article they desire to sell as attractive as possible. Well, nobody is allowed to gild a shilling to pass it off as a sovereign, and I fail to see why anyone should be allowed to so disguise one article of food as to induce persons to mistake it for another. I said just now that the agricultural community was perfectly solid on this subject. I have been for a great many years associated with agricultural bodies, and it is very seldom they come solidly in a line on a subject. My right hon. friend was, in my judgment, wasting his time the other day when, through his natural courtesy, which he extends to all who approach him, he received a deputation representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture upon another subject. The chairman refused to introduce it; the vice-chairman took a similar course, and I for one, who have been for many years connected with the Chamber, and many others similarly circumstanced, would have nothing whatever to do with it. My right hon. friend was called upon to devote a very considerable portion of valuable time in hearing the views of a section of the Chamber on the subject brought before them, though there was considerable difference of opinion thereupon. But this is a question on which the Central Chamber of Agri-
1044
culture practically feels as one man. As a matter of fact there is absolute unanimity amongst the agricultural community throughout the length and breadth of the land upon this subject, and supported as the agricultural community on this occasion is by representatives of the working class communities, I think we have the right to urge our views very strongly on the Government. The Government may say that it would be dangerous to their Bill to adopt the course suggested to them. I know that a great many hold the view that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed, that so far as the agricultural interest is concerned they had better be without a Bill at all than have a Bill which omits the most important provision of all. I will not go the length of saying that this Bill may not have some useful provisions, but the most widespread disappointment has been created throughout the country amongst representatives of all sections of the agricultural interest by the omission of a provision preventing the colouring of margarine so as to imitate another article.
MR. KEARLEY: The right hon. Gentleman seems to approve the method adopted by my hon. friend the Member for South Somerset in bringing forward his motion in this particular way. I certainly do not agree with that method at all, because the hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities as the Bill goes on of bringing forward his pet fad—for really that is what he is contending for—that the prohibition of the colouring of margarines should be enforced. That is the be-all and end-all of his argument. But he has gone out of his way to suggest that the conduct of the Bill upstairs has not been such as to commend itself to the favourable consideration of the House, and he has suggested that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, in charge of the Bill, really made no such thing as a concession. I really think that is unfair on the face of it. I paid particular attention to the proceedings upstairs, and the right hon. Gentleman made every concession he possibly could—as to which I am not speaking merely my own opinion, but that of many on this side of the House, who feel that the right hon. Gentleman conducted the Bill in an admirable manner, and made every concession he possibly could. The right hon. Gentle-

1045
man said at the outset that he was quite prepared to accept any Amendment that would strengthen the Bill, and therefore I think my hon. friend has taken an extraordinary course.
MR. STRACHEY: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman made no concessions, but that the two most important Amendments put in the Bill were resisted, showing that the Government did nothing to assist in carrying them.
MR. KEARLEY: I do not think that point is worth raising. It was thoroughly well-known to all of us that the Government had an open mind on the question, and they loyally accepted the Amendments which were carried in Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman could have objected there, but instead of that he satisfies himself by moving what practically amounts to the rejection of the Bill. That is why I disagree with him, and object to the course he has now taken. The Bill itself will go a long way towards repressing the frauds of which my hon. friend complains. The Government, acting upon the recommendation of the Select Committee, have determined to prohibit these margarine mixtures, which are at the root of the question; and they have taken powers under this Bill to make local authorities enforce the Statute as it exists at present. It was proved before the Select Committee that the main cause, almost, of all this licence to adulterate was because the local authorities did not act. The Government have taken very strong steps to see that the local authorities in the future enforce the Act. They have also taken steps for the inspection of goods at the port of entry, and by Order in Council can prohibit the importation of any goods which are not as they should be. They have also, acting again on the recommendation of the Select Committee, made provision for increasing penalties; and in the case of those persistent and fraudulent men who, in spite of ordinary fines, go on continuing this iniquitous system of imposing adulterated articles on the public, they have taken power to imprison. That will go a long way towards stamping out these frauds. My hon. friend says there are two classes of objectors—one the traders, who object because they are
1046
going to be subject to imprisonment. But nobody is going to be subject to imprisonment unless he is guilty of fraud; and because men who carry on dishonest practices are to be subject to imprisonment, are we to throw out the Bill? It is monstrous. Having taken considerable interest in the Bill, I think the Government have behaved well in the matter, and I intend, so far as I can, throughout these proceedings to give them my most consistent support.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I must say that I listened with astonishment to the hon. Member, claiming as he does to represent the agricultural interest, when he asked the House to reject the Bill because it does not contain a prohibition of colouring. The abuses which have crept into the sale of food and drugs are largely owing to the fact that in some parts of the country the law is not administered at all, and in other parts only with laxity. But the change we have made in that direction, as the hon. Member for Devon-port has indicated, has been to strengthen the powers possessed by the central department; and I venture to suggest, speaking with full knowledge of the responsibility which I hold in this matter, that if the House sees fit to pass this Bill in its present form, and to give us the increased powers which we ask for, we shall be able, in no very long period of time, to deal successfully with the greater part of the offences. The main part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was devoted to the question of colouring. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House more than to say that I adhere absolutely to the views I expressed on the Second Reading and upstairs, and I shall be prepared, when the time comes, to justify my view—viz., that it would be impolitic and unjust to introduce a prohibition of colouring in relation to one article of food, while leaving all the others untouched. But I will go further, and say that, notwithstanding the evidence the hon. Gentleman produced, I believe that if prohibition were made the law of the land in this country, it would do little good in reducing the competition between margarine and butter, while it would interfere materially with the production of an article of food which is wholesome and ought to be within the

1047
reach of those who desire to consume it. The colouring of margarine has nothing to do with price. The colouring is the same whether the margarine be cheap or expensive. The hon. Gentleman declared that the Amendment, if carried, would not interfere with this article of food, but, on the contrary, increase the production of a cheap article. That would not be the effect, either on the price or on the quantity, of the prohibition of colouring. The only effect would be materially to interfere with the production of a very valuable article of food which ought not to be interfered with unless it was injurious to health. I do not think it is necessary to give more reasons at present why the House should now proceed to the further consideration of the Bill, which has received most careful consideration at the hands of a very largely attended Standing Committee, and is now quite ripe for the further consideration of the House.
SIR JOHN LENG: I think it would both reduce and simplify the discussion on these clauses if for a short time we considered the very important principle underlying this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, while they agree in scarcely anything else, quite agree in letting us see what the intentions of this Bill are. The hon. Member for South Somerset said it would do no good to the agricultural interest, while the strong assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet was that upon this Bill the agricultural interest was solid and spoke with one voice. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman was present at a meeting of the Central Association of Chambers of Agriculture held since this Bill passed through the Grand Committee. A report was made to that meeting in strong terms in favour of the prohibition of the colouring of margarine, and also in favour of the limitation of the mixture of butter fat with margarine to 10 per cent. It is true that to a certain extent there was a chorus of approval of those recommendations, but there was one intelligent Scotsman at that meeting, and from an unusual lapse of memory the right hon. Gentleman seems to have entirely forgotten what Mr. Buchanan
1048
said. What that gentleman said was that
"they would never get the prohibition of the colouring of margarine through Parliament unless they could prohibit the colouring of all dairy products. It seemed to him that the colouring of dairy produce was a deception just in the same way that the colouring of margarine was a deception. surely when they put colouring into white butter to imitate good butter it was to make the public believe that it was a much richer butter than it really was. Why should there not be an all-round prohibition of colouring?"
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Did he get a seconder?
SIR JOHN LENG: He did not make a motion, so that no seconder was required, but he spoke words of truth and sense which did not appear to have been very acceptable to those who heard them. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in my objection to the limitation of the colouring of this particular article I am simply following the example of a member of the Chamber of Agriculture on that occasion. I am opposed to this Bill on diametrically opposite grounds to those which have been advanced. I oppose it because it betrays an almost insane hostility to an innocent, wholesome and nutritious article of food, and further, because I regard it as the child of a delusion of the agriculturists as to how they are to be benefited—how makers of one kind of agricultural produce may be advantaged at the expense of makers and dealers in another. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that the genesis of this Bill is from a Protectionist point of view. I sat upon the Adulteration of Foods Committee, and also took part in the discussions of the Standing Committee—and that is my reason for venturing to trespass on the attention of the House at this time—and I saw there that the one thing upon which the representatives of the agricultural and butter interests as distinguished from the margarine interests were united was in this endeavour, if possible, to proscribe margarine as an article of food, to make it unsaleable, either by compelling it to be sold entirely uncoloured or to be discoloured, and to surround the sale of it in every form and way with such pains and penalties that the ordinary dealer would be deterred from dealing in it. What did we witness last session and the session before? We had a large number of petitions addressed to

1049
this House from chambers of agriculture, agricultural associations, and other people, all of the usual machine-made character, all in the same form, and really originating in the same quarter. To show that this mistaken idea of the agricultural interest is at the bottom of this anti-margarine Bill—for that is what the Bill is—the petition stated:—
"We earnestly pray your honourable House' and especially those Members of it who represent agricultural constituencies, without distinction of Party, to take immediate steps to prevent the artificial colouring, and to prevent the mixing of margarine and butter, and to prevent the importation of adulterated butter."
In the whole of the petitions which have been presented, no petitioner has ever ventured to say, or to make the allegation, that margarine is injurious to health, that it has caused disease, or that its use has resulted in any ailment or epidemic. The agitation to which I have referred culminated finally in this Bill which has been forced upon the Government. The proper department to have introduced the measure is the Local Government Board, the able Secretary of which presided over the Select Committee. At one time the President of the Local Government Board was urged to introduce this Bill, but he was wise and would not touch it, notwithstanding all the entreaties and remonstrances that were addressed to him. The Bill has at length been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, but no sooner was it introduced than it could be seen that it was a great disappointment to those who had pressed for it. It did not propose to accomplish what they desired, it did not propose that margarine should be uncoloured like lard, or made blue or pink, or any other colour offensive to the eye. Attempts were made in the Standing Committee to prohibit the colouring, but the President of the Board of Agriculture resisted those attempts; and I hope he will steadily resist them to the last, and in so doing he will have the support of many Members on both sides of the House. He recognised that a large branch of a perfectly legitimate trade was endangered. What is the contention of the opponents of margarine? It is not that it is unwholesome or innutritious; it is not that it is distasteful or unpleasant in any way. The great complaint is that it is too much like butter, that it cannot be
1050
distinguished from butter, and that good margarine is far better than ill-made butter, and, worst of all, the great offence of margarine is that it is too cheap.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is the same price as butter.
ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: It is sold for butter.
SIR JOHN LENG: I am not blinking any fact. I know that the assertion is that it is sold by the retailers of butter, and that purchasers are defrauded. That is the contention of the opponents, and no doubt we shall have it reiterated to-night. I will meet those objections. First of all, as to margarine as an article of food. I do not wish it to be taken on my word that it is a wholesome thing. I have sought in vain in the "Encyclopædia Britannica" for any reference to the article, but in another Encyclopædia, the fairness and impartiality of which has never been doubted—Chambers's:Encyclopædia, the 1888 edition—margarine is spoken of under the name it was then known by, viz.,—butterine. That work speaks of it thus:—
"Butterine is a substance which when well made cannot be distinguished from good butter except by chemical analysis. It is now sold as margarine, and may be regarded as a valuable adjunct to the food of the labouring classes. It is made with great care and skill from the finest ox-fat, which is passed through an elaborate and highly scientific process of purification. It is then mixed with a varying proportion of real butter, and flavoured by washing with milk, and finally marketed in large quantities in a beautiful uniform condition."
Then in the Select Committee we found that great regard was paid to the opinion of public analysts. Let me quote one or two sentences from one of these. Mr. Stokes, public analyst to Paddington, writing, says, margarines
"are well-made substitutes for butter, from which they cannot be distinguished except by analysis. So far as nutritive value goes they are in my opinion as digestible and as nutritious as butter. They do not contain so much water as some of the low-grade samples of butter. As for flavour and palatability, they are vastly to be preferred to some inferior samples of butter sold at much higher prices. Sold as margarine they would by their cheapness and agreeableness and uniformity and quality be a boon to the community."
I could add several other testimonies of the same character. As to the allegation

1051
of fraud, I am not a defender of fraud or of fraudulent dealing. I wish everything to be sold for what it is. But I assert, and I think there can be no doubt about it, that the Margarine Act of 1887 contains very stringent provisions, all for the protection of the consumer, and that it is a very special and peculiar legislation which would go beyond that. According to the Act of 1887 the word "margarine" is to mean "all substances, whether compounds or otherwise, prepared in imitation of butter, and whether mixed with butter or not, and no such substance shall be lawfully sold, except under the name of margarine." That is, if you put the smallest percentage of margarine into butter you must call the whole of it margarine. This is not applied to any other mixture whatever, but simply to margarine. Then, all packages containing margarine have to be branded with the word. When it is exposed for sale it must be labelled in capital letters one and a half inches square. This is in the existing Act. When sold it is to be delivered in a paper wrapper; the wrapper must have "margarine" printed on it in capital letters a quarter of an inch square. So that according to the present law margarine cannot be sold or exhibited for sale without full and ample notice of the fact that it is margarine. Then, manufacturers of margarine have to be registered; inspectors are empowered to take samples, and fines may be imposed not exceeding £20 for the first offence, £50 for the second offence, and £100 for the third. We say that the Act of 1887 is quite strong enough, that its penalties are heavy enough, and that it would be found quite sufficient for dealing with these matters if duly enforced. I do not object at all to the clause in the proposed Bill for securing its more active and uniform enforcement. But you have to take care of this fact. Complaint has been made of the unwillingness of the magistrates to convict, or to inflict the heavy fines which can be inflicted under the present Act. What is that but a proof that the magistrates doubt the wisdom of making a distinction between statutory offences and what are not really moral crimes? The sense of justice revolts against making unreal crimes, and it would rebel even more against the heavy penalties which are here proposed, and the still heavier penalties which some desire to have superimposed, in the Bill now before the House. I have here one
1052
page of the British Food Journal for the month of June, showing that when prosecutions are instituted there is no difficulty in clear cases in obtaining convictions and securing heavy penalties. All that is wanted is to go on putting the existing Act into operation. There can be no doubt that with repeated prosecutions the cause of the prosecutions would cease to exist. I have spoken of the genesis of this Bill as arising from a delusion ill the minds of the agriculturists. They think that margarine is the great enemy from which they suffer in the butter trade. I will only detain the House one or two minutes in showing that that is an utter delusion. The fact is that the imports of foreign margarine for some years past have steadily decreased. On the other hand, the imports of foreign and colonial butter have more than doubled in quantity and nearly doubled in value since the Margarine Act was passed. Take first the figures with regard to butter. The imports of foreign butter in the year 1887, the year the Margarine Act was passed, were in quantity 1,513,134 cwts., and the value was £8,010,374. The intervening years show a steady growth in the imports and in the value from year to year, until last year, 1898, the quantity went up to 3,209,092 cwts.—more than double—while the value increased to £15,960,571, nearly double the amount in 1887. The Board of Trade Returns confirm these figures, and show that from Denmark and Holland more especially there has been a very large increase. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that margarine had been specially dealt with in Denmark. The reason why is simple. The Danish farmers and producers, and the Danish Government which protects them, have first of all established a very high standard of excellence for their butter, and they have been, and are, naturally most anxious, having got so large and strong a hold on the British market, to maintain it, and therefore they are justified under the circumstances in excluding any danger of the idea spreading that Danish butter is mixed with margarine. If we were Danish farmers I think we should take the same course. But not only have the farmers in Denmark and France and other countries largely increased their exports, but our own colonies have done the same. The Board of Trade Returns for 1898 show

1053
that there has been a wonderful increase in the exportation from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. I met a Government official from New Zealand the other day, and he told me they were only beginning to send butter, and that they would send it in larger and larger quantities. The last reports from Canada are to precisely the same effect. Why is this? Because the farmers abroad, by their intelligence and education, by their system of co-operation, by adopting the factory system, have established a high standard of excellence, which they maintain. And not only that, they do not send their butter as our farmers send it to markets in dribblets of a few pounds at a time; they send it in cwts. and tons, and if von go to a large wholesale dealer he will tell you that he can rely on getting from the 1st of January to the 31st of December butter in such large quantities as he needs for his wholesale or retail business, and butter against which there will be no complaint. I have shown that so far as butter is concerned, the imports have been steadily increasing. The facts with regard to margarine are, curiously enough, just in the other direction. So far as foreign margarine is concerned there has been a steady diminution. In 1887 there were 1,276,140 cwts. imported, while last year the amount had decreased to 899,875 cwts. The value in the same period had gone down from £3,880,327 to £2,383,774. So that some of the opponents of margarine are frightening themselves over what is really slowly but steadily disappearing from the market, so far as foreign margarine is concerned. But there is a qualification upon this. While the importation of foreign margarine has been diminishing, the home manufacture has been to an almost equivalent extent increasing, thus forming a new, important and valuable branch of home trade and manufacture against which this Bill is directed. It is generally supposed that foreign manufacturers alone are affected. Some of these large home manufacturers, who did not wish to exaggerate a single figure, have told me after careful and cautious estimate that they are making conjointly 600 tons a week, or 30,000 tonsper annum. At £40 per ton that means a manufacture of £1,200,000 a year. They further said that the capital invested in this trade amounted to no less than £1,500,000. That is not an imaginary trade. I heard
1054
hon. Members for Ireland cheering some statements adverse to margarine. I am somewhat doubtful whether they know the extent to which the manufacture exists in their own country. There are large manufactories of margarine at Clarina, County Limerick; Clonmel, Limerick, and also in the neighbourhood of Dublin. Then, in our own country, there are such manufactories as those at Birkenhead and Liverpool, and we have a considerable number in Scotland—at Dunraggitt, kilmarnock, Cathcart, Glasgow, Craigmillar, Mauchline (Ayrshire), and Leith (Midlothian). Thus it will be seen that this is a large and important branch of trade, and to that extent the more these agriculturists go against margarine the more they are going against their own interests. Home-made margarine is taking the place of foreign margarine with advantage to British agriculturists. It has been also found that this has already enhanced the price of cattle £1 per head, and it has also increased the demand for milk. Even the dairy farmers benefit by the establishment it of well-appointed margarine factories both in Great Britain and Ireland, as they pay the farmers high prices for the milk required in the manufacture of margarine. The landlords already find that farms in the neighbourhood of margarine factories are letting at higher prices than they did before. I commend the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to this vexed question of colouring. I will not go at the present moment into the clause dealing with this subject, because when we come to the clauses we shall be able to speak upon them separately. There is only one point about which I should like to inquire. I notice that a new Committee is to be appointed, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman may have seen a statement published in the North British Agriculturist, in the issue of July 12th, in which it points out that:
"On Wednesday last, as we know from a sure source, Mr. Long, on visiting the Highland show, was greatly mortified at being informed that there was no likelihood of his being invited back to hold another conference with the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the agricultural associations affiliated therewith. On the following day it was made known to the inner circle that this committee to investigate and report on food preservatives and other questions connected with the Bill, would be appointed, with Sir Herbert Maxwell as chairman, and this will furnish a good excuse for withdrawing the Bill in the meantime, and

1055
haying it passed in an amended form next session. Sir Herbert Maxwell is known to be sound on the colouring of margarine question, and is very anxious to get Mr. Long 'extricated from the bog,' to use Mr. Long's own phrase."
MR. LONG: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that there is not a shadow of foundation for the statements contained in the quotation he has just read.
SIR JOHN LENG: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made the statement that there is no intention to get behind the Bill. The hon. Member for South Somerset has quoted with great emphasis a Report from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester. All I know about that Report is that I read it very carefully, and a few days afterwards I received the statement that its issue was unauthorised and that it has been issued without the sanction of the Chamber itself, and therefore it goes for very little. But while I have very great respect for the intelligence of Manchester, I have still more respect for the intelligence of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, and Dundee, because the inhabitants there arc clearheaded, long-headed people. Let me read one or two sentences from the petition of the Chamber of Commerce and manufacturers in the City of Glasgow, incorporated by Royal Charter in 1783. They say:
"Your petitioners observe that by the provisions of this Bill a novel and pernicious principle is proposed to be introduced into common law. Legislation enforcing the impoverishment, injury, or total suppression of the manufacture of any wholesome and important food is out with all existing statutory enactment, and would inflict a direct injury alike upon the consumers and upon the producers of the food.
"Your petitioners are of opinion that the impoverishment of margarine is unnecessary as a protection against its fraudulent sale as butter. They are authoritatively informed that the mixture of margarine and butter can be ascertained by chemical analysis, whether the addition amounts to 10 or 50 per cent. of either the one food or the other. The contention, therefore, that to limit the quantity of butter in margarine to 10 per cent. is necessary to secure a conviction under the Food and Drugs Act is wholly without foundation."
The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce say:
"In particular your petitioners point out that Clause 8, if passed, might prove the destruction of the margarine trade—one in the maintenance of which all classes of the com-
1056
munity (except a certain section connected with the home dairying interests) are directly or indirectly financially concerned.
"That clause would make unlawful to manufacture or sell any margarine which contains more than 10 per cent. butter fat, whereas it has been repeatedly proved by analysis that margarine to which no butter has been added may contain upwards of 10 per cent. butter fat, even as much as 17½. per cent.
"Your petitioners further are of opinion that to require that food which is approved by use as margarine is should be impoverished before being offered for sale is contrary to the interest, and is opposed to the usual line of Parliamentary legislation."
The Chambers of Commerce for Leith and for the city which I represent have also strongly petitioned this House against the Bill, not by what I call machine-made petitions such as those which have been presented in its favour, but all of them by petitions couched in different language and framed by the Chambers of Commerce concerned. When we come to Clause 8 I think we shall be able to show that it is altogether contrary to the principles of enlightened legislation, and that, at all events, it should be amended in a different direction from that which has been advocated by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. The last objection which I make to this Bill is its denial of the right of trial by jury of the persons who will be subjected to very heavy fines and imprisonment with hard labour under its provisions. The penal Section provides that:
"Where a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine not exceeding £50 that person shall be liable (if the court is of opinion that a fine will not meet the circumstances of the case) to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months."
The courts before which these offences will be tried will be courts of summary jurisdiction, and it is quite easy to conceive that the magistrates of these courts may be imbued with similar feelings with regard to margarine as those which have been given expression to in this House; and they may easily find special circumstances to justify them not only in imposing heavy fines, but also imprisonment with hard labour for three months. I do hope that this House will not, for the first time, impose upon traders who may, in certain circumstances quite innocently, make an infraction of this proposed statute, a penalty which will subject them

1057
to what will mean absolute ruin; for if you send a tradesman or general dealer to prison for three months with hard labour for an alleged fraud, you may not only shut up his shop, but he need never again resume business. I say that, in such cases, the offenders should have the right of appeal to a British jury, and for that reason I have adopted an Amendment which was drafted by the late Mr. Ascroft, who was not only a man of remarkable common-sense, but his moral rectitude was shown by the vigorous action he took against the sharks of the money-lending fraternity. He was a man who could distinguish between moral crimes and statutory offences, and it is his Amendment which I have adopted. I hope that that Amendment will receive general support in this House. In conclusion I trust that the House, representing all interests in the country, will not be guided solely by consideration merely of the agricultural interest or the interests of a section of the dealers in butter, but will also consider the interests of all classes of consumers, many of whom have not the means to purchase high price butter, and are glad for their wives on Saturday night to buy a cheap, wholesome, and nutritious article at very often only half the price of butter. Then again, we should respect those manufacturers who have invested a large amount of capital in margarine factories, and I may point out here that there has been no case since the Margarine Act of 1887 was passed in which a prosecution against a manufacturer has succeeded; and on behalf of the whole trading and commercial interests of this country I do hope that this House will not lend itself merely to furthering the interests of the butter associations against the margarine associations. What I would say is, let the English farmers and landed proprietors adopt better systems of agriculture and cultivation, and devote themselves more to self-reliance and self-help. They should not always be looking to Parliament to improve their position; this rests with themselves, and they should be left to work out their own salvation. The Scottish farmers do not come whining to this House for assistance, for they agree generally with the views expressed by the Scotch Chambers of Commerce. Let our own British farmers and landed proprietors endeavour to meet the foreign and colonial producer of butter by producing
1058
butter themselves of an equally excellent quality, in equally merchantable quantities, and at the same price. Surely our farmers, farming their own land near our great cities and populous towns, should be able to compete with growers on the other side of the German Ocean, on the other side of the Atlantic, and even at the Antipodes, in Australia and New Zealand. These foreign growers have to pay merchants' commission, shipowners' freights, amid insurance, cold storage, and also the expense of refrigerating chambers. Surely, under these circumstances, British farmers ought to be able to compete with the foreigners. I do really hope that English farmers will rely more upon themselves, and that the farmers in the South of England will imitate the farmers in Scotland in this respect. I trust, also, that the deluded members of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce will take an example from the Chambers of Commerce in Edinburgh and Glasgow. If this House decides to give its support to these views, this Bill, before Consideration is finished, will receive a number of very important Amendments.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: In the discussion which has arisen upon the proposal of my hon. friend the Member for South Somerset, we have been drifting into adebate in reference to the producers of agricultural produce and the manufacture of certain articles of food. In that discussion, which is so far not altogether unjustifiable, very little has been said about the consumer, although it is the consumer, who above all others, is interested in this Bill. Our object in trying to make this measure better has been, as far as possible, to secure the consumer from fraud or from anything that is injurious to his health or his pocket. If we bear that principle in mind, I think this Bill will commend itself to the consideration of the House, and I before it leaves this and the final stage it will, I hope, have heel so altered as to be a measure which will be a benefit to the great masses of the community. The discussion which has been raised is not an unjustifiable one, because this measure differs vastly from the Bill as it passed the Second Reading. I find that as the Bill came from the Grand Committee, one-third of it is new matter, and out of twenty-six clauses no less than twenty-one have been amended. Therefore this measure requires serious con-

1059
sideration by every Member of this House before it passes into law. I do not think the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Somerset is an improper one, for it is a proposal which calls the attention of the House very justly to the great changes which have been made in this Bill during its passage through the Grand Committee. As far as I am concerned, and as far as my in- formation leads me to a conclusion, I regard this Bill as greatly improved in the shape in which it now stands as compared with the shape in which it was introduced. Nevertheless, it introduces great changes in the law, and therefore the measure requires very deliberate consideration. There is in this Bill an opportunity of bringing about an inspection at the port of entry, which is of very great importance indeed to the consumer. If we had nothing left in the Bill but the third clause, I do not think that we should want much else in order to have the law properly carried out. The third clause, for the first time in the history of this class of legislation, compels the local authority to enforce the law. I should be very sorry to interfere with anything in that clause, for it will do much in the way of making adulteration scarce in this country. I think that when we make it the statutory duty of every authority to administer the Adulteration Acts, we take a step which will be for the benefit of the whole community, and in particular a great benefit to the consumer. We have certain other novelties in the measure, some of which will be very valuable. We have a system of inspection under the Local Government Board, as well as under the Board of Agriculture, which will keep the local authorities up to their duty. I regard the Bill as somewhat revolutionary in another respect, inasmuch as it partly takes away from the Local Government Board the supervision of the Food and Drugs Act; but that is a point which we shall have to consider. I do not think that the new Board of Agriculture ought to step in and take over these duties, which have been discharged for a quarter of a century by the Local Government Board. The President of the Board of Agriculture appears to have rushed in where the angel of the Local Government Board fears to tread. I hope we shall not be led to consider too much either the producer or the manufacturer, because in this measure the well-being of
1060
the consumer is especially concerned, and it is the consumer who is to be protected from injury by an Act such as this. I think my hon. friend who moved this, Amendment has now gained all he desired by having produced this very interesting Debate by his proposal, and I hope he will not put the House to the trouble of a Division after he has obtained so much valuable information.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I recognise that this Bill contains one or two valuable provisions which I would like to see extended to Ireland. I think that generally in Ireland disappointment will be felt, because the main grievance that we have in relation to adulteration of agricultural products, namely, the colouring of margarine, has not been dealt with. The butter industry is one of the largest in Ireland, and, speaking of that industry, I think I can safely say that the Irish manufacturers of butter are not in the least afraid of any form of honest competition. But we have the distinct grievance that our manufacture of butter is met by what I must call dishonest competition. What we object, to is this: that our neighbours produce a product which is not butter, but, through the ignorance of the purchaser, they are enabled to sell it as Irish butter. If it could be made plain to us that margarine would always be sold as margarine, and that there would he no infringement of the various Acts of Parliament dealing with the sale of margarine, then we should have no objection; but this is perfectly impossible so long as margarine is allowed to be coloured like butter, for poor people often purchase in a hurry, and though they expect to get butter they often get margarine. A good deal has been said about the necessity of supporting the interests of the working man in this matter. I am perfectly certain that nine working men out of every ten would much prefer butter to margarine, but as things are now it is perfectly impossible to suppose that if a workman or his wife or daughter go into a grocer's shop they have any means of knowing which is margarine and which is butter.
AN HON. MEMBER: But the Act of 1887 provides for that.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Yes, but that Act has never been properly enforced, and the difficulty we have is that no Act will be properly enforced. All we should do is to insist that if an article is sold as margarine, it should be sold in its natural colour. Some hon. Members have said that if margarine were sold in its natural colour nobody would buy it. That seems to me to be a very strong and urgent reason why we should insist upon it being sold in its natural colour. Hon. Members who have travelled on the Continent know that in some places they can only get white butter, and they can eat that just as well as yellow butter. I do not believe that if margarine were sold in its natural colour it would make any difference to the people who wish to use margarine instead of butter. It has been said that the working man is greatly interested in cheap food, but as far as I can gather, the opinion of working men as represented in this House is in favour of having an honest article. This being such an important industry in Ireland, I think it would not be right for Irish Members to allow this Bill to pass without, at all events, expressing their opinion that the Irish butter industry is very badly treated in this respect. We are not afraid of honest competition, but what we do object to is dishonest competition.
MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench has told us that we ought to consider this matter in the interests of the consumer. I think that this is most important advice, and I am sure the House will bear it in mind. The only thing is that the consumer may have two interests at stake, and the House will have to bear in mind those two interests So far as my hon. friend is concerned, he appears to hear only one of those interests in mind. He has spoken of the consumer being protected from fraud. We are dealing with questions of fraud all through this Bill; but you have also got to consider the interests of the consumer who has got a small purse, and to protect him against the rich and powerful class who want to protect themselves by this measure. I quite agree that we ought to do everything we can to repress fraud, but if that is our object, we ought to pass legislation conceived in the spirit of the Act of 1875. I do not think Parliament
1062
has improved in its treatment of this great question. If anyone will look at the Act of 1875, it will be found that that Act deals with food broadly, and there is no special article singled out. It provides that there shall be no fraud connected with any food, and it looks at the interests of the consumer generally, and does it in a more intelligent way. So much for the Act of 1875. I believe the present Bill has been blessed by my hon. friend the Member for Devonport, who introduced a Bill last year, upon the back of which I placed my name. But that was a very different Bill from this, and I cannot understand for a moment how anybody who introduced a Bill like that of last year could lend his support and make himself responsible for the proposals in the present Bill. If anyone will look at the two measures he will see that the proposals are absolutely different. This is the great point upon which the House ought to fix its mind. In 1887 we had a bad measure from the predecessors of the present Government, and that measure was full of margarine. Now we are having another measure which is full of margarine, and I am sick of margarine. We have heard too much of it in this Debate—too much of margarine and too much of butter. I do not know anything, consciously, of margarine. I have not been spoken to by any manufacturers of margarine, and I have tried to keep away from the butter associations as far as I could. I think we should remember that we are dealing with broad national interests, and we should not talk too much about ally single article, but embody something in the Bill which will apply to all articles of food. That is the great objection I find to the present Bill, which is full of one article, and it is framed in the interests of powerful and rich classes instead of being full of general principles applying to all classes of food. There is a rich and powerful class protected in the Bill, and that is the agricultural interest, and the interests of the butter associations. I do not want to speak much about margarine, because I think the Committee has already heard enough about it. Margarine appears to be made as an honest article and a useful food. If that is so, why should it not have fair play in this Bill? There is nothing about the honest man in this Bill at all, and it is aimed entirely at the fraudulent person. My point is that if we have a fair descrip-

1063
tion of margarine, it is an honest article which may be honestly sold; and it is a cheap and useful food suitable to people who have got small purses. If that is so, it ought to be treated as an honest article, and we should not allow the stigmas which are laid upon it under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman who has spoken from the front Opposition bench has stated that it is necessary to inspect the goods at the port of entry. Already the Bill is full of administrative confusion, and if we establish a second examining authority at the port of entry, the result will be that many articles will get through without being examined at all. I want every article of food landed to be examined by the proper authority, and the Customs authorities are the proper people to deal with this question. The effect of having two distinct authorities will be that bad articles will get in without being examined, because the Customs authorities will say, "We thought the Board of Agriculture would do this"; and the Board of Agriculture will say, "We thought the Customs would do it." We shall have confusion at the port of entry, but that will only be the beginning of the trouble, and it will be a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth, and nobody's interests will be properly managed. It may be said that it will be very hard to get the Customs, the Local Government Board, or the local authorities to do their duty, but I do not believe in Parliament shrinking from these hard tasks and taking on an easy way when it is a bad way. For these reasons I think the proposals of this Bill should be viewed with some suspicion. There are some extraordinary anomalies in the Bill, and I will mention one of them. The Bill makes an invoice a warranty, although it does not define what an in- voice is. Invoices are usually written by the worst paid clerks in a commercial establishment, and yet, hereafter, every invoice so made will be a warranty binding on the firm. I think this should not be allowed without imposing some very great safeguards, and there should be a limit of time fixed during which action may be taken on the warranty. There are many classes of margarine and butter which are not so good in a month as they are when they come in. Is the merchant who sent out those goods to be responsible for them seven days or a month after they are delivered? There is no
1064
provision made for anything of this kind, for the Committee upstairs were in a hurry; therefore, I think it would be better to take this proposal out of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is responsible for many of these great changes, and I notice than there are Amendments down to make the Bill apply to other sorts of food as well as margarine and butter. These are good Amendments so far as they go, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would do better if he would take a little more time to consider this question before he presses it upon the House. I would venture to suggest that the best course to take would be to withdraw the Bill altogether, for I believe that I have shown that it contains some very great anomalies. If the Bill is withdrawn, and we are allowed to care fully consider it during the next six months, I believe we shall then be able to address ourselves to this very important subject, to the advantage of the community at large.
MR. LAMBERT: I shall not intervene for more than two or three minutes, but I wish to allude to the remarks made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, which I think challenge a little criticism. I do not think the hon. Member could have given the Government a better text to go to the country upon. He said there was nothing in the Bill about honest people, and that the measure aimed at fraudulent persons only. I think a Bill ought to deal with fraudulent people very strictly. Then the hon. Member made an Irish "bull" for he said that he was sick of margarine although he had never consciously tasted it. My hon. friend went on to say that invoices were made out by the worst paid clerks in an office. I hope that is not the case in his own establishment, and if that is the state of things which exists it ought to be altered at once. My hon. friend also said that we ought to deal with margarine in the spirit of the Act of 1875, but in that year margarine was not in existence. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, I may say that I have never heard a Member in this House fancy himself and his people more than the hon. Member for Dundee. He drew a comparison, apparently much to his own satisfaction, between us and "hard-headed sensible

1065
Scotchmen," and he was very severe on this Bill, because it proposes to inflict imprisonment. But how is imprisonment brought in? It is only brought in after the third offence, and then it is at the discretion of the magistrate, who has an opportunity of letting the offender off again. The Debate commenced with the question of margarine, but I do not intend to prolong this discussion, because there are other Amendments on the Paper which I hope may be carried. The hon. Member for Dundee said the imports of margarine were decreasing, while the imports of butter were going up. It is a very extraordinary thing that the imports of butter from Holland are going up, while at the same time that country is the seat of the margarine trade. Holland sends us 90 per cent. of our margarine, and the increase in the importation of butter from Holland has gone up 40 per cent. since the year 1895, which proves that there is a very considerable amount of margarine manufactured in Holland which is imported into this country as butter. That is what we hope to stop by this Bill. I will not go further into this discussion at the present stage, but content myself with the few remarks which I have made. I may say that if the hon. Member for South Somerset divides the House on this subject I shall support the Government, because I would rather have this Bill than no Bill at all.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has never seen a Bill which has received so much support in the country as this Bill, especially the proposal which it contains in reference to regulating the sale of margarine. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that as to the restrictions which it is proposed to place upon the margarine trade the whole of the agriculturists of the country were united. I think that shows clearly that the proposals of this Bill have the effect of pitting the interests of the agriculturists against those of the towns. As far as I have been able to judge, my opinion is that I never saw any measure proposed by any Government upon which there was such an absolutely unanimous opinion against the proposals of the Government in reference to margarine. My hon. friend the Member for Dundee quoted the opinion of a number of chambers of commerce in Scotland, in-
1066
cluding Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and so forth. In Glasgow the town council has gone dead against the Government proposals as regards margarine. In reference to Clause 8 they say:
"The Corporation see no justifiable reason, from the point of view of the citizens, why their margarine should be limited in quality, as it would be were Clause 8 passed into law."
And later on the Health Committee, entrusted with the administration of the Food and Drugs Bill in connection with the Glasgow Corporation, issued a very strong letter upon the subject, in which they stated that:
"Clause 8 seems a reductio ad absurdum, as it prohibits adding a superior article to an inferior, although the mixture must be sold under the interior name. It deprives the public of a palatable and wholesome article of food, and compels them either to pay a much higher price for butter, or be content with a much inferior article, and prohibits the well-doer from well-doing in an effort to prevent fraud by the fraudulent."
We are told that the reason for these proposals is that if a sufficient amount of butter is added—more than 10 per cent.—it is impossible for the analyst to detect the fraud. But what do this committee say on this point? They say:
"Our city analyst advises us that even 40 per cent. of butter added to margarine is quite capable of detection, and that the existing powers are sufficient for prosecuting successfully for selling any mixture in any proportions of margarine and butter as butter. Nothing can be clearer than that the more butter there is in margarine the better for the buyer and consumer."
MR. JOHN BURNS: But why not all butter?
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Certainly, but why not a mixture if it is sold as a mixture? Here is the opinion of the Scottish, Co-operative Wholesale Society. They say:
"We have seen a copy of the letter of the 29th ult. sent to you by the Public Health Committee of the City of Glasgow. Our society is composed of 289 co-operative societies, with a membership of over 220,000, all ratepayers and voters living in all parts of Scotland. Our members are chiefly of the working classes, who are interested in the clauses of the Bill and in preventing any restriction affecting the sale of a wholesome article. We entirely concur in what is said in the letter of the Health Committee, and we trust that you will use your utmost en-

1067
deavours to get the suggestions therein made carried into effect, and thus benefit the general public."
But that is not all. I have here a memorial to the House from the Lanark County Council, which represents one of the most populous counties in Scotland, also expressing the same view. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench and several other speakers have spoken in praise of this Bill, but it strikes me the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington struck the true note when he protested against legislation for special articles, and when he demanded that the Bill should be made applicable to food generally. But what do we find in connection with this Bill? It consists of two parts. Under the first part the importation of certain articles which are insufficiently described is not prohibited at the port of entry. The second part deals with the sale and manufacture of adulterated articles within the United Kingdom. We find that the prohibition at the port of entry is restricted to agricultural products, and to a certain class manufactured from milk, and these are dealt with in a fragmentary, illusory, and unintelligible fashion. For instance, milk from which the cream has been extracted must be marked "skimmed" or "separated." At the same time you admit impoverished cheese, but if it contains anything in the shape of margarine you insist upon it being subject to all sorts of restrictions. This Bill deals in a fragmentary manner with one article, and makes no provision in connection with the fraud which in all probability will arise in the case of other articles. In the case of butter it is proposed to provide for the stoppage at the port of entry of impoverished butter. Now, what is impoverished butter? It is the butter made from skimmed milk; if it is worth while to try and get butter from skimmed milk, such butter will be just as good as an equal amount of the butter which has been previously taken from the same milk. The greatest ingenuity cannot get more fat out of the milk than it contains. The butter from separated milk, if it would pay to make it, is just as good as the other butter, for impoverished butter does not mean butter than has been adulterated with margarine. Why is this legislation being carried out by a system of traps and pitfalls? Why has not a standard been laid down at which butter should be con-
1068
sidered adulterated, in order to enable us to understand what is meant by the Bill? The Bill takes no account of "process" butter, which is infinitely more deleterious than adulterated butter. "Process" butter is old, rancid butter sent through a certain process and made to taste like new. The acid which gives the butter its rancid taste is washed out, but the baccilli are retained, and consequently the butter goes back to its rancid condition in a very short time. "Process" butter is injurious to health, and yet this Bill does not take the smallest note of it. Take the case of margarine itself and see what the proposal in the Bill amounts to. As the hon. Member for South Molton said, it is a very suspicious circumstance than the importation of butter from. Holland is largely increasing, the explanation probably being that a large amount of the Dutch butter imported into this country is really margarine. We know it is impossible to detect the adulteration if there is a larger proportion of butter in margarine than 10 per cent., and therefore the case for the provision in the Bill falls to the ground.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into a discussion which had better be reserved until the clause standing in the name of the hon. Member is reached.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I only wish to show the uselessness of this clause with regard to butter adulterated with margarine. There is nothing at all to prevent a foreign manufacturer mixing 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of margarine with butter and sending it into this country. It cannot be detected, and nothing can prevent the dairy farmer in this country doing the same thing. I object to the Bill in so far as it does not deal with the subject in a comprehensive manner. None of the adulterations commonly met with are dealt with. Preserves, for instance, have formed the subject of many prosecutions, but they have been neglected by the framers of this measure. Why have not general principles been adopted, and why are we asked to give the Government a blank cheque to interfere with any trade they may think proper? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet said this interference would be a mere bagatelle. That is not the view I take. The whole

1069
of this case as regards butter and margarine was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, which will be admitted by everyone to be one of the ablest tribunals in the whole world. Several States in the Union, under the influence of the agriculturists, passed laws prohibiting the manufacture of margarine, or insisting that the product should be coloured. For instance, one State passed the "pink law" and very grave penalties were enacted against any person transgressing it. A number of dealers contravened the law and were arrested, and a test case was brought before the Supreme Court of Appeal, which delivered the following judgment:
"The Legislature in common with many others speaks of butter as a product of nature. Butter is no more a product of nature than butterine. Both are manufactured. The principle ingredients of butter come primarily from the cow, and pass through different processes of manufacture to its finished state. Science by various chemical processes extracts the principal ingredients of butterine from the cow and kindred animals, and the complete products are practically the Same in both cases. The Legislature may pass any reasonable regulations for the manufacture and sale both of butter and butterine. It cannot prohibit the manufacture or sale of whole-ome and nutritious articles of food, either directly or under the guise of regulatory Acts. It is insisted that the Legislature has the sole right to say whether the Act is reasonable or not, and its discretion cannot be inquired into by the courts. If that be true then the Legislature may at its next session, prompted by the butterine or some other interests, remove all regulations on the manufacture or sale of butterine, and prohibit the use of annato or any other colouring matter, or even the use of salt in butter, and add such other regulations as would amount to a prohibition of the manufacture or sale of butter. Then they might prohibit the grinding of corn meal so as to make the meal white, or they might require all corn meal to be ground coarse and coloured yellow so that it would not resemble wheat flour. In fact, the field that would be open to the Legislature would be unlimited, and the greatest monopolies this country has ever seen might be fostered and built up in this State if the Legislature was so inclined, and there would be no redress for the people."
This present Bill has been completely remodelled, and I think we ought to have some general principles on which to rely. The Feeding Stuffs and Fertilisers Act really aims at adulteration, because it seeks to grapple with the subject at the fountain head. This Bill contents itself with harrowing retailers and leaving the manufacturers untouched. Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that where goods are
1070
sold with a description there is an implied understanding that they correspond with that description. For instance, a grocer recently sold two tins of syrup. They were labelled "First Class," but they were afterwards found to be adulterated. The grocer was prosecuted for selling adulterated goods, and fined £6. Of course, the grocer was punished even to a greater extent than the mere amount of the fine, because he was convicted of selling adulterated goods, and his rivals would not scruple to take advantage of that fact when pushing their own trade as against his. The Feeding Stuffs and Fertilisers Act carries the matter still further.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into a detailed discussion, which would be more appropriate on the Amendments which stand in the hon. Member's name on the Paper.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I do not, of course, Sir, wish to contest your ruling, but it seems to me that legislation of this kind should be constructed on general principles. We are asked to give the Minister of Agriculture a blank cheque with regard to the setting up of standards. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland appear to trust themselves blindfolded to the Board of Agriculture. I would ask them whether it would not be better that, instead of leaving the whole of this question as to what constitutes adulteration of butter to the Board of Agriculture, it should be laid down in the Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman himself may have no intention of dealing harshly in the matter, but he cannot bind his successors. The Bill has been somewhat improved by the Amendments carried in Committee, but they were forced on the right hon. Gentleman almost at the point of the bayonet. For instance, one Amendment gives power to the Local Government Board to enforce the administration of the Food and Drugs Act in districts in which it is neglected. The right hon. Gentleman told us he could not accept that, and he only accepted it after several of his hon. friends got up and pressed him on the point. Another improvement is, that an analyst should be compulsorily appointed. There, again, that Amendment was not brought forward

1071
by the right hon. Gentleman, although he accepted without the smallest trouble what my hon. friend the Member for Dundee has described as "the clause for altruistic imprisonment." The legal doctrine is that a man should be responsible for the acts of his agent, but I do not know of any instance where a man has been made criminally responsible for the acts of another. The Bill now appears to me to be conceived entirely in the interests of one class. It will work so little good, and will have such little effect in preventing adulteration, that if my hon. friend goes to a Division I will support him.
MR. KILBRIDE: The hon. Baronet who has just sat down has appealed to the Irish Members to be careful as to what they are going to do in connection with this Bill. He has asked us if we are going blindfolded to put the case of the Irish agriculturist into the hands of the President of the Board of Agriculture. In these matters, although I confess that we are indebted for a great deal of support to Scotch Members, I would say to the hon. Baronet that we are the best judges of our own affairs. I would further draw his attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken in this Bill to appoint a Board of Reference, or, at any rate, that before the Board of Agriculture proceeds to say what percentage of water is legitimate in butter he will take every means of ascertaining what is legitimate. I do not know that during his early career the right hon. Gentleman has been in any way remarkable for running away from any undertaking given by him in this House, and I do not anticipate that the Irish producers will labour under any difficulty in the matter. I notice that the opponents of this Bill are unanimous in agreeing that it is intended solely and entirely to benefit agriculture, and that the Government has been forced by the representatives of agricultural interests in this House to introduce the Bill. The hon. Member for West Islington in the course of this Debate asked would any Irish Member get up and deny that fact. I deny that the Government have been forced by the representatives of agriculture. I deny that it is because of agricultural depression that the Government have been forced to bring in this Bill. It
1072
is because of admitted frauds, as well as of their immensity and continuance, that it has been found that the existing law is not sufficiently strong to prohibit fraud, and the Government have been forced in the interest of just trading to bring in this Bill. My hon. friend says that from beginning to end the Bill deals solely with fraud. Of course it does, because its sole object is to stop fraud. We have heard over and over again that this is a fight between town and country. It is nothing of the kind. It is a fight on the part of the honest trader against the dishonest trader. If it be a fact, and I admit it is, that these frauds hit not only the honest trader, but also the agricultural producer, is it because the agricultural producer finds himself badly hit, that we are to be told that this Bill to prevent such frauds is introduced solely in the interests of agriculture, and that working men are to be deprived of wholesome articles of food? I notice that during this Debate no direct representative of labour has got up and said that this Bill will deprive the poor man of a cheap and wholesome article of food. That argument is used, not by the working men representatives, but by the capitalists, and I prefer to believe that my hon. friend the Member for Batttersea or my hon. friend the Member for Stepney, is better entitled to speak on behalf of the working classes than the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division or the hon. Member for Dundee. We are told this Bill was forced upon the Government. No doubt it was, and I am very glad the Government have introduced it. The hon. Member for West Islington told us that he put his name on the back of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Devonport. He did not tell us whether he regretted that fact or not, though I am inclined to believe he does regret it. The principal provisions in the present Bill were contained in the Bill of the hon. Member for Devonport. The latter Bill contained imprisonment, and as my hon.. friend put his name on the back of the Bill, I am inclined to assume that he was in favour of imprisonment then, although he is against it now. That Bill also contained a provision for inspection at the port of entry. My hon. friend was in favour of that then, though he now says, it is a monstrous interference with trade.
MR. LOUGH: I did not say anything of the kind. I said I was in favour of inspection at the port of entry, but that it should be carried out by the Customs and not by the Board of Agriculture.
MR. KILBRIDE: There is a provision in the present Bill stating that the inspection may be undertaken by the Commissioner, of Customs. I would also direct the attention of the House to Clause 2, which states that the Local Government Board may in relation to any matter appearing to them to affect "the general interests of the consumer," etc. It does not say, it will be observed, "the general interests of agriculture." My hon. friend apparently has not read the Bill. One of the necessities for this measure is that the local authorities have refused, and still refuse, to put into operation the Act of 1887. It has been found that for years and years in some of the principal centres of population, especially in the North of England, the local authorities have allowed the Act to remain a dead letter. Hon. Members who oppose this Bill say that the existing law is sufficient, but what are they going to do to compel the local authorities to put that law into operation? It is because of the refusal of the local authorities that power has been taken in this Bill to have inspectors appointed by the Board of Agriculture in order to make the Act of 1887 operative. On the question of colouring there is an enormous amount of misapprehension. We are asked why margarine should not be coloured as well as butter. Although it may appear a strong statement, I deny that butter is coloured at all. I know no other article of food than margarine which after the colouring process has been gone through, is so changed as to be made unrecognisable by anyone who knows the article in its natural condition. We are accused that we want to kill the trade in margarine. I deny that. We admit margarine is an extremely wholesome article of food, and we are aware of the fact that a very large number of people are engaged in the trade. We are not at all opposed to the trade, but we are moving in the interests of the consumer. It is said that we are forgetting Free Trade, and that this is the thin edge of the wedge of Protection. There are protectionists and protectionists; there is such a thing as broad protection. I was shocked and surprised during the
1074
whole proceedings in the Select Committee, in the Grand Committee, and in the Debates in the House, at the number of gentlemen whom I believed to be above reproach, but who have suddenly developed into Protectionists. I hope the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment will not go to a Division. I admit that the Bill does not go far enough, but I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Devonport, that as it stands the Bill contains very valuable provisions, and that it is a considerable advance on the law as it exists. I would say to my friends who are very strong on this question of colouring: Give the Bill a chance, and see how it will operate. If it is found after a reasonable time that its provisions are not sufficient to stop fraud, then a stronger case than ever will have been made out against the colouring of margarine.
MR. POWER: I quite agree with my hon. friend who has just spoken, that this is not a question between town and country, but quite the contrary. There is no doubt that margarine offers great inducement to fraudulent trading, seeing that it can be bought at 4d. per lb., while it is frequently sold at 8d., 10d., and 1s. per lb. It inflicts unquestionably a very great disadvantage on farmers, for it ousts farmers out of their legitimate market. But in adopting this Bill we are not legislating solely for agriculturists, but in the interest also of consumers in large towns. Tons of margarine bought at 3½d. and 4d. per lb. are coloured and palmed off on the poor as butter, and the price of butter paid for it. I do not want to detain the House longer, since the case has been so well stated by my hon. friend the Member for North Galway, but I want to refer for a moment to the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee. He quoted statistics to show that the importation of margarine has largely decreased, and that the manufacture of margarine has progressed in this country. It matters not whether the margarine is manufactured in this, or in other countries. There are four manufactories in Ireland. We say, however, even if it is made in Ireland, let it be sold as margarine, and not palmed off on the poor as butter. It is now almost impossible to detect margarine in appearance from butter, and it is necessary in the interest of the farmers who are seriously injured, and

1075
also of the consumers, that the Government should take steps to stop these frauds. I should have wished the Bill had been stronger than it is. We proposed to do this in Committee upstairs, but were not able to carry the point. The Bill, however, has some provisions which would stop these fraudulent operations, and it is a step in advance.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. LONG: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper. This small drafting Amendment is introduced because it is thought to be the more convenient way to have all the enactments repealed in the schedule than scattered about the Bill.
A Clause (Repeal of enactments in Schedule),—(Mr. Long),—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON SIR CHARLES CAMERON moved the insertion of the following new Clause:
"When an employer is charged with an offence under this Act, he shall be entitled, upon information duly laid by him, to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge, and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the employer proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875 to 1899, as defined by this Act, and that the said other person had committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, the said other person shall be summarily convicted of such offence, and the employer shall be exempt from any penalty."
It was quite right that a man should be responsible civilly for every act of his employee, but there was no precedent, so far as he (Sir C. Cameron) knew, for a criminal responsibility being fixed on one man in respect of the action of another. This Bill, for the first time, proposed to treat an offence against the Food and Drugs Act as a crime for which a man may be sent to prison, and unless the new clause he proposed was added to the Bill an employer might be sentenced to three months' imprisonment for hard labour for
1076
the act of an employee for which he was not responsible, and for the prevention of which he had used due diligence. He submitted that that was a most urgent argument in favour of the introduction of the clause he proposed.
Clause (Exemption from penalty)—(Sir Charles Cameron)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LONG: The hon. Baronet has, judging from his speech, misunderstood what the effect of this clause will be. Under the sixteenth clause a person guilty of a breach of the Act is liable to a fine of £20 for the first offence, of £50 for the second offence, and of £100 for the third offence. But in the case of the third offence, if the offence, in the opinion of the court, "was committed by the personal act, default, or negligence of the person accused," imprisonment for that offence may be imposed if the court considers that a fine would not meet the circumstances of the case. The master is, therefore, only liable to imprisonment for the third offence. It is the master who receives the benefit of these repeated evasions of the Act, and it is the master and not the servant—perhaps a boy earning a few shillings a week—who should be held responsible. In the interests of fair play the House ought to adhere to the Bill as it stands, which provides that a master shall be liable for the offence of his servant, but which guards the master against the risk of unjust imprisonment.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: If any of these Amendments go to a Division I shall vote against them. I shall do so because the Bill as it now stands is in my judgment a good one. It is the best Bill that could be drafted under the circumstances under which it was initiated. It was considered in Committee, and the result was a compromise between a great many conflicting interests: the agricultural interest, the distributing interest, the importing interest, and the consuming interest. This Bill is the happy medium. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude during the progress of the Bill through the Committee was a wise and impartial

1077
one, and I protest against raking up everything again by these Amendments. I venture to say that the House, in considering these Amendments, should have regard to the fact that the Bill is a compromise, and only accept drafting Amendments.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: I do not want to injure or imperil the Bill by the introduction of Amendments, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated the case a little too strongly. It does seem hard that a man should be rendered liable to very serious penalties through the action of another who may be a malicious employee. It is quite conceivable that a person with a grudge against his employer might adulterate butter or other articles, when they are sold miles away from where the owner is. I do not think there is Sufficient justification for the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. PICKERSGILL: The position taken by the hon. Member for Stockport is somewhat a strange one, and one against which it is necessary to protest. He says he is in favour of these Amendments, but he does not vote fur them because the Bill was the result of a compromise in Committee. If we are to act on that principle we might as well go home. We are not bound by the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I only explained my attitude.
MR. PICKERSGILL: With regard to the Amendment now before the House, although I think this Bill is in some respects too stringent, I do not think the particular part of it against which my hon. friend has spoken is open to objection. My hon. friend made a strong point when he drew attention to Clause 2, Sub-section 16, and pointed out that it would be quite a new thing to send a man to prison for the fault of his servant. But I think my right hon. friend has clearly met that by pointing out that even as the Bill now stands the proprietor can only be sent to prison for negligence. On that ground I do not feel that we should be in danger, and for that reason I support the Amendment.
MR. BARTLEY: I suppose it is of no use to protest, but it does seem to be rather a strong order, when the offence is proved to be committed by another man, that the court should not be allowed to convict the real offender. For us to pass a law under those circumstances seems to me to be going rather far. As I said in Committee, I could not go as far as that, and in my judgment the Government are going too far in this matter.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): It is highly necessary in the interests of the employer that he should be made responsible for the acts of his servant. The employer has control over his servant, and he is the person to benefit. The idea that the Bill will work harshly because the employer may be sent to prison is a complete mistake, because it is only in respect to the third offence, and where the third offence is proved to be due to the employer's negligence, that that penalty is enforced.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: This clause is a most extraordinary one, having regard to the position of the law as it at present stands. The suggestion is that the employee has his defence against a prosecution in the fact that somebody else can be prosecuted.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: That is the clause in the Margarine Act.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: Yes; that is the only exception, and I do not know how that crept into law in that Bill, because I am certain it is a wrong principle, and is a new departure in criminal law. To say that a man is responsible for the acts of his servant is also going a little too far, but to say that he is criminally responsible is going mach too far. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that the employer cannot be liable unless it can be shown that it was his personal neglect. I shall vote against this Amendment, because it firings in a new principle of criminal law which is very objectionable.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The clause I now propose to move is a clause to apply to the wholesaler, and to take a sample at the port of entry; every seizure there will do more good than a seizure at fifty little petty traders. We must deal with margarine by going direct to the factory, and compelling the manufacturer to keep a register and subject them to inspection. I am against special legislation as a rule, but I do not see in this case why the wholesaler should not be put on the same level as the retailer, and I am perfectly certain that if this clause is accepted, you put a weapon in the hands of the ratepayers which will prove effectual. Let me illustrate my point. A man is brought up for selling syrup made from beet, though the labels on the tins bear the legend that it is pure cane syrup; that mail is fined and the manufacturer is allowed to go free. If yon are going to suppress this adulteration why not go to the manufacturers and bring your action against them? If you did that you would at once get rid of that form of adulteration. It is upon these grounds that I beg to move the new clause standing in my name.
New clause:—
"The provisions of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, shall apply to and include every wholesale trader or manufacturer of any article of food or drug who shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or drug which is not of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchaser, and the seventeenth section of the said. Act shall he read as if the words 'whether by wholesale or' were inserted between the words 'on sale' and the words 'by retail' in the said section."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I am afraid if the hon. Gentlemen's Amendment is accepted it will improve the Bill out of existence, I hope it will
1080
be rejected, because the first part is not necessary, and the second part of the Amendment is not applicable. To give an officer liberty to enter a wholesale house and get the amount he requires for analysis is quite impracticable.
MR. LOUGH: I think the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General is a little hard on my hon. friend. Surely it is better to look at the merits of a particular Amendment, and accept it or reject it as it is good or bad. I do not think the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman apply, because it is quite customary for wholesale houses to supply samples; it is the business of the wholesalers to supply the retailers with samples. Of course, it would not be right to let the officers go into the wholesale houses and get samples without payment; but let them go and get them and pay for them, and if the samples are not what they appear to be, proceed against the wholesale houses, and thus strike at the root of the evil. I think this clause is vital to the Bill. The Bill is not what it purports to be. It hounds down the retailer, whilst the wholesaler is allowed to go free.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Where a prosecution is undertaken against a retailer, and that retailer has a warranty from the wholesaler, which he produces to show that he is not the person to blame, I apprehend the local authority will be able to go to the wholesale saler.
MR. LONG: No, they will not.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Then, as I understand, the wholesale man will always escape. I think some provision ought to be put into the Bill to the effect that the retailer has absolved himself from blame if he can succeed in throwing it upon the wholesaler. I think that the Bill, at all events, should reach the producer.
SIR JOHN LENG: When I addressed the House before I said I was strongly against fraudulent dealing, and that being so I regret that the representative

1081
of the Government has not given us any measure by which we can deal with the big rogue instead of dealing with the small one in detail. I am not a lawyer, but I think this Amendment is necessary to bring the great rascal within the meshes of this Bill. The making of margarine like butter is not done by the retailer, it is done by the manufacturer at the request of the large dealers. If you want to stop this rascality, stop it at the fountain head. Deal with the men who are really the initiators, and who are the large scoundrels. To allow a man who makes large contracts, and deals with hundreds and thousands of tons at a very large profit, to escape, and to come on the poor little shopkeepers in the back streets and to expose them to all the penalties of this Act does not seem to be just as between man and man. Whilst the Bill stands in this way we merely pretend to deal with adulteration. This Bill will result in hundreds of prosecutions against poor people, whilst men making their fortunes are allowed to escape. If this Amendment is not sufficient to meet the purpose, I hope some Amendment will be moved which will have the effect desired.
MR. LONG: I think the hon. Gentleman and my hon. friend behind me entirely misapprehend the question we are discussing. The first part of the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is covered by the Act of 1875. The wholesaler being exposed to a prosecution by a retailer, it is not a case of the big rogue escaping, as has been described. But apart altogether from that, the Amendment is altogether impracticable; and, that being so, I trust it may be rejected.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The precaution which is provided by the law at present is a precaution of which the small retailer cannot avail himself. Cases have often been brought before me of great suffering and hardship on the part of small shopkeepers, not through their own fault, but through that of the manufacturers who supply them with goods. We want by this Bill to get at those individuals. A little dealer is very often hauled up and fined for selling an article of which he could not know the composition. An illustration has been given with regard to beet syrup having been sold as pure cane
1082
syrup. If a warranty had been supplied for pure cane syrup the retailer would have escaped, mid rightly, but he could not if the description was only on the label, under the law as it at present stands. I think some Amendment should be accepted which would get rid of this hardship on the small trades people.
MR. PICKERSGILLsaid he thought the clause had been dealt with in too technical a manner. What was required was to deal more stringently with the manufacturers of margarine and other products.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: It is the wholesale dealers who make large fortunes, probably by adulteration. The retail dealer does not know anything of the transactions, and does not know the meaning of the word margarine, and the fact that the wholesalers deal in hundred-weights instead of pounds is not an insuperable difficulty against bringing them under this Act, as is shown by Section 19 introduced by the Committee upstairs. I should like to ask the Government whether they could not put in a specific clause providing that where the retailer shows that he is not responsible for the adulteration a prosecution with respect to that adulteration should lie against the wholesale dealer.
MR.CHANNING: I would ask the Government, as a supporter of this Bill, either to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Bridgton Division, or the more practical suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan. I should wish to put before the House the most important evidence given by Mr. Lovell, a most able witness and one of the largest men in the trade, before the Select Committee with reference to the system of fraud carried out by the wholesale dealers. Mr. Lovell stated that he would produce one witness who had been solicited to buy a machine for mixing margarine with butter, on account of the enormous profits that can he made, and another "responsible witness who will tell you that a manufacturer of these mixtures had solicited him to sell the mixtures and told him they are so much like butter that you can sell them with impunity, and if you are fined, I will pay all expenses."
MR. DUCKWORTH: This Amendment is much more important than some hon. Gentlemen would imagine. So far as the large retailer is concerned he is all right; he can make his bargain with the wholesale dealer and get his warranty; but the small retailers do business with a wholesale man, and are on his books, as it is called, and they have to bear the brunt. They are not in a position to demand a warranty, so that when they are prosecuted the wholesale dealer escapes. That is the way in which this measure acts, and it would be well, if possible, to bring these large wholesale dealers within the operation of the Bill.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Supposing a sample is taken from a retail shop, and is found to be grossly adulterated, the law demands that somebody must be punished, and the authorities proceed against the shopkeeper. He makes a defence, not that the goods are not adulterated, but that, if they are, proceedings should be taken against the man who adulterated them. In that case I think the authorities should be hound to proceed against the wholesale dealer. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 175. (Division List, No. 273.)

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Robson, William Snowdon

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Burns, John

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.)

Schwann, Charles E.

Burt, Thomas

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Spicer, Albert

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Jones, David B. (Swansea)

Steadman, William Charles

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Strachey, Edward

Charming, Francis Alluston

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

Kitson, Sir James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Clough, Walter Owen

Labouchere, Henry

Ure, Alexander

Colville, John

Lambert, George

Warner, Thomas Courtnay T.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Langley, Batty

Wedderburn, Sir William

Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Leng, Sir John

Weir, James Galloway

Dewar, Arthur

Lloyd-George, David

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Doogan, P. C.

Lough, Thomas

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Duckworth, James

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Wills, Sir William Henry

Emmott, Alfred

M'Crae, George

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

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Maddison, Fred.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Evershed, Sydney

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Yoxall, James Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Moulton, John Fletcher

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Fenwick, Charles

Oldroyd, Mark

Sir Charles Cameron and

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Mr. Pickersgill.

NOES

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Brassey, Albert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Curzon, Viscount

Arrol, Sir William

Bullard, Sir Harry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Carlile, William Walter

Dillon, John

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Doughty, George

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. S-(Hunts.)

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

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r)

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

Charrington, Spencer

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Finch, George H.

Bethel!, Commander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Biddulph, Michael

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Fisher, William Haves

Bill, Charles

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Flower, Ernest

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Flynn, James Christopher

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edinburgh

Fry, Lewis

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Purvis, Robert

Garfit, William

Lowles, John

Pym, C. Guy

Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Rankin, Sir James

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Round, James

Gilliat, John Saunders

Macaleese, Daniel

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Godson, Sir A. Frederick

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Macdona, John Cumming

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Maclure, Sir John William

Sidebottom, T. (Stalybridge)

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

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Gosehen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Killop, James

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

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

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Gretton, John

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Stock, James Henry

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Strauss, Arthur

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Milward, Colonel Victor

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Heaton, John Henniker

Monk, Charles James

Thornton, Percy M.

Helder, Augustus

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Henderson, Alexander

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Morrell, George Herbert

Valentia, Viscount

Hobhouse, Henry

Morris, Samuel

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Mount, William George

Whiteley, H (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Kenyon, James

Myers, William Henry

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershr. N

Kilbride, Denis

Nicholson, William Graham

Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

Kimber, Henry

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lafone, Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wrightson, Thomas

Laurie, Lieut.-General

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Wylie, Alexander

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.

Wyndham, George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Parkes, Ebenezer

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Leighton, Stanley

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Younger, William

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

Percy, Earl

Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea)

Pierpoint, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sir William Walrond and

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Mr. Anstruther.

SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to move the new clause standing on the Paper in my name. One of the most frequent causes of friction in the present Act has been the conflict between public analysts and the Government laboratory at Somerset House. In many cases the public analysts were probably too anxious to secure a conviction, whereas, on the other hand, the analysts at Somerset House were generally anxious to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Somerset House set up a standard which was found grave fault with by public analysts. The Society of Public Analysts have again and again censured in the most vigorous terms Somerset House, and Somerset House has spoken very disrespectfully of the proceedings of many of the public analysts. That renders it necessary that there should be some board set up to get rid of that friction. The question of standards is one of the most important. If you set up low standards those low standards will be worked down to. The
1086
Select Committee recommended that standards should be set up by a department constituted in the manner proposed in this clause. Standards must vary from time to time. Improvements are introduced in the manufacture, new facts transpire, and new articles are brought into use, and it is necessary that the standards should be dealt with as changes arise. The composition of the Standing Committee of Reference on Food Standards is that proposed by the Select Committee which sat on the question of adulteration. But the composition is really a matter of secondary importance. What I urge is the appointment of some such Committee.
New clause:—
"(1) The Local Government Board shall appoint a Standing Committee of Reference on Food Standards to be composed as follows:—Each of the following bodies—that is to say, the Society of Public Analysts, the General Medical Council, the Institute of Chemistry, and the Pharmaceutical Society—shall name a representative, and the Local Government

1087
Board shall, if it think fit, appoint such nominee to be a Member of the Standing Committee of Reference on Food Standards. But if the Local Government Board object to any person so nominated, it may require any of the bodies aforenamed to nominate three persons, from whom the Local Government Board shall select one as the representative of that body on the said Standing Committee. The principal officer of the Government Laboratory at Somerset House shall, ex-officio, be a member of the said Committee. The Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture shall each nominate one representative, and the Board of Trade shall nominate two members engaged in commerce. And the said Standing Committee shall, after such notice and such inquiry as they shall think fit, be empowered to make such orders as they from time to time think proper respecting standards of the quality and purity of food and drugs, and to determine what deficiency of the normal contents of any article of food or drug, or what addition of extraneous matter, or what proportion of water in any article of food or drug shall raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the article in question is not genuine or is injurious to health, and such orders, if and when they have been confirmed by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, shall have the force of law. Provided always, that in any case where a standard of the quality or purity of any article of food or drugs is prescribed by Statute this section shall not apply.
"(2) The members of the Standing Committee of Reference on Food Standards shall be remunerated for their services out of moneys to be provided by Parliament on such a scale as the Treasury may determine. The Local Government Board shall nominate a member of the Committee to act as chairman, three shall form a quorum, and the chairman shall have a casting but not a deliberative vote."—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
Brought up and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. LONG: I hope the House will not adopt the clause. It is true the Select Committee recommended the appointment of a committee of reference to arrive at a standard of purity. That recommendation was one the Government found it impossible to give effect to. In the first place, although it is here made a condition that the sanction of the Secretary of State shall be obtained before the decision have the effect of law, yet the result of the scheme would be that the responsibility which now rests upon a Government Department would be devolved upon an altogether independent body of experts. That is fundamentally wrong as regards the duty of Government Departments to control the work affect-
1088
ing those Departments. The hon. Baronet proposes that the appointment of this committee should rest with the Local Government Board. Speaking for my Department, I should be perfectly content that that should be so, as I am perfectly confident that they would have full regard to the interests of the industry with which my Department is concerned. But this committee of reference would probably have to come to decisions upon many articles of food which are mainly concerned with agriculture. I think it would lead to confusion if the Local Government Board were called upon to appoint the committee, and might gravely affect the future interests of the agricultural industry. Take the case of butter, for instance. It would be quite easy for a committee of this sort to proceed to work with the fullest intention to do their duty, and yet arrive at a conclusion which might ruin a third or a half of the dairy agriculturists in the country. If that is the case, I think it is a reason against giving such large powers to an independent expert authority free from the control of any Government Department. The clause we suggest does not fully carry out the recommendations of the committee, and perhaps it may be said that it does not entirely meet the requirements of the public, but it is a compromise upon a difficult and complicated question, and if loyally carried out will give effect to the greater part of the wishes which have been expressed by those interested in the agricultural industry, and by those who are anxious that there should be some understood line as to what is pure and what is impure. I therefore hope the House will not accept this proposed clause, but will later on agree to the clause we suggest.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Is it intended that the committee should be statutory? There is no reference to it in the Bill whatever.
MR. LONG: A similar question was asked upstairs, but it is obvious that a statutory committee for this purpose would be ridiculous. The work of the committee, the articles of food to be considered, the committee itself, would all vary from time to time. One object is to get the assistance of men of expert and practical knowledge, so that wise advice should be given to the country upon this particular subject.
MR. KEARLEY: A great deal depends upon the constitution of the committee. With regard to the claim that the Board of Agriculture is entitled to have the control of this committee because particular questions to be discussed would refer to agricultural produce, I would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman himself has an Amendment on the Paper to extend the inquiry of this committee to other articles of food. That enlarges the scope enormously, and makes it a very serious question to consider. We are absolutely agreed there should be some committee set up to deal with standards of purity, but a body composed of officials from Somerset House would not satisfy the trade of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that it shall be a committee which will thoroughly go into the question, and not be confined or constrained, I do not think it matters very much who controls it, whether it be Somerset House, the Local Government Board, or the Board of Agriculture.
MR. LOWLES: I hope the House will reject the proposed clause. To my mind we have the most complete safeguards in the analysts at Somerset House, and no committee, however constituted, would be so satisfactory. There has been no charge made against the technical knowledge, impartiality, or skill of those officials; their decisions are perfectly impartial, the officials are men of the highest possible practical skill, and I venture to say that the Bill as it stands will provide the greatest possible safeguards both for the public and for the retail dealer. There is a danger that local analysts may be subject to local prejudice, being paid by the local authority, and it would be a pity to disturb an arrangement by which the disputed samples must be referred to the analyst at Somerset House by calling in a great number of outside experts, the only result of which would be to get a number of contradictory opinions. I hope the Government will as far as possible leave the decision of these vexed questions in the hands of those experts whose training, knowledge, and admitted impartiality have inspired confidence throughout the length and breadth of the country.
MR. HEDDERWICKThe power which Clause 4 propose to confer upon the Boated of Agriculture is a very large one. It is suggested that they should have power to set up these standards after such inquiry as they think fit, while the names of the gentlemen who are to compose the committee are not giver; but I imagine it is intended that they should be experts who will command the confidence of the public. The right hon. Gentleman who opposed this Amendment has stated that the Government could not agree to the appointment of any committee which would be independent of the control of the Government. But that is not the proposition before the House. As I understand, my hon. friend moves that the Local Government Board shall appoint a committee of experts. If the Local Government Board appoint them it is perfectly clear that those experts would not be outside the control of the Government for the time being. But there is a much more important fact. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he could not accept the standards which might be fixed by gentlemen whose opinions might vary very much. But in point of fact at present we have no standard with regard to the purity of food. Surely if you are going to pass an Act which will impose penalties of a very serious character upon people who supply the mass of the nation with their food articles, it is a desirable thing that those people should at least have some standard of purity before their eyes by means of which they may know whether they are complying with the law or offending against it. That is the whole gist of the Amendment, and I must say it is certainly drawing very largely upon the confidence of this House for the right hon. Gentleman to ask us to give to the Board of Agriculture—which, no doubt, is a very respectable body—such enormous power as to settle by mere reference which will satisfy them standards of purity in respect of every article of food that may be affected throughout the whole of the country. There is much more to be said in favour of this clause as against that of the Government——
MR. LONG: On a point of order, Sir. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing Clause 4, which is a clause in the Bill, and deals with an altogether different

1091
body, upon a motion of the hon. Baronet opposite to create a distinct body of experts for a different purpose altogether?
MR. SPEAKER: It would not be in order to discuss that clause, but I understand the contention to be that this is an alternative proposal to Clause 4.
MR. HEDDERWICK: So I understand it. My remarks were perfectly applicable to the proposal before the House, and gather additional force when one refers to Clause 4, to which, indeed, the whole Amendment has special reference.
MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: It is extremely probable that if the committee is appointed by the Board of Agriculture it will consist of many of the very persons who would compose the committee suggested by the proposed new clause.
MR. HEDDERWICK: Clause 4 proposes no committee at all; it merely says "after inquiry."
MR. RADCLIFFE, COOKE: It is not the duty of these officials to establish standards; their duty is to see whether the article is or is not adulterated, and in what way it is adulterated. It is clear there must be some authority to undertake the duty of setting up standards. So far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, that authority will be constituted by the Board of Agriculture, and that is an arrangement which I think will work satisfactorily.
DR. CLARK: It seems to me there are two points raised by the motion of the hon. Baronet. His proposal and that of the right hon. Gentleman agree that there ought to be some kind of standard set up. The hon. Baronet proposes a definite standard fixed by a definite body, whereas it is proposed in the Bill to determine not a standard of purity but a standard of deficiency. The hon. Baronet proposes that the standard should be fixed by the Local Government Board, and we have therefore got to consider first whether it could be better done by that Board or by the Board of Agriculture. I, like the hon. Baronet, am in favour of the Local Government Board, and I am for com-
1092
plete standards. I am glad that by a recent decision of the Courts the analyst must now show not only the percentage of water in milk but also the fatty matter and the ordinary solids it contains. The result will be, however, as has happened on several occasions, that Somerset House will have one standard, and the local analyst another, for water, solids, and fatty matter, and a third analyst selected by the accused person may have a third standard altogether. Therefore we have got competing standards as well as competing analysts. The question we, have to decide now is what Department ought to have charge of analyses in connection with this Act. The inspection and control will still remain with the Local Government Board, and the proper functionary is, therefore, the President of the Local Government Board. For is not the work given by Parliament to the local authorities responsible to that Board? Again, shall we take standards for every class of food, or only for the four articles mentioned in the Bill? I think we ought to have a standard for every class of food, and that we ought to determine the amount of starch to be allowed in cocoa, as well as the quantity of water to be allowed in milk. We ought also to protect drugs in the same way, because oftentimes adulterated drugs cause a great number of premature deaths. What we have to do is to appoint a proper body to determine a standard for every form of food, and when any question comes before a magistrate he can refer to the particular standard concerned. If the proposal of the hon. Baronet is carried, we shall have a board composed of the chief men in special departments whose opinion is worth having, instead of a board advised by whom we do not know—perhaps even by Somerset House. But these questions ought to be treated from a physiological and pathological standpoint, of which the analysts at Somerset House know nothing. They should not be determined by a mere board of chemists, but by a. board which knows the physiological effect of what it is doing. Can Somerset House determine whether a particular food is injurious or not? At the present moment, some medical men will tell you that boracic acid is not more injurious than common salt. Others will tell you that it is dangerous for children, and that under certain conditions it ought not to

1093
be used, and that it has a different pathological action in childhood and old age. Are all these questions to be decided by the President of the Board of Agriculture, advised by someone we know nothing about? On the other hand, the hon. Baronet proposes that the board should consist of the leading authorities in special departments. We have got to determine whether these standards shall, be established by men competent to do so, and who possess the confidence of the public, or by an unknown departmental committee. We think in this Bill you are going to propitiate the agricultural interests by something in the nature of protection. You are going to reserve the fixing of standards in these four things to the Minister of Agriculture. I think that is a great mistake. The control of the Food and Drugs Act will remain in the future, as in the past, with the local bodies acting under the direction of the Local Government Board, and if the Bill remains as it is, you will in future have these local authorities taking, as regards these four articles of food, their orders from the Board of Agriculture,, and their orders with regard to every other article of food from the Local Government Board. I hope the House will support the hon. Baronet. If his motion is carried, we shall have standards set up by competent men who obtained their positions by virtue of their abilities, and have not been appointed from different motives altogether. I shall strongly support the motion of the hon. Baronet. I entirely disagree with the inadequate compromise in Clause 4, and, as all prosecutions are carried out by the officers of the local authorities who are responsible to the Local Government Board, I think that that Board should, control this matter.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): What are the main articles that affect the public health? First of all, milk—that is the most important; and, secondly, butter. These are the two articles which are constantly before the courts—more especially milk, though very frequently the question of water in butter arises. These two articles affect the Board of Agriculture more than the Local Government Board. In fact, the Local Government Board has nothing to do with them, and surely the Board of
1094
Agriculture is the proper body to set up standards affecting them. Sometimes a prosecution takes place affecting mustard, ginger, or cocoa, and these questions are more germane to the Local Government Board than to the Board of Agriculture, and it is proposed to retain them with the Local Government Board. But as regards milk and butter, the Board of Agriculture is constantly dealing with them, and is much better fitted to have control of the committee fixing their standards. It has been said that the inspectors of the local authorities are under the Local Government Board, but they arc also under the Board of Agriculture in some matters, notably the Diseases of Animals Act. I think the Amendment seeks to put new duties on the Local Government Board which it ought not to be asked to undertake, as it has quite sufficient work as it is.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: It is perfectly clear that there is no difference between the two sides of the House as to the end they wish to achieve. The President of the Board of Agriculture has one method of attaining that end, and the hon. Baronet has another. But it is agreed that ultimately skilled advice must be taken, and as a matter of fact some skilled advice is taken under each method. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is quite fair to the Amendment. The essential difference between the two sides of the House is that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman and the Government think that this matter should be placed under the Board of Agriculture, we would prefer the Local Government Board, because, of course, that is the gist of the clause which the hon. Baronet proposes. The right hon. Gentleman said that this committee would be largely beyond the control of Government Departments, but I do not think that is a fair criticism, because the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture will nominate one member each, and the Board of Trade two members, so that Government Departments would largely control the constitution of the committee. In my humble opinion, the Board of Agriculture should not have charge of this matter. Not only are the Government throwing over the principle which governed previous Adulteration Acts, but they are throwing over also their own clause in the Bill, which states

1095
that "the Local Government Board may, in relation to any matter appearing to affect the general interests of the consumer, direct," &c. What we are dealing with in this Bill is the general interest of the consumer. That is the object of this legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board has said that this matter of standards would be more germane to the Board of Agriculture, because the articles chiefly dealt with will be milk and butter. That is all very well, but as a matter of fact the importance of milk as an article of food is greater to the consumer than the agriculturist, and the sanction for all this kind of legislation is that we are bound to take precautions to prevent anything being done which would he injurious to the health of the consumer. This is not only the principle which has governed past legislation, but it has also been embodied in the Bill of the Government. No matter what precautions we may take, by the very fact of entrusting the administration of the Act in this particular to a Department which goes by the name of Board of Agriculture, we inevitably incur a very grave and serious risk that the interests of agriculture will be put more prominently forward than the interests of the consumer. It would be far more intelligible if the Government accepted the principle of past legislation, and put this matter under the control of the Local Government Board.
MR. BRYCE: It is impossible to regard this motion as an alternative to the proposal of the Government contained in Clause 4. The substantial difference between the two is that the hon. Baronet desires to retain this matter in the control of the Local Government Board, whereas the Government desire to hand it over to the Board of Agriculture. In the next place, the new clause would make the committee which is to regulate these standards—which would not be absolute but approximate standards—a much more influential and important body than any that could be appointed by the President of the Board of Agriculture. The proposal of my hon. friend proceeds on the lines of the Report of the Committee which examined this matter with great care, and which reported strongly in favour of an influential committee of this kind. It is true that it did not pro-
1096
pose to make it a statutory committee in quite the same sense as the new clause would make it, but that is a matter on which amendment is possible if the clause is read a second time. We come to the question then whether the plan of the hon. Baronet is not a better plan than that of the Government. A primâ facie case has clearly been made out for the Local Government Board, because it is in possession of the field, not so much in connection with these four particular articles, but with respect to all matters respecting public health which ought to be worked out by the local authorities now supervised by the Local. Government Board. The Local Government Board has charge of the health of the people, and has a scientific and competent staff, and therefore legislation and administration as far as it has gone is favourable to the proposition that the Local Government Board should have control in this matter. What is the answer made by the Government? It is that the Board of Agriculture is concerned with dairying; that dairying produces milk and butter; and that therefore the Board of Agriculture is the proper body to fix standards. But surely that rests on the patent fallacy that the man who makes milk and butter is the man who knows best what milk and butter ought to be. The fixing of standard is not a matter for the dairyman. It is a very difficult matter of science, which requires the utmost skill and experience on the part of practical analysts and of those who have devoted their whole lives to the study of chemistry. The Board of Agriculture appears to me to be a very ambitious body. It looks out for work as if it had not enough work to do. I would suggest that it has a good deal of work to do, in its own proper sphere, in endeavouring to induce the farmers of this country to adopt better methods and to bring their dairying up to the Continental level. For it to undertake this branch of chemistry is, however, to enter into a new field altogether unsuited to it, and without its having any proper staff. That part of the answer of the Government therefore entirely falls to the ground, and I am obliged to conclude that the Local Government Board, possessing as it does scientific knowledge and authority over the local authorities, is much more qualified to carry out this duty than the Board of Agriculture. I do not say that the new clause cannot be improved, and

1097
I have no doubt we shall be able to improve it if it is read a second time; but on the main question I have no doubt that the Local Government Board is the proper authority.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment down to Clause 4 which materially extends it, and in a manner not contemplated by the Committee upstairs.
MR. LONG: Since the Amendment has been placed on the Paper it has been found that it goes farther than I had intended. It is, therefore, my intention not to move it.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The wisest course would be to reject the new clause of the bon. Baronet, with a view also to the rejection of the extension of the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has put down. I do not think anyone will object to Clause 4 as it stands. I am quite willing to entrust the appointment of a committee to deal with standards to the Board of Agriculture, but we should not entrust the Board of Agriculture with power to appoint a committee enjoying a roving commission to deal with all food products. Let the Board of Agriculture limit itself to dealing with agricultural products in which it has expert knowledge. When, however, we come to deal with all food products, then I quite agree with the hon. Baronet, that it is more desirable that these matters should be in the hands of the Local Government Board and in the hands of scientists to be appointed by that Board. I venture to suggest that under the circumstances the clause might be withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: This Bill is, or ought to be, a Bill to protect the consumer against adulteration. We have nothing to do whether or not it is injurious to the agricultural interest. This question has descended into a contest between the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture. Clause 4 deals with milk, cream, butter, and cheese. Now, what we want the Board of Agriculture for is, in order to determine what is milk, cream, butter, or cheese. Personally, I should prefer the President of the Board of Agriculture to choose my milk, cream, butter, and cheese, rather than the President of
1098
the Local Government Board. But is there any difficulty in saying what is genuine milk? As I understand it, genuine milk is milk that comes from the cow. You do not require analysts from Somerset House, or an Agricultural Committee, to tell you what milk is. Milk from one animal may be weaker than milk from another; but both are genuine milk, and so far as I know there has been no difficulty in deciding what is milk or what is butter. The other day I had the pleasure of cross-examining Dr. Stevenson from Somerset House in a County Council case, and he said he would not mind swearing that there was a certain proportion of boracic acid in a certain sample of butter, and that he would not object to eating it That is all very well, but the question is whether boracic acid is injurious to children, and not whether it can be stomached by any great man from Somerset House. If you buy a pound of butter, you buy sixteen ounces of what you understand to be butter. You do not buy fourteen or fifteen ounces of butter, and the other one or two ounces of boracic acid. I think our foods at the present moment are in the hands of the policeman. The policeman is appointed by the local authority, and the local authority is under the Local Government Board. What we have to do is to see that there are facilities for prosecuting those who sell adulterated food. And what is adulterated food is perfectly easy to ascertain at the present moment. On the whole I think that the Local Government Board is better able to deal with the matter than the Board of Agriculture.
MR. HEMPHILL: I cannot agree that it is so very easy to say whether these articles are adulterated or not. My experience, I confess, has been that it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction under the Foods and Drugs Act of 1875, and subsequent Acts. Different standards of purity are put forward. In some cases, for instance, the authorities were satisfied that 17 per cent. of water in milk was not adulteration, and in other cases they said that milk with 22 per cent. of water was very good milk. It is not so easy to decide genuine milk from milk which has been described by the poet as "sky blue." If the question goes to a Division I shall vote with the hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. It is, in my

1099
opinion, quite immaterial whether the nomination of a Standing Committee should rest with the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture. Both are excellent, but primâ, facie neither of them is the best judge as to what the fixed standard should be. I have always understood that there is a great distinction between agriculture and mere dairying; and therefore the argument put forward by one hon. and learned Member seems to me to completely subvert the etymology and the ordinary meaning of words. Why the Board of Agriculture should know more of the quality of milk and butter than the Local Government Board I cannot understand. I wish to state the reason why I prefer the clause of the hon. Member for Bridgeton to that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The gist of the clause is, that there should be a fixed standard, and that the standard should be settled by a body in whom the public would have confidence—a standard which would be binding on every tribunal, and which no faddist could get out of. Now, such a standard is set up by the clause in question, because the Standing Committee mentioned in the clause is selected by scientific bodies in whom the public have the greatest confidence, such as the General Medical Council, the Institute of Chemistry, the Society of Public Analysts, and the Pharmaceutical Society. Each of these should name a representative, and the Local Government Board shall, if it think fit, appoint such nominee to be a member of the Standing Committee of Reference on Food Standards. Then the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture will nominate one representative each, and the Board of Trade two. There are thus a great variety of appointing bodies, and all the men selected
will be men of the greatest scientific knowledge and will all be independent of each other. If there is such a thing as infallibility, a Committee so composed would have it. It is quite immaterial whether such a Standing Committee should be under the Board of Agriculture or under the Local Government Board; the Committee itself is the thing. As under the existing law the Local Government Board has the administration of the present Adulteration Acts, the onus lies on the right hon. Gentleman opposite to show why the administration of the new Act should be taken out of the hands of the Local Government Board, and transferred to the Board of Agriculture.
MR. KILBRIDE: I was somewhat disappointed that the Secretary to the Local Government Board gave the House very little light as to what was meant by Clause 4. That clause is extremely indefinite. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, we know exactly the composition of the body to be set up to determine the standard; but under the Bill as it stands, neither the Secretary to the Local Government Board nor the President of the Board of Agriculture has given us the slightest idea as to what they are going to do. The fullest extent to which they have gone is that they say they will consult with experts and practical men in the trade. On account of that indefiniteness I shall be compelled to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 194. (Division List, No. 274.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Allison, Robert Andrew

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Asher, Alexander

Donelan, Captain A.

Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Doogan, P. C.

Horniman, Frederick John

Barlow, John Emmott

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Duckworth, James

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Billson, Alfred

Emmott, Alfred

Joicey, Sir dames

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

Broadhurst, Henry

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Evershed, Sydney

Kilbride, Denis

Burt, Thomas

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

Caldwell, James

Flynn, James Christopher

Kitson, Sir James

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lambert, George

Channing, Francis Allston

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

Langley, Batty

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Colville, John

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Leng, Sir John

Lorne, Marquess of

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Lough, Thomas

Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Macaleese, Daniel

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Ure, Alexander

M'Crae, George

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Maddison, Fred.

Rickett, J. Compton

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Robson, William Snowdon

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

Morris, Samuel

Schwann, Charles E.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Yoxall, James Henry

Oldroyd, Mark

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Paulton, James Mellor

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Sir Charles Cameron and

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Strachey, Edward

Mr. Hedderwick.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

FitzWygram, General Sir F.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lowles, John

Arrol, Sir William

Flower, Ernest

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Bagot, Capt. Joseeline FitzRoy

Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Balcarres, Lord

Fry, Lewis

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

Galloway, William Johnson

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Garfit, William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Banbury, Frederick George

Gedge, Sydney

Maclure, Sir John William

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Giles, Charles Tyrell

M'Killop, James

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

Gilliat, John Saunders

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Middlemore, John T.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas.J.

Bethell, Commander

Gordon, Hon John Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Bill, Charles

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Milton, Viscount

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Goschen Rt Hn G. J (St.George's

Milward, Colonel Victor

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Monk, Charles James

Brassey, Albert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Graham, Henry Robert

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Green, Watford D. (Wed'bury

Morrell, George Herbert

Burns, John

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Carlile, William Walter

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Mount, William George

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

Gretton, John

Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gull, Sir Cameron

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Myers, William Henry

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. (Bir.

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Nicholson, William Graham

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hardy, Laurence

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Charrington, Spencer

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Helder, Augustus

Parkes, Ebenezer

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Henderson, Alexander

Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Percy, Earl

Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Hobhouse, Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Purvis, Robert

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Howard, Joseph

Rankin, Sir James

Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

Curzon, Viscount

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Round, James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lafone, Alfred

Seely, Charles Hilton

Doughty, George

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Lees. Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Fardell, Sir T. George

Leighton, Stanley

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

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

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

Llewelyn Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Finch, George H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Co). A. R.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

Steadman, William Charles

Fitz Gerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l)

Stock, James Henry

1102

1103

Strauss, Arthur

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Wylie, Alexander

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Wyndham, George

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Thorburn, Walter

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, J. Powell-(Birm.)

Tollemache, Henry James

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Sir. William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Valentia, Viscount

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

MR. KEARLEY: The object of the new clause standing in my name is to give to inspectors the power to visit the premises of manufacturers and various places where food products may be adulterated, such as stores, factories, quays, ships, and so on. So far as we have gone, I do not think there are sufficient powers of inspection in the Bill. Most useful provisions have been introduced into the Bill which will give the Board of Agriculture power for the inspection of foods and drugs during manufacture. We have also gone a step forward in the direction of detecting those who are pre-eminently guilty of fraud in sale. There is an intermediate stage which I propose to cover by my new clause. When goods are in the possession of manufacturers, or merchants, or are in transit by ship or rail, or are stored in the city, there is no power whatever of inspecting them under the present law. I remember some years ago a parcel of ginger which hail been exhausted—that is, the extract had been made from it, and only the residuum was left—was offered for public sale as genuine ginger. It was a matter of notoriety among the brokers in Mincing Lane, but there was no power to confiscate these goods, or to bring forward a prosecution against the sellers. I believe that the bulk of the adulteration takes place at the retail businesses, but there is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that there are cases where the manufacturer or the merchant sends out adulterated goods for which he does not suffer the penalty of the law. He is perfectly confident that, when the goods have once left his possession, he will never be called to account. Under Sub-section (b) of this new clause of mine, I propose that the inspector shall have power to purchase, seize, or procure samples of any food or drugs at the time of delivery, or at any railway station or other place during transit, or upon the premises of or elsewhere in the possession of any person for the purpose of carriage. These powers already apply to milk and margarine, and I think it would be
1104
desirable, when we are legislating upon this question, that we should introduce powers into this Bill for inspectors to take samples of goods during transit. It has been suggested that the retailer who takes goods about the country in his cart is perfectly safe, and consequently is not very particular whether the goods be carries about are pure or impure. This clause will apply to goods distributed in this way. I may say that I have not the faintest desire, in introducing this clause, to harass retailers in any way, but I believe this will be a most useful provision. The Salford and Manchester authorities, who have done more than any others to stamp out milk adulteration, have found this power a most valuable weapon in their hands, and it has been so thoroughly beneficial in that respect that I cannot see what objection the right hon. Gentleman can have to extend the powers as I seek to do by the clause I propose.
New clause:—
"Any inspector appointed by any local authority, or by the Local Government Board, under this Act, shall have power—(a) at all reasonable times to enter any public or private sale-room occupied or used by merchants, brokers, wholesale dealers, or other persons, and to any public or private warehouse, factory, store, quay, ship, or barge where food or drugs are offered for sale or deposited for the purpose of sale or carriage, and to purchase, seize, or procure samples of any such food or drugs; (b) to purchase, seize, or procure samples of any food or drugs at the t'me, of delivery, or at any railway station or other place during transit, or upon the premises of or elsewhere in the possession of any person for the purpose of carriage."—(Mr. Kearley.)
brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the clause to a Division. The House has rejected the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton, that inspectors should have power to enter premises

1105
where goods are sold by wholesale, and purchase samples for analysis, and the present proposal goes even farther, for it proposes to issue letters of marque to the inspector "to purchase, seize, or procure." The whole clause is high-handed and too arbitrary in its terms, however much we may sympathise with the objects of the hon. Member.
MR. JOHN BURNS: I have listened with some surprise to the line taken by the learned Solicitor - General ill the remarks he has just made. He has suggested that the clause moved by the hon. Member for Devonport, who knows a great deal about this question, and to whom the House is indebted for much patient and persistent work on the Grand Committee, is an arbitrary one. I support the Amendment for this reason, and I will give two illustrations. The other day a celebrated grocer—or rather half-grocer and half-philanthropist—had seized upon his premises 640 tubs of putrid fruit, and the Vestry of Bermondsey took away thirteen dust carts full of rotten strawberries, raspberries, and other things. The sanitary authority did that to prevent a sanitary nuisance, and it seems to me that what the sanitary authority did to prevent a nuisance the Board of Agriculture ought to do to protect food and to prevent adulteration. Well, does the learned Solicitor-General contend that inspectors under the Food and Drugs Act ought not to have the power to inspect food at any reasonable or unreasonable time, so as to prevent the public being defrauded in this way by adulterated food? Let us take another instance. In the very same sanitary district, some three or four months ago, the same vestry, to prevent a nuisance, seized many hundred-weights of putrid livers and kidneys that were going to be manufactured into pâte de foic gras. I am extremely interested in preventing the upper classes from being contaminated by an impure food supply, and I therefore hold that an inspector under this Act should have the power to go into a factory at Bermondsey and prevent the consumer being defrauded by the sale of impure food. If the learned Solicitor-General says it is too high-handed a proceeding for an inspector to be allowed to go into a factory where butter is being mixed with margarine, or vice versa, I can only say that he will never stop the
1106
sale of adulterated or of impure food until the inspector has the widest and most drastic power of going to the source of adulteration, and of sending the manufacturer in very serious cases to prison. I would appeal to the Solicitor-General to say that this adulteration has reached such a scandalous stage in London that the time has arrived when it should be stopped. I can give the House an instance of the extent to which it has gone. I hold in my hand the quarterly report of the Vestry of Battersea, and these are. some instances of the extent to which butter is adulterated with margarine:—"A had 96 per cent. of margarine; B, 95; C, 88; B, 87; E, 83; and E, 77," etc. I submit that it is not unreasonable for the House of Commons to enact that where this kind of thing is suspected the inspector, at all hours of the day and night, should be able to go and prevent it, or at least attempt to find it out. The Solicitor-General tells us that it is a high handed proceeding. It is the kind of high-handed proceeding which is wanted to stop adulteration, and I believe that if stiff penalties were imposed and inspection at any time held in terrorem over the heads of the miscreants the dangers of their conniving at adulteration and the manufacture of improper foods would be very largely prevented.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I think the hon. Member for Battersea is quite right in saying that there is a good reason for inspecting the margarine factories. But I wish to point out to the House that there is already a provision enabling any officer of the Board of Agriculture to enter a margarine factory at all reasonable times, inspect the process of manufacture and take samples. Surely that is a much better provision than one that would give power to a local inspector, and the ordinary trader would much prefer the visits of an inspector of a Government Department, like the Board of Agriculture, to those of a local inspector.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I think the hon. Member who has just addressed the House takes an exaggerated view of the provision to which he has alluded, because, in point of fact, the inspector of the Board of Agriculture only makes a visit when it is rendered necessary by the default of the local authorities. (Minis-

1107
terial cries of "No.") Even assuming that I am wrong in that respect, what we want is not only the inspection of margarine factories or small shops, but inspection everywhere where goods are sold, whether by retail or wholesale. But have the Government really at heart the prevention of adulteration? If so, I cannot understand why they should decline to accept this Amendment. If their object is only to protect certain articles of agricultural produce, then I can understand their refusal to accept this Amendment. But if they really have at heart a desire to protect the consumer against adulteration, then I wholly fail to understand why they should refuse to give a properly appointed inspector power to inspect articles anywhere. I confess that the reply of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General took me by surprise, and I must say that I think he must have been carried away by that sense of humour for which he is so well known to the House, because he compared the powers which it is proposed to give to the inspector under this clause to "letters of marque." So far as I can understand, he wishes to lead the House to believe that this was an insidious proposal which would practically mean the ruin of trade. Upon what does he found so remarkable a statement? Apparently upon the words "to purchase, seize, or procure." Nobody knows better than the hon. and learned Solicitor-General that these are not words which have been created by my hon. friend, but they are statutory words already in use. There is, therefore, no invalidity in the introduction of these words into the clause.
MR. DUCKWORTHwas understood to say that dealers could serve a mixture of margarine and butter and deliver it to hotels and restaurants, companies, institutions, and large families, and there were no means of detecting the fraud.
MR. PLATT-HIGGINS: I rise to support this Amendment, but for a different reason to those already advanced. There is an important association in my borough which complains, with a great deal of justice, that while local inspectors have power to take samples of milk, they have no power to go to the railway station where the milk is delivered by the farmer and take samples in order to test its condition
1108
before it comes into the milk-seller's possession. I think it is only just that the milk of the farmer should be tested just as much as the milk of the retailer, and on that account I shall support the Amendment because it would give that power.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he could not support the Amendment, because it appeared to him to be one of extreme generality, and one which might be used in a most oppressive way in regard to the trade of the country. He had noticed that nearly every illustration of a concrete kind that had been used that night had had some reference to either margarine, butter, or milk—in other words, to those very articles of food which, according to the original conception of the Bill, came under Part I. But this new clause, if it passed into law, would apply not only to those agricultural products, but to all kinds of articles of food. When the Bill passed its Second Reading it appeared to him to be a fairly reasonable and intelligent measure. Part I. gave new powers in regard to agricultural produce, and might be described as an extension of the Margarine Act of 1887. Part II. dealt with a totally different subject. It dealt with the amendment and extension of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. The first part dealt with three articles of food which were well described as agricultural produce, but Part II. of the Bill then dealt with articles of food which included perfectly harmless and perfectly well-known mixtures, which were habitually sold and stamped in this country. The Bill as amended in Committee upstairs had, however, altered this form considerably, and it would still further alter the original conception of the Bill if these Amendments were carried by the House. To pass the clause which his hon. friend had proposed was to confer upon persons appointed by the local authorities powers which, he believed, had never been conferred upon any person appointed by any local authority.
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I merely rise to remind the Committee that at the present time it is possible to take samples of milk in course of delivery. I have considerable sympathy with the spirit and purport of this Amendment, but I feel unable to support

1109
it in the form in which it has been placed on the Paper.
MR. SAMUEL EVANS: This is a clause submitted for Second Reading, and if some of the words appear to be too drastic they can be modified when the clause is in Committee. It is no objecttion to the clause to say that some of the words go too far; that is a matter for Committee. The question is, what is the general principle involved in the clause. It is that the Bill should hit the wholesale dealer. It is objected that the clause goes further than the Act of 1875, but as far as I can see the only additional word is "seize." I am not sure that that word would not be necessary if the principle be accepted, because when you go to a warehouse you are not going to a place where food is sold retail; you therefore may not be able to purchase it, and it may be necessary to seize some of the food which you see there. What is the objection to a course of this kind? Suppose a retail dealer is found to be selling some article of food which is adulterated, but the inspector is perfectly satisfied that he is innocent, and that the article is being sold exactly as it came from the wholesale dealer, why should it not be possible to obtain the name of the wholesale dealer and seize the article at the wholesale premises in London, or wherever it may be? You will never be able to prevent adulterated food being sold to poor consumers as long as you confine the prosecutions to retail dealers. If it be the object of the Government to stop the adulteration of food, and to stop the sale of such things as may be injurious to the public, they will have to go to the fountain-head and attack it in the hands of the manufacturer or the wholesale dealer. The truth is that manufacturers who sell adulterated articles to innocent retail dealers actually profit by the fraud. It pays them to defend proceedings against the retail dealer, to pay the fine, and to take the whole of the pecuniary responsibility upon themselves, and go on manufacturing and selling these adulterated articles. But if once you prosecute the wholesale dealer and his name is published the retail sellers will not buy from him any more. In principle the clause has already been adopted in the case of margarine, and the House ought not to flinch from carrying this clause even though it is necessary to amend it
1110
after Second Reading, if it is shown to the House, as I think it has been, that you cannot put a stop to adulteration until you hit the wholesale dealer.
DR. CLARK: The sole object of this proposal is to apply the same principle to the manufacturer and wholesale dealer as to the small seller. The hon. Member for East Somerset says that perhaps in London the inspectors will be gentlemen of position upon whom you can rely, but that in small country places there might be a great danger of the reverse being the case. As a matter of fact, the London County Council has no control whatever in the matter; that function belongs the Vestries, and instead of one general inspector there is an inspector for each of the various places. If you want to stop for the benefit of the public this system of adulteration, which defrauds and sometimes half poisons the people, the manufacturers and big wholesale houses ought equally with the retail dealers to come under the clauses of the Bill. In fact, you ought to protect the small retailer, who often unconsciously buys food or drugs which are adulterated, and through innocently buying a cheap, parcel is condemned in costs and penalties, while the persons who extracted the genuine material go free. Take milk, for instance. There is very little milk goes direct from the farmer to the dairyman. It is conveyed through a middleman, from whom the dairyman buys it, and it is very often between the middleman and the farmer that the addition of the water or skimmed milk is made. Therefore all ought equally to, come under the Act.
SIR JOHN LENG: I quite agree that it is desirable to have power to go to the sources of supply and all places of store; but when my hon. friend proposes this clause, which includes ships, barges, and railway stations, I think he is raising against his proposal very serious antagonism. The whole of the shipping industry and the whole of the railway companies would very seriously object to their business being liable to interruption at any moment—probably at very inopportune times—and the derangement of traffic, in which despatch is an essential element. I should not object to the clause if it were confined to sources of supply and places of store, but when you come to these places of transit you are stirring

1111
up a hornets' nest, and very strong opposition will arise from very influential interests in the country.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I cannot understand this mania in the House for special legislation with regard to margarine, which, in my opinion, is one of the most excellent articles of food we possess. Can anyone tell me what distinction can be made between regulating the manufacture of margarine and regulating the manufacture of cocoa or baking powder or anything else? If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to take the view that, having put into their own Bill——
MR. LONG: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The words he is referring to were inserted by the Committee upstairs, against the wish of the Government.
MR. LABOUCHERE: The Committee upstairs has inserted the words, and the right hon. Gentleman has accepted them. He asks us to carry the Bill so amended, and yet he absolutely tells us that although he is ready to admit that the manufactories of margarine ought to be inspected——
MR. LONG: No, no!
MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, it is in the Bill.
MR. LONG: I say this was forced down my throat.
MR. LABOUCHERE: That is just what we want to do in respect to this other clause. What I want to point out is that he himself proposes that the Bill should be carried a stage further in this House. Does he propose to cut out this clause? No. He accepts it as part of the Bill; and surely it is illogical and absurd to say that the inspectors may inspect the manufactories of margarine, and yet may not inspect the manufactories of cocoa and such-like articles.
MR. JEFFREYS: The inspector proposed by the Government is to be an inspector appointed by the Board of Agriculture, which is a very different thing from being a local
inspector. I think this clause goes too far; it will create great hostility to the Bill, and therefore I shall vote against it.
MR. KILBRIDE: Local inspectors have large powers at present for the purpose of taking samples. A milk-cart can be stopped along the street for the purpose of a sample being taken, and I see no reason why the same principle should not be applied to other foods. In the interests of the suppression of fraud and in the interests of fair dealing, I would ask the House to give the greatest possible power to the food inspectors.
MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The hon. Member for Battersea referred to a case where the local inspector had visited a retail grocer's and had seized margarine which was being sold as butter. This clause, however, would not touch that case, because if the margarine was sold to the retail dealer as margarine, there is no reason why the wholesale dealer should be punished, and the power to visit the wholesale stores would not prevent the retail grocer selling the margarine as butter. The existing law is powerful enough to prevent fraud of that kind. In Durham the existing law is so carried out that the percentage of adulteration is absolutely nil with regard to the sale of butter and other foods, the only adulteration within the last two years having been in regard to milk, spirits and drugs. That shows that where the local authorities put the existing law into operation no grocer or provision dealer can afford to be punished thereunder. If the local authorities will not do their duty, the conferring of further power will not do away with the evil; but if it is insisted that the local authorities should do their duty, the existing law is strong enough. The protection of the warranty will obviate the necessity of the inspectors going into these warehouses, and therefore I feel bound to vote against the clause.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 177. (Division List, No. 275.)

AYES.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Burns, John

Asher, Alexander

Billson, Alfred

Caldwell, James

Barlow, John Emmott

Bryce, Et. Hon. James

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland. W. H. (York. W. R.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

Horniman, Frederick John

Oldroyd, Mark

Colville, John

Joicey, Sir James

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Davies, M.Vanghan-(Cardigan

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Kilbribe, Denis

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Duckworth, James

Labouchere, Henry

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Emmott, Alfred

Langley, Batty

Robson, William Snowdon

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

Steadman, William Charles

Evershed, Sydney

Lorne, Marquess of

Strachey, Edward

Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

M'Crae, George

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Maddison, Fred.

Gurdon, Sir William B.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Morgan,W Pritchard (Merthyr

Mr. Kearley and Mr. Lambert.

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maclean, James Mackenzie

Arrol, Sir William

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Maclure, Sir John William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fry, Lewis

M'Killop, James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Galloway, William Johnson

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balcarres, Lord

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Milton. Viscount

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

Gosehen, Rt Hn. G. J (St George's

Milward, Colonel Victor

Beckett, Ernest William

Gosehen, George J. (Sussex)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Graham, Henry Robert

Morrell, George Herbert

Bethell, Commander

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Mount, William George

Bigwood, James

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Bill, Charles

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Green, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

Bond, Edward

Gretton, John

Myers, William Henry

Brassey, Albert

Gull, Sir Cameron

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Nicholson, William Graham

Brookfield, A. Montagu

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Carile William Walter

Hanson, Sir Reginald

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson.

Hardy, Laurence

Parkes, Ebenezer

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Paulton, James Mellor

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Hobhouse, Henry

Percy, Earl

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J (Birm.)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Rankin, Sir James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Charrington, Spencer

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

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

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Round, James

Colomb, Sir, John Charles R.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Kitson, Sir James

Ryder, J. H. Dudley

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Lafone, Alfred

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

Laurie, Lient.-General

Seely, Charles Hilton

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Curzon, Viscount

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Sinclair Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Leng, sir John

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

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Llewellyn. E. H (Somerset)

Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Denny, Colonel

Llewelyn. Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lockwool, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

Doughty, George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Stock, James Henry

Douglas, Charles M.(Lanarks)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Ducombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Tollemache, Henry James

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Lough, Thomas

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowles, John

Trevelvan, Charles Philips

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed wd.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Valentia, Viscount

Finch, George H.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-

1114

1115

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

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

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Whiteley,H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh.N.)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Wylie, Alexander

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Williams, John Carvell (Notts).

Wyndham, George

Question put, and agreed to.

Further consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  DR. CLARK: I think we ought to have some explanation from the Government as to the objects of the Bill. Four of the clauses are legislation by reference, and no one can tell what they mean. The fifth clause proposes that £25,000 shall come out of the Consolidated Fund for some purpose, and the sixth clause is the title of the Bill.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,: This Bill is intended to facilitate the purchase of land, in order that it may be afterwards resold to the tenants. The first five clauses are all devoted to that object, and there is no ambiguity about them. The Irish Members, who are most interested in the Bill, are entirely satisfied with it.
  MR. DAVITT: I entreat my hon. friend not to oppose this Bill. There is absolute unanimity amongst the Irish Members in favour of it being passed, and it is a Bill which, in my opinion, will confer many benefits upon those with whom, I am sure, my hon. friend sympathises.
  MR. CALDWELL: This Bill is very satisfactory to the Irish Members. It confers upon the Irish Congested Districts Board a considerable sum of money, and we are therefore fairly entitled to ask what the Government
  1116
  propose to do in the case of the Congested Districts Board of Scotland. The circumstances are practically the same in both cases, and I submit we ought to have some explanation as to why the same assistance is not being given to Scotland.

SUPPLY [7TH JULY].
Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.

  CLASS III.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £39,232, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, Queen's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, including a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Incorporated Law Society."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £206,527, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,742, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge

  1117
  which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,714, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,968, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Pay and Expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
  7. "That a sum, not exceed £415,161, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £124,195, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools in Great Britain, and of the inspectors of Reformatories."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £21,942, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum."

SUPPLY (14th JULY).
Resolution reported.
CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1899–1900.
  CLASS II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,858; be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1900, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices."

METROPOLITAN POLICE [SALARIES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Salaries of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District, and the Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis."—(Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley. )
DR. CLARK: We have just voted a large sum for the Police of London, and I object to this proposal to add to the burden.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The proposal makes no substantial charge on the Estimates. It is rather a rearrangement of the existing charges by the abolition of certain allowances which are made to supplement the pay of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner.
DR. CLARK: Under these circumstances I do not oppose it; but I object on principle to a large and rich city like London getting anything more from Imperial sources for this purpose.
DR. CALDWELL: I do not see why the Home Secretary should bring in a Bill under which it is proposed to put a charge upon the Imperial Exchequer. We have always objected to the Imperial funds bearing any expense for the Metropolitan Police, and, indeed, to anything in the nature of a subsidy.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the object of the Bill. The primary object of the Bill is to do away with the system of allowances and to give proper salaries to the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Receivers of the Metropolitan Police. There will be rather a diminution in the total charge than otherwise.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Second Reading [12th June] read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, discharged; Bill withdrawn.
MONEY-LENDING BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
Ordered, That the Members for counties do prepare lists of the Christian and surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective counties.
Ordered, That Members for boroughs and places having Commissioners executing exclusive jurisdiction within the same under the said Acts do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such boroughs and places respectively.
Ordered, That Members for other boroughs and places do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts for the counties in which such last-mentioned boroughs and places are situate.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Second Reading [9th March] read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
UNDERSIZED FISH BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Order for resuming adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd February] read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual sum to the Congested Districts Board for the purposes of Sub-section 3 of Section 43 of The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, and for other purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend certain provisions of The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, affecting the Congested Districts Board, and to make further provision for the expenses of that Board out of money provided by Parliament (Queen's recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
Committee to consider of making further provision for the construction of works and acquisition of land in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal Navy, and of authorising the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums as may be necessary for those purposes (Queen's recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of this day, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned accordingly at One of the clock.

The EARL OF LINDSEY The EARL OF LINDSEY—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Report of Her Majsty's Attorney-General, received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [H.L.]
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS AND WATER) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
REDDITCH GAS BILL.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
AYR BURGH BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL (No. 167).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL (No. 168).
  Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); an Amendment made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 2318. Trade of Shanghai, for the year 1898.
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Return as to the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure, &c., of the railway companies of the United Kingdom, for the year 1898; presented (by Command), and ordered to lie upon the Table.
  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual accounts of receipts and disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1898; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITION.
  POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Petition for amendment of; of the Guardians of the Poor of Plymouth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  CEYLON WASTE LANDS ORDINANCE.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I rise to call the attention of the House to the necessity of an independent inquiry into the working of the Ceylon Waste Lands Ordinance, and to the injustice caused by the reliance of the Government on the ex parte statements made by its officials on the subject, and by the action of those officials. I am glad to see the noble Lord who was formerly Governor of Ceylon (Lord Stanmore) in his place to-night, and I would appeal to him to give to your Lordships his experience with regard to the Waste Lands Ordinance, and upon any other points that may be raised in

  959
  the discussion. Since this question was last before the House it has made progress, and I find in Truth that Mr. Chamberlain has made some concessions. That journal says:
  "After all, the appeals to Mr. Chamberlain against the Ceylon Waste Lands Ordinances have not been entirely fruitless. I understand that he has now decided not to sanction the obnoxious clauses in the amending Ordinance, a measure which, among other things, proposed to make valid all proceedings under the original Ordinance which the High Court at Colombo had pronounced to be invalid. It appears that instead of all past irregularities in regard to notices being condoned by the amending Ordinance, this condonation will be confined to those cases in which the claimants have appeared and agreements have been arrived at. No exception can fairly be taken to this arrangement, provided the claimants have entered into the agreements without being subjected to any sort of pressure from the representatives of the Crown. Another alteration in the amending Ordinance is to the effect that the publication in the Gazette notice, instead of being 'conclusive proof' that all the preliminary steps have been taken in a case, is only to be 'primâ facie evidence' of the fact.
  "Mr. Chamberlain is to be congratulated on having made those concessions, which, in view of the attitude he has hitherto adopted, were as unexpected as they are welcome. It is necessary to point out, however, that the grave injustice of the Ordinance of 1897 remains unaltered."
  The following are the unfair provisions of the Ordinance of 1897, which require either withdrawal or an independent inquiry: (1) The presumption that all land that has not been in continuous cultivation for five years next before the issue of notice is the property of the Crown. This over-rides several decisions of the Supreme Court to the contrary. (2) The presumption that all "chena" land, that is, land that can only be cultivated at intervals of from five to seven years, is the property of the Crown. (3) That the actual occupation of a portion of a land is not to constitute a presumption of private ownership to the remainder of that land. This over-rides other decisions of the Supreme Court to the contrary. (4) Making the owner in possession the plaintiff in the action, and the Crown the defendant, thus reversing the maxim that possession is nine points of the law. (5) Making the revenue officer who sets the claim of the Crown in motion the judge of that claim. His advance in the service depends upon the revenue he can collect, and "land sales" are a very important item in it. No man should be a
  960
  judge in his own cause. (6) Preventing, the owner in possession from using or selling the land, or exercising any rights of ownership over it, until, after ruinous expense and perhaps years of litigation, it is declared "not to be the property of the Crown." This is adeliberate violation of one of the fundamental principles of justice—i.e., the absolute right of everyone to the free use, enjoyment, and control of his property. (7) Making the wrong-doers, i.e., the executive, the judges of what compensation should be paid for this. (8) Barring an absentee owner from preferring a claim for compensation because of unjust sale of his land by the Crown, or because of an unjust declaration that the land is Crown property, or for the recovery of his property—after the lapse of ten months. Under this Ordinance, therefore, the subject cannot plead prescription against the Crown under thirty years, while the Crown asserts prescription against the subject in one year. (9) Limiting compensation where the land has been unjustly sold by the Crown to what the land realised at the sale. When the Secretary of State for the Colonies took office, he said that they were like estates which required improvement. This maxim would be a very good one, but it pre-supposes that the Secretary of State had some knowledge of the management of an estate, and of the traditions under which they are managed. The Secretary of State appears to have been very imperfectly, not to say inaccurately, informed, and to have refused to listen to any information which did not come from Colonial officials. Various and contradictory statements have been made as to the origin of the Waste Lands Ordinance in Parliament. It has been said that the Governor did not originate it, but that it was due to the Secretary of State. It has been said that it was framed to check a land speculator, and that the Ceylon Government was acting with great liberality. Both these statements are disproved by figures taken from the Gazette. I extract the following return of work done under the Waste Lands Ordinance of Ceylon from the Government Gazette up to April 20, 1899, namely: Number of notices, 278; number of lots, in notices, 853; extent of land noticed, 158,849 acres; extent allowed to claimants on payment of upset prices, 350 acres; extent allowed claimants with-

  961
  out payment, 330 acres; balance of claims rejected by Revenue officers, 158,156 acres. That is to say, that out of 158,849 acres claimed and noticed by the Government, only 330 acres were allowed to the people. This is what the Governor calls being liberal. Compare this with the extent allowed to the Temples in 1858 to 1865, when the "Temple lands" claims were being investigated. Here the Government allowed 162,935 acres out of 388,136 acres—i.e., 42 per cent. then, as against one-fifth of 1 per cent. now. The Temple authorities were wealthy and influential; the claimants now are mostly poor, helpless, and ignorant villagers. When the Governor informs the Colonial Office that 107 claims were "amicably settled" he has included in the 107 the lots declared to be Crown in the absence of claims; that is, where the owners were too frightened to claim. One of the objects of the recent Waste Lands Ordinances has been to raise money for carrying out the Northern Railway. This will prevent the much required reduction of rates on the existing lines, and will be contrary to the principle laid down by Sir William Gregory, that the revenue of existing railways should not be applied to deficits on extensions. In this way the partially cultivated districts will have their progress retarded for the sake of the northern province, where there is now little or no cultivation or population, or prospect of applications for land. It is as though a landowner anywhere in England but in the Fens, intending to make some main drainage, were to ask all his tenants, those on the uplands as well as those in the valley, who alone would profit by the main drain, to pay an increased rent. It has also been stated, on behalf of the Ceylon Government, and by the Governor himself, as quoted by the Under Secretary, that no one in the Colony objected to the proposed legislation. The Hindu organ of Jaffna, April 26, writes:
  "Mr. Chamberlain's defence of the Waste Lands Ordinance seems to us to be plausible, and based on incorrect information. His assumption that the unofficial members of the Council did not object to the measure, and that it has given satisfaction to the vast majority of the native population of this Colony, is not founded on fact. We have not the Hansard before us, but we perfectly remember that at the time the Ordinance was introduced, it met with much strenuous opposition from the unofficial members. The then Tamil Member, Mr. Coomara Swamy,
  962
  went the length of comparing the Government to a highway robber in this respect, which remark was resented by His Excellency the Governor, who presided on the occasion."
  The same paper goes on to ask how the state of native opinion was conveyed to the Secretary of State, and quotes a Resolution passed by the Chilaw Association on the 8th of April last:
  "That the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House of Commons, on the 20th March last, to the effect that the principle of Land Ordinances of Ceylon is regarded with satisfaction by the vast majority of the natives, has no foundation, and this Association is of opinion that the statement was made by Mr. Chamberlain in ignorance of facts, and under misinformation, the truth being that the said Ordinances are both in principle and in their practical working oppressive and extortionate as regards the natives, amongst whom they have been the cause of the greatest dissatisfaction with the Government from the earliest times."
  It has been stated that legislation was necessary to protect the forests of Ceylon, and this was a justification for the Ordinance. As a matter of fact, the Ordinance is being enforced with regard to village "cheena" land, which is by no means forest land. With regard to that portion of my question which refers to the injustice caused by the reliance of the Government on the ex parte statements made by its officials on the subject, I would refer to one gentleman in whom the Colonial Office reposes great confidence. There is no fault to be found with him except that he is a Revenue Officer, and that he writes bad English. I have seen a letter of his which contains an admission. He commences by saying:
  "In the times when 'cheenaing' was allowed—"
  "Cheenaing," by the way, is neither English nor Singalese grammar; what he means is the time when people were allowed to cultivate "cheena" lands, and he says that at that time they were not interfered with. This gentleman uses the word bonâ fide six or eight times in the course of his letter, always with a different meaning. If I were to say I wish we had a bonâ fide Secretary of State for the Colonies, I should only mean one who devoted his whole time to Colonial business, and not half of it to socialist schemes, but it might be taken otherwise. Mr. Correa made a speech to the Chilaw Association lasting an hour and a half, and the other members all spoke against him. With regard to the

  963
  Governor himself, who I said was not to be relied upon as a perfectly safe witness, the noble Earl the Under-Secretary, on March 24th, expressed his regret that I should have thought fit to imply censure on a Governor who had done so much to earn the gratitude of his Sovereign and his country. I am perfectly ready to accept the noble Lord's censure with all humility if he can answer one question which I shall put to him. Mr. Gladstone removed Colonel West Ridgway from the position of Chief Secretary in Dublin on the ground that he was too harsh. The noble Earl is in this dilemma; he must either say that Mr. Gladstone and his Government removed Colonel West Ridgway without sufficient justification, in which case he would challenge the late Government, or he must admit that he was justly removed. In that case, I want to know why the Secretary of State appointed a harsh Governor to Ceylon? I do not wish to stand between Lord Stanmore and your Lordships at any further length, and I would appeal to Lord Stanmore to say what he intended to have said on a previous occasion when he was prevented from being present through illness. Your Lordships will hear from him a calm and judicial speech. I conclude with a formal motion for Papers in case I wish to reply.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, so far as I could gather from the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken, of which, I confess, I heard but very little, he has appealed to me for some confirmation of the statements he has made. I am very reluctant, my Lords, to enter on this matter at all. There are obvious reasons why I should shrink from discussing or appearing to criticise the action of the Government of Ceylon; and before I say a word more I must be allowed to express my entire dissent from what the noble Lord has said, so far as I could hear him on this occasion, and from what I know him to have said on other occasions in this House with regard to the present Governor of Ceylon. The present Governor is, I am sure, animated by the highest motives in bringing forward the Bill which 1s the subject of discussion. Benevolence of feeling towards the native races is not the monopoly of my noble friend; it is, I am sure, shared by Sir West Ridgway. I beg to repudiate any compliment which the noble Lord may pay
  964
  to me at the expense of my successor, and I beg to dissociate myself with any attempt to cast reflection on the action of Sir West Ridgway. Having said that, my Lords, I am bound to confess that the Ordinance in question does not appear to me to be altogether free from objection. There can be no question as to the motives with which this Ordinance was brought in, or as to the existence of an evil which, I believe, it will cure. But we all know the old fable of the bear who killed a fly on his master's head and broke his skull in doing it, and it appears to me that this Ordinance is a benefit of much the same nature. While I think it will effect the object for which it was brought in, it will do injury to interests which it was never meant to injure. I am not going to trouble the House with wearisome details. The broad principle of this Ordinance is that all waste lands—and in that term is included a great deal of what would not ordinarily be regarded as waste lands—belong to the Crown, and the burden of proof that they do not is thrown upon the owner or quasi-owner. That, in itself, is, of course, a position contrary to that usually assumed with regard to disputes as to the possession of land. It has been said in various quarters that this Ordinance only repeats and confirms the provisions of an Ordinance passed in the year 1840, which contained the same presumption—that the Crown owned all land that could not be proved to be not the Crown's. The mistake into which I think the Colonial Office and my noble friend the Under Secretary of State have fallen is a very natural one indeed, but it is, nevertheless, a mistake. They have compared the language of the two Ordinances. They see the same words in them, apparently giving the same presumption to the Crown, and they say that as the words are the same they must have the same meaning; and that this Ordinance, therefore, only re-enacts what has been enacted before. It has been said in this House that it was simply a question of procedure—that a new tribunal was created, but the law remained the same. The mistake made arises from the fact that my noble friend and others who have looked into the matter have not observed what is indeed not obvious on the face of it—namely, that the law of 1840 must be read in the light of the judicial interpretations which have been given to

  965
  it by the Supreme Court of Ceylon from time to time during the last sixty years. Now, the Supreme Court of Ceylon, adopting a course which has often been taken when Ordinances or laws are of an unusually harsh character, have drawn the teeth and clipped the claws of the Ordinance of 1840. They have decided that its terms only applied to land which had never been occupied or used for purposes of cultivation within the reasonable limits of time of which ordinary evidence could be obtained. That modification of the old Ordinance is swept away by the new Ordinance. Again, the Supreme Court laid it down that the active occupancy of part of any known or defined plot of land carried presumption of the occupancy or possession of the whole. The new Ordinance says expressly that it shall not do so. In addition to that, the Ordinance of 1840 is very materially strengthened and reinforced by other provisions of the Ordinance of 1897. That this is the case will be visible from the very frank admission of one of the strongest advocates of the Ordinance. I refer to Mr. R. W. Ievers (Government Agent, Northern Province) who, in the Memorandum which he drew up advocating the new Ordinance, said that it was not a re-enactment of an old law, but something new and much stronger. He said:
  "It must also be admitted that the Ordinance No. 12 of 1840, intituled "To prevent encroachments upon Crown Lands,' has not succeeded in fulfilling the provision stated in the preamble, which is as follows: - 'That divers persons without any probable claim or pretence of title have taken possession of lands in this Colony belonging to Her Majesty, and it is necessary that provision be made for the prevention of such encroachments.' Owing to its unfortunate wording the Ordinance has been nullified by the construction placed on it by the Courts. It has been vitiated by the words 'without probable claim or pretence of title,' for the Supreme Court has so whittled down the effect of the presumptions in favour of the Crown that the position of the Crown and claimant are now exactly the reverse of what was contemplated in 1840."
  This appears on page 47 of the Correspondence Relating to Recent Land Legislation in Ceylon. The words "probable claim or pretence of title" do not appear in the new Ordinance, and their omission at once constitutes a very real and important difference in the two laws and greatly enlarges the number of those to whom its provisions apply. There is also a very distinct statement on another page that the effect of this new Ordinance is not merely to re-enact what was the law
  966
  before—what the Supreme Court has laid down to be the meaning of the Ordinance of 1840—but to enact that which the Government of Ceylon thinks was intended to be enacted by the Ordinance of 1840, but which the Supreme Court says, and has for years and years said, that Ordinance does not enact. Both I and my distinguished predecessor, Sir William Gregory, disliked the Ordinance of 1840, and the reason why we did not seek to modify it was that we thought the judicial decisions of the Courts had sufficiently totted it down to prevent it doing any harm. I am afraid that any speech on such a subject as this must weary the House, however short it may be. I will, therefore, not go into all the details which might be urged as objections to the Bill, but there are two main points which I should like to mention, and to which I will confine myself. I fear the Bill may injure two classes—the small village proprietors and the owners of very large estates. I will very shortly say why. We are told that there is no such thing as communal property in Ceylon. Although in a technical legal sense that is true, and small owners have no communal possession in waste lands, yet from time immemorial they have exercised certain rights without which small cultivators in villages could not carry on their industry. Everybody is supposed to have an individual estate and interest, but you find that many inhabitants of villages have purely nominal individual holdings; sometimes something like the seventy-second undivided share of the fourth part of a quarter of an acre. What is that other than an elaborate and clumsy way of saying the plot of land is communal property? Sometimes the division takes another form, such as an individual right to cultivate a field for a particular time. I was only this morning looking through an old journal of mine, in which I found that in one village in the Vavonia district, in 1887, there were at least sixteen persons who had in regard to one plot of land the right to cultivate it once in ninety-six years. That, again, is only another way of saying it is communal land. Practically, these village communities have exercised in the forests in the immediate neighbourhood of the villages certain rights which I need not particularly enumerate, such as the right to pasture, right to cut fuel and sticks for fences, the right to cut timber for houses, to make use of water springs, &c.; but if this Ordinance is strictly enforced all these people will be,

  967
  as indeed to a great extent they have been for some time past, exercising such rights entirely at the pleasure and goodwill of the Crown. I shall be told that it is not the intention of the local Government to do injustice. I fully believe it, but I cannot think it is a wise act on the part of the Colonial Legislature to confer powers capable of grave abuse, simply because those to whom their exercise would at the present moment be entrusted are not likely to abuse them. Generally speaking, and certainly under the present officials, there will be a disposition to do all that is fair and just, but you are giving a power to do much that is unjust, and the temptation to use that power is sometimes very great. You place this great power in the hands, practically, of the Government Agents, for it is impossible for the Governor to look after it himself. There is the temptation to sell land to make up the revenue, there is the temptation to yield to the pressure of those seeking for land, and there is sometimes a less worthy temptation. They may have a quarrel with the village, and not scruple in disregarding village rights. With regard to the large landowners, I think they have a great chance of suffering, but in quite a different way. All large landowners have, of course, a large amount of land which they do not use. They generally hold them on old Kandyan grants, the limits of which are extremely indefinite, and may give rise to many lawsuits. Some of these have been settled with the Crown and some have not, but under this Ordinance it will be quite possible, if their lands come within the category of forests and waste, unoccupied or uncultivated lands, that they may have a large portion absolutely confiscated, and be practically punished for having kept any land in wood—all wood under this Ordinance being personally Crown property: and as properties are often skirted by a fringe of waste land undefined in limit, it is quite possible that such may come within the category of waste or uncultivated land. I know that was not the intention of Sir West Ridgway, and I will venture to read one very short extract from a despatch of his with regard to these cases of large landed proprietors. He says:
  "The bonâ fide large native proprietor has nothing to fear from the Ordinance …. This Ordinance will give a ready means of settling such dispute, and particularly with
  968
  the object of meeting such a case, the fourth section of the Ordinance provides for an agreement being entered into in respect of any claim, and should a Government Agent be inclined to take an illiberal view of the claim, the large landed proprietor is protected even against himself, because no agreement can be entered into without the consent of the Governor in any case in which the land is over ten acres in extent. Should no agreement be possible the decision is to the right of the landed proprietor to the land in claim is left to the ordinary courts of justice."
  I have nothing to complain of in that statement, which is an excellent one. Nothing can be better when you are dealing with cases of boundaries than to settle the dispute by a regular lawsuit in the ordinary courts. Sir West Ridgway goes on to mention a settlement in which I had been interested in the Province of Sabaragamuwa. He states that the settlement made by me covered only a portion of the land claimed, and that the Government Agent has been asked to settle the remaining portion of the land by the claimants under the Ordinance No. 1, of 1897. No better proof could be given, he says, that the large landed proprietor does not anticipate that he has anything to fear from the Ordinance. But I have in my hand a letter from Maduanwala Ratemahatmeya, in which he gives an account of what has happened. A proposal was made to him which was virtually this, that he should give up a large portion of his claimed land to the Government, and that on his doing so the Government would release him from any claim upon the rest. Not unnaturally, perhaps, Mr. Maduanwala objected to that proposal, and proposed another scheme, by which the Government would acquire certain rights of cutting timber and making roads, and so forth, while he held the land. This he proposed as an alternative. Well, was it made the foundation of any further proposal to him whereby they might come to an agreement? Was that referred to the ordinary courts of law? No. Two days afterwards Mr. Maduanwala received the following answer from the Government agent:
  "Ratnapura Kachereri,
  "27 March, 1899.
  "MADUANWALA CLAIM.
  "SIR,—Withreference to your letter No. 60, of the 7th inst., and subsequent conversation, I have the honour to inform you that on your withdrawing all claim to the land lying to the east of the Timbolketiya and Embilepiteya road, a certificate of quiet possession will be issued to you for the remainder of your claim. In the event of your refusal, proceedings will be taken under the Waste Lands Ordinance

  969
  No. 1 of 1897. I request your reply within 14 clays of receipt of this letter. You are to understand that all previous proposals for a settlement on other terms are at an end.
  "I am, Sir,
  "Your obedient servant,
  "G. M. FOWLER, Govt. Agent.
  I contend, therefore, that what was not intended by Sir W. Ridgway may be done and is done under the Waste Lands Ordinance. He says the Ordinance does not apply and that disputes of this nature will be settled by the ordinary courts of law. The Government Agent says if the native landholder will not accept the terms offered he shall be dealt with under the new Ordinance, which will probably deprive him of great tracts of forest of which for certainly two hundred years his family have been the reputed possessors. You may gain a few hundred acres of forest; you will gain with it the undying enmity of a still powerful family. One other matter I ventured to point out to the Colonial Office, that there is no obstacle under the Ordinance to the issuing of notices for very large plots of land where it is impossible for the people on them to know all about them, and gave the sketch of such a notice. The Governor thought this impossible, and said that if any officer were foolish enough to propose the insertion of such a notice in the Gazette, he would not have the opportunity of repeating his action. Since then, however, a notice, substantially the same as the imaginary notice I prepared, has been issued, taking in 150 square miles of land, and under the Forest Ordinance, which works along with this Ordinance, a notice has been issued in respect of a tract of land 150 miles in length and 30 miles in width. My point is this. I am quite satisfied of the intention of the Colonial Office, and I am quite satisfied of the intention of the Governor, but good intentions do not always insure good legislation. All history tells us that, and much of the most mischievous legislation, and some of the most absurd laws of former days, were framed with the most benevolent intentions and with a sincere desire to benefit the people. I, therefore, think it is no proof that the law is a good one to say that it is a well-intended one. I think this law may be oppressively used, and I therefore think it right to call attention to these facts. I ought to have added, with regard to the first of the large tracts of land to which I have referred, that when, nine years ago, I passed through it, there were several villages there. I am told
  970
  that those villages have now disappeared" That is very likely. Owing to the great want of irrigation the people have gone elsewhere. But is it to be assumed that because they have done so they have lost their rights to the land? They have removed because they could not live there, but their rights, whatever they are worth, surely still exist. If the Government of Ceylon and the Colonial Office say the present Ordinance is now the law and must continue to be so notwithstanding dangers which may be seen in its provisions, then I would say, let it be so. This law, taken in itself, will effect undoubtedly one great good. It will suppress what is an unmitigated evil—the sale of little petty plots of land by individual owners in villages to the detriment of the whole village and the general public. The Ordinance is a very strong and somewhat harsh method of ascertaining the rights of the Crown. If it is continued as such I would ask Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Ceylon if they will do one thing. Will they, by legislative provisions, secure the rights of the villagers in the same way as the rights of the Crown have been now secured; that is to say, instead of leaving it to the mere caprice, it may be—goodwill and pleasure at the best, it must be—of the Government Agents to say whether they will or will not give certain privileges to villagers in the forest, will they enact, as the Crown has now the power severely to enforce its own rights, that within a certain radius from a village the people of that village shall enjoy those privileges which are mentioned in the Forest Ordinance? If they will do that, then, although the Ordinance might not be without objection, anything that is dangerous in it would, so far as the villagers are concerned, be neutralised. And if they would also make provision whereby large property disputes with regard to boundaries should be treated as it was intended by Sir West Ridgway they should be treated, by being dealt with by the superior Courts of Justice, not by proceedings under this Ordinance; then I think there would be little reason to complain, and I for one would be perfectly satisfied with the course taken.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of SELEORNE): The noble Lord who has just addressed the House has as great right to speak on this subject as

  971
  any living man, and during his career as Governor of Ceylon he was distinguished, if he will allow me to say so, for a sympathy with the natives that was wisely directed. Therefore I am glad, in the first place, to think that the division of opinion between himself, the Colonial Office, and the present Governor of Ceylon, is confined really to a single point. The noble Lord repudiated, as your Lordships would have expected, the attacks that have been made in this House and in the other House on the motives and actions of the present Governor. I join most heartily with my noble friend in that repudiation. The noble Lord went on to admit that there was no question as to the motives under which the Waste Lands Ordinance was passed, and he admitted, further, that there were great evils which had to be cured, and which the Ordinance in question would cure. That, at any rate, is a large ground of concurrence between Lord Stanmore, the present Government, and the Colonial Office. My noble friend went on to say that this Waste Land Ordinance would directly injure interests which it was never intended to injure, and which, perhaps, were not taken quite sufficiently into consideration when its provisions were framed. He criticised the argument that has been used by the Governor of Ceylon, and I think, in both Houses of Parliament, that the principle involved in the Act under discussion is the same as that which was involved in the Act of 1840. My noble friend explained to the House the difference which really exists between the two Acts, and which constitutes this statement a fallacy. The contention of the Governor of Ceylon has been that in both Acts there has been the same presumption of Crown ownership, and that the same words expressed that presumption. But, says my noble friend, the law of 1840 has been so altered by judge-made law, that it no longer carries out what was supposed to have been its presumption, and he named two points specially. The first was that, according to the judgment of the Courts in the case of the Ordinance of 1840, the presumption in favour of the Crown was only applicable to land which had not been cultivated within a reasonable time. I do not think my noble friend named the exact number of years that the Courts had laid down as the minimum
  972
  requisite to establish a private claim, and to upset the claim of the Crown. I will leave it at that—that no hard-and-fast rule has been laid down by the Court of Ceylon in respect of the Act of 1840, but that they have admitted, although giving every kind of latitude and advantage to the private claimant, that a period must intervene beyond which ancient rights are not entitled to count against the Crown. The second point which the noble Lord brought forward was that of evidence of the occupancy of part of a district—part, we will say, of a so-called forest—has been held, according to the interpretation by the Courts of the Ordinance of 1840, to be evidence of the occupation of the whole, and that no corresponding provision has been introduced into the current Ordinance. I should like to point out, as regards the first point, that the whole difference between my noble friend and the Colonial Office is a question of degree. If once you admit that after an intervening period the private claim is barred, and the Crown can resort to what we will call its pristine rights, the question in dispute is only one of degree as to how many years prescription ought to be allowed. I quite agree that in dealing with matters affecting closely the interests of the natives, the greatest care should be taken to strain the law on their side rather than against them; but in the necessary administration, I am prepared to rely on the exercise of their discretion by the Government officials of Ceylon under the direction of the Governor. As to the second point—the presumption that occupation of a small part of the land should be evidence of the occupation of the whole—I have no doubt an equally strong case could be made out for the contrary proposition—namely, that it should not be evidence against the Crown (by the Crown I mean, of course, the whole of the public of Ceylon) that the whole of a forest belongs to a certain individual, or to a certain village, because that individual or that village can prove that they have in remote years cultivated a comparatively small plot within that forest or district.
  LORD STANMORE: I did not say anything of the sort. What I referred to was a defined and known plot of land. In that case the Supreme Court has said that the possession of a part shall be pos-

  973
  session of the whole. The new Ordinance says it shall not.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It all depends on the size of the defined area. Admitting that it is a known area, if it cannot be proved that a given individual or his forefathers have, in any time in which there is record, exercised any rights over three-quarters of such known area, the State should have the right to say whether the ownership vested in the State or in the individual, and the Governor seems to me to be justified in not allowing the presumption to be in favour of the individual. My noble friend made two special criticisms. He pointed out that the Act might operate with special harshness against small village proprietors who enjoyed practically, though not technically, communal rights; but he admitted that, after all, the whole thing was a question of administration. It is really, therefore, a question whether the Government and the Colonial Office between them can exercise proper control over the officials of the Government of Ceylon. All I can say on behalf of the Governor and the Colonial Office is that we will do our best; that we recognise absolutely the necessity for acting with the greatest sympathy towards the native proprietors and village communities, and any criticism which will enable us to carry out more carefully that superintendence of detail which is wholly necessary we shall welcome, from whatever quarter it comes. The second case my noble friend referred to was the case of the very large landowners, whom he admitted might include within their properties areas over which their claims were rather vague, and as to which they might not unnaturally rather resent too close definition. But, my Lords, the Crown—i.e., the public of Ceylon—have claims as well as the great landowners. The latter, no doubt, are entitled not only to the most rigorous justice, but to sympathetic treatment. I cannot think, however, that their case requires as much anxiety on the part of the Colonial Office as that of the small proprietors in the villages; for, after all, the big landowner is presumably able to take care of himself and his interests. Take the case which my noble friend has brought before your Lordships. I shall not be so rash as to attempt to pronounce the
  974
  name of the gentleman to which he referred, and which the noble Lord so glibly rolled out, but so far as I understand the case he is a native gentleman who has very large property, in regard to which his rights have been for a long period vague and undefined. My noble friend was himself instrumental in settling a portion of the claims, but a certain portion remains unadjusted. The Governor of Ceylon proposes now to ascertain the respective rights of this native landowner and of the Crown in respect to the remainder of the property. The Government Agent offered him a compromise, which the native gentleman refused, and offered another compromise. The Government Agent refused the compromise offered by the native gentleman, and indicated that if the offer of the Government was rejected the Waste Lands Ordinance would be put in force. Where is the objection to that course being adopted? The Waste Lands Ordinance cannot be put into force without going to the Courts of Justice, and this large native landowner would be able to protect himself there and appeal if necessary. In the particular case to which the noble Lord has referred, I cannot see where the hardship is. It is not a case of a poor man who could not defend himself, but of a man who, from the size of his property, is well able to look after his own interests. As to the large block of land scheduled under the Order, to which the noble Lord alluded, the present Governor of Ceylon personally informed me that he had ridden all through this block of country, and had been quite unable to find any traces of human habitation, and had completely assured himself that in scheduling this block of land the Government of Ceylon were not interfering with the existing rights of any native community or individual, and, as far as they have been able, to ascertain, there has been no reason to depart from that view. Before I leave the question of the administration of this Act, I should like, with your Lorships' permission, to read an extract from the last page of the Blue Book which has just been published. The Chief Justice of Ceylon has been frequently quoted, and has been used as a weapon with which to belabour the Government and the Colonial Office, because he used the words, "this extraordinary Act." I will read to your Lordships what the Chief Justice really

  975
  said. He wrote to the Secretary of State for the Colonies as follows:
  "I understand that the language used by me in a recent judgment questioning certain proceedings under the Waste Lands Ordinance has been interpreted to mean that I disapprove of the principle of the Ordinance. In describing the Ordinance as one of an 'extraordinary' nature I referred to the fact that it confers exceptional powers on the local government In my opinion, it is not the province of a judge to express either approval or disapproval of the Acts of the Legislature, but I may perhaps be permitted to state that I consider that the local circumstances render exceptional legislation desirable, not only in the interests of the general community to prevent the wanton destruction of valuable property, but also in the interests of the villagers themselves, for nothing is a more prolific source of crime in Ceylon than disputes respecting the ownership of land. At the same time, I have always entertained the opinion that where an Ordinance conferring exceptional powers prescribes the conditions under which the powers may be exercised, these conditions must be strictly observed. I may add that, so far as I am aware, the working of the Ordinance has not been attended by any real injustice or hardship, and that if any such were to occur the Supreme Court may be trusted to find a remedy."
  If there is one thing which my noble friend dilated upon more than another, it was the wisdom of the Supreme Court of Ceylon, which had prevented any hardship being committed under the Act of 1840. I would ask him in the same way to rely upon the Supreme Court of Ceylon to prevent, in its interpretation of the present Ordinance, any abuse taking place. If it has protected the native public from a harsh interpretation under one Ordinance, it may, I think, be trusted to do so under another. Finally, my noble friend asked me this question: Will Her Majesty's Government, by legislation, secure the rights of private villagers in the same way as they have secured the rights of the Crown by this ordinance? I am not, of course, prepared on the spur of the moment to answer a question which involves a complete knowledge of the technicalities of the Land Laws of Ceylon, but I can say that any suggestion emanating from my noble friend (Lord Stanmore) or other authority so entitled to respect will receive the most careful and anxious consideration of the Secretary of State. As regards the remarks of the noble Lord who introduced this motion (Lord Stanley of Alderley), I entirely deny the statement that injustice has been caused by the
  976
  action of the officials of the Government, and Her Majesty's Government entirely decline to grant an inquiry into the working of the Ordinance.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I should like to say that the opinion of the Chief Justice of Ceylon, which has been quoted by my noble friend, took me back twenty-nine years. I could have fancied it was Mr. Gladstone moving the Irish Land Bill of 1870. Exactly the same words about discontent, bad feeling, and exceptional legislation were used then. As land proprietors who have not cultivated their land are liable in Ceylon to have it taken from them by the Crown, I hope those landowners in England, Ireland, and Scotland who have not cultivated their land will be careful that these laws are not introduced into this country. Where they will stop, only wiser men than I can say.

  WILD BIRDS ACT (IRELAND).
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to enforce the Wild Birds Act (Ireland). In 1880, or thereabouts, the police used to post up printed notices of the birds protected by the Act, but in consequence of a footnote in Sir Andrew Reid's Irish Constables' Guide, which stated that the Constabulary were not to enforce the Act, the Constabulary ceased to enforce it. The Inspector-General has now directed that the Act should be enforced, but it is not strongly enforced. I am told that for the first offence the offender is cautioned, and a second offence is reported to the district inspector for consideration as to whether the prosecution should be instituted. I do not consider this is properly enforcing the Act. A friend of mine informs me that on visiting a police barracks a day or two ago to see the form of notice, he found it posted on the notice board with its face to the wall. I do not think that is an enforcement of the Act. In the wilder parts of Ireland, such as the west coast and some portions of Donegal, the birds are entirely unprotected, and I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to see that the Act is more stringently enforced.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, the noble Earl is no doubt aware that the police are not obliged to enforce these Acts,

  977
  and the reason why no action was taken at the time mentioned by the noble Earl was that, as the country was disturbed, and the work of the police very severe, it was not considered advisable to add to their duties. That objection no longer exists, and on the 9th May last a circular was issued by the Inspector-General, with the approval of the Irish Government, to the Royal Irish Constabulary directing them to enforce the Wild Birds Protection Acts of 1880 and 1894, and placards were accordingly posted at all the Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in Ireland. The Constabulary have been directed to first warn any person offending against the law before a prosecution is instituted. When the public are thus made aware of the law, should it be found that in any district its provisions are disregarded, the offenders will be prosecuted without warning. The requirement that a constable shall report an offence to his superior, and obtain instructions before instituting a prosecution, is not intended in any way to weaken the action of the police, but is in accordance with the general practice governing prosecutions by the force. If it is reported to the Inspector-General that in any district the law is flagrantly violated, he will insist upon its rigid enforcement without previous warning to offenders. The case mentioned by the noble Lord, in which one of the notices was placarded with its face to the wall, is, I hope, an isolated one, and I am certain that if the noble Earl will direct the attention of the Inspector-General to any case of the kind it will be remedied.

  VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the number of Volunteer rifle ranges closed as unsafe during the gradual issue of the Lee-Metford rifle, some pecuniary assistance should not be given to enable those corps whose ranges have been compulsorily closed to obtain others. I do not think I need apologise for having brought this question forward. It is a very serious one, for the recent Return issued shows that 325 ranges belonging to the Volunteers have been closed. The corps to which I have belonged for upwards of thirty years had a very convenient range in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, on which a good deal of
  978
  money had been spent. It was used for company prize meetings, battalion prize meetings, and inter-company prize meetings; but unfortunately an accident happened, and as the result of the inquiry which followed the range was declared unsafe, and closed. All the money that had been spent upon it has been thrown away, and with great difficulty the corps has been able to find another range, upon which has been incurred a fresh outlay of £1,000. It seems hard that a battalion should be once again called upon to spend so large a sum. The new range is not so convenient as the old one, and the companies have considerable difficulty and incur great expense in getting to it. I had intended pointing to the result which would inevitably follow upon any interference with the opportunities of practising with the rifle, but I see that on Saturday last a sergeant of this corps broke the record by making the highest possible score at 200, 500, and 600 yards. But although there may be brilliant exceptions, the result must be very detrimental to the efficiency of the Volunteers and the management of the weapon put into their hands, and I think it is a case in which the officers of Volunteer corps can very properly claim the assistance of the Government. I am perfectly aware that applications could be made under certain conditions for a loan repayable over a term of year, but this also is a charge upon the battalion which it can ill afford to bear. I think it will be generally admitted that Volunteer officers as a body are not wealthy men, and it is creditable to them that they spend so much time and money in order to make themselves and the corps with which they serve efficient. The Volunteers as a force have had a checkered career. When the movement was first initiated they were fêted, flattered, and made a good deal of, but when the novelty had worn off they underwent a period when no ridicule was too great to hurl at them. They have been likened to that proverbial old maid who is always ready but never wanted, but I believe they have shown that they are ready and capable of doing all that is expected of them. They have survived those periods of ridicule, and I think the Volunteers themselves would be the first to recognise the fact that the conditions under which they serve now are in many

  979
  respects better than they were in former years. No one will deny that in efficiency, discipline, and soldierly qualities the Volunteer Force has gone far ahead of the most sanguine expectations of its originators. The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, has probably considered what remedy should be proposed, but to my mind the only remedy consistent with justice is that, in the special circumstances of the case, the Government should make a special grant. I am aware that a Minister of War is not always able to cajole out of the unwilling pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer all he thinks he is entitled to, but if the noble Marquess can tell us that the authorities will in some way show their practical sympathy in this direction, I am sure it will tend to the encouragement of the Volunteer Force.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Before my noble friend answers the question which has been put to him by the noble Earl, I should like to say that the Volunteer Force is greatly indebted to him for having brought this matter forward. I do not propose to touch upon the general question of Volunteering, further than to say that Volunteers must have the means of shooting. It is in consequence of the increased range of the rifle, in the main, that these ranges have been shut up. My early educational life was spent in Switzerland, and I saw a great deal of rifle shooting there. In Switzerland ranges are placed close to towns, without, apparently, any dangerous result, and I suggest that the Swiss system of laying out ranges might with advantage be applied in this country. The Government have plenty of waste land at Aldershot where the Swiss method, by which trenches are dug and surrounded by baulks of timber to prevent the bullets going beyond a certain range, might be tried on a small scale.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the House must have listened with pleasure and interest to the excellent statement made by the noble Earl who brought this subject forward, and I certainly do not differ from him in the general conclusion to which he has arrived. There is no doubt that the closing of so large a number of ranges has placed the Volunteer Force at a very great dis
  980
  advantage, and it is our duty to give the matter our most serious consideration. I do not think it is quite fair to regard the, increased range of the ·303 rifle as solely responsible for the present state of things. I am told that most of the ranges which were really safe for the Martini-Henry rifle are safe for the ·303 rifle. Two new circumstances have contributed to the present result. One is the rapid spread of the population in many parts of the country, and the manner in which areas which not long ago were comparatively waste-places have been built over. In the second place, there is the greater strictness of inspection which now prevails. There is no doubt that in old days the inspection of the small local ranges was of an extremely easy character; a thorough overhauling has now taken place, with the result that, as my noble friend has said, no less than 323 Volunteer ranges have lately been condemned as unsafe with the new rifle. I wish to guard myself, at the outset, against admitting that Her Majesty's Government, or, indeed, I would almost say any Government, could undertake the enormous liability of providing every Volunteer corps throughout the country with a suitable range. On the other hand, we certainly recognise the duty of doing everything within reasonable limits to afford the Volunteer Forces opportunities of making themselves thoroughly efficient in musketry, and something has been done, and is, being done at the present time, in that direction. Under the Military Lands Act of 1892, a Volunteer corps is enabled to raise money for the purpose of purchasing land for ranges on the security of the land itself, and the capitation grant of the corps. We amended that Act two years ago, and Volunteer corps are now able to borrow, not only for the purpose of acquiring land, but also for the purpose of constructing the necessary works and buildings. That change in the law seems to have had a very good result, for while in the year before the amendment of the Act only four corps took advantage of the law and borrowed the sum of £8,400, last year no fewer than twenty-one corps came forward, and the total sum advanced was thus raised to no less than £129,000. Again, under the Military Works Loan Act of 1897, we took a sum, in round figures about half a million of money, for the purpose

  981
  of providing ranges. It is quite true that those ranges were primarily intended for the use of the Militia and regulars, but every effort is made to put them in places where they can be accessible to Volunteers also. The whole of that money has not yet been spent, for the obtainment of safe ranges in these days is a matter of enormous difficulty. You have, in the first place, to discover a suitable site, and then to come to terms with the owner—two operations which consume a considerable amount of time. Then, under the Military Works Loan Bill, which is now before Parliament, and which, I hope, will be before your Lordships in a few days, we take power to raise the sum of £40,000 for the purpose of assisting Volunteer corps in providing themselves with ranges. I have no doubt that that sum sounds a rather small one, but small as it is we hope to make it go a long way. What we propose to do is in districts where there is a deficiency of range accommodation, and where we find that the local corps are ready to combine for the purpose of procuring a range, to assist the corps by a grant from this fund—a grant which, perhaps, may not be a very large one, but which will certainly alleviate that burden of which my noble friend spoke so feelingly just now. We also propose to bring in this year new regulations dealing with the travelling expenses for Volunteers, to which we may also look for a palliative for the evil of insufficient range accommodation. The new regulations will be more advantageous to the force, and will work more fairly as between corps and corps than the present regulations have worked. The principal points of the new regulations are that the minimum distance in respect of which the travelling allowance will be granted will be reduced from five to two miles. The distance will be calculated from the sectional as well as the company headquarters, and, finally, the maximum grant will be raised from 4s. to 6s. per head. These are all concessions which I believe the Volunteer force will appreciate, and which will enable Volunteers to avail themselves more readily of the range accommodation at present existing. There is no use in concealing the fact that the difficulty of obtaining ranges has increased of late, and we must therefore look for the remedy of the evil complained of to a smaller number of perfectly safe ranges,
  982
  and to giving facilities to Volunteers to obtain access to them. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches suggested that we should inquire into a system of ranges which he tells us was prevalent in Switzerland, and under which, I understood him to say, the range was confined within a sort of tunnel constructed of timber baulks. I certainly would receive any helpful suggestion with the utmost respect, and I promise the noble Earl to make inquiries as to the system to which he has referred. I confess, at first sight, the suggestion rather alarms me, because, although our Volunteers shoot excellently, they are not all marksmen, and it strikes me as conceivable that an occasional bullet might find its way outside the limits of the noble Earl's tunnel. I certainly should not like to inhabit the neighbourhood of a butt protected in the way he suggests. I hope I have said enough to convince my noble friend that the matter to which he has called attention is not regarded with disfavour by the War Office. The noble Earl referred to the vicissitudes of the Volunteer Force, and spoke of the "epoch of ridicule" through which the Volunteer movement had passed. The noble Earl is not alone in thinking that that epoch, if ever it existed, has been left very far behind indeed, and I am sure those who had the good fortune, as I had myself, to see the magnificent march past of the Volunteers before the Prince of Wales on Saturday week must have been highly impressed with the efficiency and the national value of this branch of the Service.
  EARL SPENCER: As I had the honour of asking the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War some two years ago a question in almost the same terms as that which has been so ably put before the House to-night, I should like to have the opportunity of saying one or two words upon the subject. No one wishes to protect the public against the dangers of rifle ranges more than I do, but I cannot help thinking that the inspectors of these ranges may be carrying their care for the public too far. The noble Marquess has said that a range which was safe for the Martini-Henry rifle was fairly safe for the new rifle; and if that is so, why is it that such an enormous number of ranges have been closed since the introduction of the

  983
  new rifle? Were there many accidents? I scarcely remember any. I was exceedingly glad to hear what the noble Marquess said with regard to the proposal to assist Volunteers in finding ranges. I quite admit that it is impossible for the noble Marquess or the War Office to find ranges for every corps which is without one, but they may go a long way to render assistance. I venture to say that the difficulty in regard to rifle ranges for Volunteers is not to be met by increasing the travelling allowances to the force. The essence of success in regard to the rifle shooting of the Volunteers lies in the ranges being close to headquarters, so as to enable the men to take up rifle shooting as a pastime. That can only be provided by increasing the number of ranges, and I therefore hope the noble Marquess will be liberal in his treatment of corps which desire to provide such accommodation for themselves.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) does not understand me to suggest that I am indifferent to the value of ranges being close to the headquarters of Volunteer regiments. Where such ranges cannot be found—and I am afraid there are many parts of England where such ranges will not be found—I think the remedy is to give every possible facility for travelling to a range which is perfectly safe and properly equipped. I gather that the noble Earl thought our inspection of ranges of late was rather too stiff. Whether that is so or not, I cannot say The noble Earl hinted that we might accept ranges which had been used for many years without any untoward result, and which possessed, so to speak, a clean bill of health. He must, however, remember that the conditions of these ranges are continually altering according to the amount of building in their neighbourhood. Speaking as Secretary of State, I should be sorry to take upon myself the responsibility of overruling an inspector upon the ground that his inspection had been a little too extreme. If, after overruling an inspector, a serious accident occurred, I think the Secretary of State would be likely to hear about it.
  THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: I desire to thank the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War for the sympathetic reply he has given to my ques-
  984
  tion, and I am sure the increased travelling grants which the noble Marquess has suggested will be of great value to Volunteers. My experience differs from that of the noble Marquess with regard to the relative safety of the Martini-Henry and the Lee-Metford rifles. The range to which I have referred was used for a great many years without known danger, but soon after the introduction of the Lee-Metford rifle a worthy citizen was unfortunately struck by a spent bullet.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACTS (OUTWORKERS).
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I beg to move for a Return showing the number of persons whose names are registered as outworkers in accordance with the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts, which require that the names of such persons employed in certain specified trades should be returned periodically to the factory inspectors. In bringing forward this motion very few words will be sufficient by way of explanation. Your Lordships may remember that the specified trades which are alluded to in this motion are the following: The making of wearing apparel, files, electroplate, cabinet furniture, upholstery, and fur-pulling. Parliament has thus recognised this system of outworkers, which has attracted a good deal of attention, and, as the system of registering out-workers exists, some record should be given of its results. Something of the same sort exists locally, and I think I am, right in saying that in the Factory Inspector's Report for the Manchester district for 1897 there is included a Return showing the number of outworkers in that district, and also the respective manufactures and employments in which they are engaged. I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government will grant a Return of a similar kind, only a little more extended in its character, and giving not only the number of workers, but distinguishing the men from the women. A certain amount of time would necessarily he required to prepare this Return, but there is no hurry. if the Return is granted next session I shall be satisfied.
  LORD BELPER: On behalf of the, Home Secretary I have to gay that there is no objection to giving the information asked for by the noble Earl, but

  985
  the Secretary of State thinks it would be more satisfactory if the Return is made in the annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, which is issued in the autumn. It will occasion very little delay, and the Return will be more complete.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: That will entirely meet the object I have in view, and I will amend my motion in accordance with the noble Lord's suggestion.
  Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that a statement be included in the next annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories showing the number of persons whose names are registered as outworkers in accordance with the provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, which require that the names of such persons employed in certain specified trades should be returned periodically to the Factory Inspectors.—(The Visconnt Gordon, E. Aberdeen.) Agreed to and ordered accordingly.

COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: In moving the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to thank the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross) for the assistance he has given me in bringing the Bill to its present stage. The Bill, as amended, will enable provision to be made for the improvement and regulation of many commons in the country, and I trust that with the assistance of the Government in another place the measure will be placed on the Statute Book during the present session.
  Moved, "That the Bill be read 3a."—(Lord Burghclere.)
  VISCOUNT CROSS: No one is more anxious than I am to see the Bill pass. I entirely agree that the Bill, as it stands, will greatly cheapen the method of dealing with the regulation of commons, and especially of small commons, throughout the country. I am very glad that the Amendments I have had the honour to move will make the Bill work on safe lines. I hope the Bill may pass through
  986
  the House of Commons, though, of course, I cannot answer for that. I know it is the anxious wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture that it should pass this session.
  On Question, agreed to—
  Read 3a, accordingly; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The EARL OF HALSBURY): My Lords, this
  Bill is considered to be rendered necessary by a technicality. You are, no doubt, familiar with the fact that subscriptions were lavishly given by the public for the purpose of establishing a college at Khartoum. Some of the persons who have been applied to will not accept the office of trustee—a somewhat perilous and difficult office sometimes to accept—without knowing all the responsibility involved. They have been advised—at present I do not say whether I entirely agree with the advice given them or not—that, in the event of this being treated as a public trust, it is a trust which might be enforced in the Court of Chancery by the Attorney-General by way of information, and the persons who are to act as trustees would require to be indemnified, if they could be in some way, against any breach of trust by investing in Egyptian securities. Undoubtedly, it would be outside the power of an ordinary English trustee to invest in Egyptian securities. The result is that they have declined to accept the trust at all unless they are indemnified by Parliament. It was therefore thought proper that a Bill should he brought before your Lordships to enable these trustees to act with perfect security. I think your lordships will do as every subscriber would do if he could be personally consulted,

  987
  and will allow these trustees to invest in Egyptian securities.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  House adjourned at half-past Six of the clock, till to-morrow, half-past
  Ten of the clock.