Sitting of 18 July 1899

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, &c.
Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures, have leave to sit To-morrow during the sitting of the House.—(Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice.)

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS). (Division List, No. 272.)
Mr. ANSTRUTHER and Captain NORTON, the Tellers for the Aye Lobby, in the Division of yesterday on the Main Question, came to the Table and stated that they had erroneously reported the number of the Ayes as 226 instead of 286, which was the proper number.
Ordered, That the Clerk do correct the said error in the Journal by stating the number of the Ayes in that Division as 286, instead of 226.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
    LOWESTOFT PROMENADE [PIER BILL.
    Lords amendment considered, and agreed to.
  BROOKE'S PARK (LONDONDERRY) BILL. [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.

  SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [Lords].
  (Queen's Consent signified.)
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAIL WAY COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LEA BRIDGE DISTRICT GAS BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords].
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
    Read a second time, and committed.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
NORTH EASTERN AND HULL AND BARNSLEY (JOINT DOCK) BILL [Lords].
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP M).
Mr. LAURENCE HARDYreported from the Committee on Group M of Private Bills; that, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Thursday next, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS
  INEBRIATES' ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Liverpool, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Old Cumnock, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
Petitions for alteration of Law, from Kippen, and Monkton and Prestwick; to lie upon the Table.
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Pittenweem, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Petition from London and other places, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petition from Liverpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.
Petition from Colne, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
Petition from Battersea, against, to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  Return [presented 17th July] to be printed. [No. 281.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2319 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS.

    NELSON MONUMENT ON PORTSDOWN HILL.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the
    Admiralty whether the Nelson Memorial on Portsdown Hill, which was erected by the crew of the "Victory," is being removed, and, if so, why this is being done; why expensive scaffolding was erected round the Memorial last autumn, and, after standing through the winter, was taken down without further work being done, and again erected; and whether several hundred pounds were wasted in this way.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): This monument, standing on War Office land, was formerly in charge of that Office. It was reported, on examination last autumn, that the
    monument was in such bad repair as practically to require rebuilding. At the suggestion of the Treasury the monument and the land on which it stands has now been transferred to the Admiralty, who have accepted the trust and will hence-forth repair and maintain this national memorial. The scaffolding referred to as
    1168
    having been taken down was erected by War Office contractors in order that the condition of the work might be properly examined. The estimate given by this firm for the necessary repairs was declined by the Admiralty, on the ground that it was excessive, and the work is now being carried out by another firm at considerably less than half the cost. The change has therefore resulted in a large saying, and not, as suggested in the question, in the waste of several hundred pounds.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Is the monument to be restored and not moved?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is being restored, and will henceforth be maintained in proper condition by the Admiralty.

  ENFIELD FACTORY ACCIDENT.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, at the Royal Small Arms Factory, when Henry Horner injured an artery, there was no ambulance available, the poor man had to walk home, and on his arrival he fell exhausted.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): This man was conveyed to the surgery in a bath chair. On leaving the surgery after treatment he declined the use of the chair, and expressed a wish to walk home. The doctor at the time saw no objection to his doing so.

  GOVERNMENT WORKMEN AND VOLUNTEER TRAININGS.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can see his way to give Volunteers serving in the factories under the War Office some pay during their attendance at their week's training, in the same manner as the Post Office and many private firms do.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I informed the House on the 13th instant, this question has been considered, and it has been found impossible to permit absence without forfeiture of pay or equivalent overtime; but, with these reservations, every effort is made to facilitate attendance at drills and camps.

  SPIRIT TRAFFIC IN NIGERIA.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State

  1169
  for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the reports in the press of the evil effects of the sale of spirits in Lagos and the district known as Southern Nigeria; whether he has any information as to the number of gallons imported into these districts during the last financial year of the Royal Niger Company; and whether, in view of the proposed assumption by the Government of the administration of these territories, he will immediately consider what steps can be taken to check the present importation of spirits to the regions referred to, and to secure their continued exclusion from Northern Nigeria.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Member appears to be in some confusion as to these countries. Lagos is a colony—there is at present no district known as Southern Nigeria—probably he intends to refer to the Niger Coast Protectorate, which is under the administration of Her Majesty's Government—the territories of the Royal Niger Company, which will shortly come under the administration of Her Majesty's Government, are distinct from the Protectorate. My attention has been called to the reports referred to. The number of gallons of spirits imported in 1898 was as follows: Lagos, 1,366,794; Niger Coast Protectorate, 1,164,108; Niger Company's Territories, 178,068. Steps have recently been taken to cheek the importation of spirits into these regions by raising the duty to 3s. per proof gallon, and the exclusion of spirits from Northern Nigeria will be maintained.

  NONCONFORMIST MINISTERS AS GUARDIANS.
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of the two Nonconformist ministers who have resigned their seats on the Ipswich Board of Guardians, the clerk having advised the Board that Nonconformist ministers who receive fees for the burial of paupers in parochial cemeteries are thereby disqualified to act as guardians; whether the law has such effect; and whether in that case the clergy of the Church of England are subject to the same disability; and if there is inequality between the clergy of the Established Church and Nonconformist
  1170
  ministers whether he will propose an alteration of the law to put an end to such injustice.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Local Government Board have no authority to decide this question. If, however, as I understand, no bargain or contract is entered into between the guardians and the minister, but the arrangement for the performance of the funeral is made by the undertaker, I am advised that the minister would not become disqualified to act as guardian by reason of his receiving a payment for his services, although the payment might be ultimately borne by the guardians. I am also advised that the receipt of a fee payable by custom or under statutory authority to a clergyman in connection with a pauper funeral would not disqualify him from acting as guardian.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (RATES) BILL.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the amount of rates from which, under the Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Bill, the clergy of the County of Surrey will be relieved, and also the sum Which will be payable on account thereof out of the Local Taxation Account.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): The cost of the relief given to the clerical owners of tithe rent-charge in the County of Surrey is estimated to amount to between £1,700 and £1,800, and the share of the administrative county in a sum of £87,000 distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants," is approximately the same amount.

  VENTILATION OF THE DIVISION LOBBIES.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in consequence of the trying nature of the atmosphere ordinarily prevailing in the Division Lobbies, he would be disposed to consider the desirability of arranging for the opening of three windows, many of which are fixed, in each lobby, instead of the one window now available, or of otherwise introducing some much needed ventilation there.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): Every consideration shall be given to the suggestion of my hon. friend.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, present teachers are placed on an unfavourable footing with teachers appointed after the passing of the Act; whether he contemplates taking any steps to remedy this grievance; and whether there is any objection on the part of the Education Department to school boards supplementing the amount provided for teachers on retirement.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I have to point out that present teachers have the option of coming under the Superannuation Act or not. It is true that they will not share in the benefit of the Annuity Fund further than their own contributions to that fund extend, but the superannuation allowance paid to them by the Treasury is on a higher scale than that for teachers appointed after the passing of the Act. I cannot undertake, on the part of the Department, to introduce an amending Act. With regard to the last part of the question, I can only refer the hon. Member to Section 12, Subsection 6 of the Act. The Department has no power to waive the provisions of the Act.

  CASE OF MARY ANSELL.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Mr. Charles Cusworth, of Warwick House, Capel Road, New Bushey, who was the foreman of the jury in the case of Mary Ansell, in which he states that had the evidence which has since been published been put before the jury in regard to the prisoner's insanity, his opinion is that they would have been unanimous in recommending a commutation of the death sentence; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, he can see his way to the postponement of the date of execution pending an independent inquiry into the prisoner's sanity.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIPLEY,): My attention has been called to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers. I am satisfied, as the result of very full inquiry and after consultation with the judge, that if the question of insanity had been raised at the trial there is no evidence to that effect which could properly have affected the verdict of the jury. I fear the answer to the last paragraph must be in the negative. It is my duty to protest against the insinuation which appears to be conveyed by the word "independent" in the last paragraph.
  MR. DALZIEL: As a personal explanation, I wish to be allowed to explain that the word "independent" means officers not retained by the Home Office. There is another question which I wish to ask of the right hon. Gentleman. It is, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the prison chaplain has expressed his difficulty in deciding and has in fact insinuated that in his opinion the girl does not understand the gravity of her crime.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Every single point which has been alluded to by the hon. Member has been fully within my knowledge during the last week, and I have given each of them my best consideration.

  UNCONVICTED PRISONERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the length of time during which persons awaiting trial are kept in prison has been brought to his notice; and whether, seeing that accused persons in the provinces are sometimes awaiting trial for months, he will take steps to shorten the period of their detention.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: This question has been frequently under consideration. I fear that in some cases a long detention before trial is inevitable, but I am not in a position at present to promise any definite remedy. The matter is, however, one which will not be lost sight of, and I may perhaps in this connection draw the hon, and gallant Member's attention to the Bail Act, 1898, which gives greater powers to magistrates to allow persons to be at large pending trial.

  HANDCUFFING PRISONERS IN PUBLIC.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the practice of handcuffing together on a chain remand prisoners, male and female, and taking them into railway stations on their way to trial has been brought to his notice; and whether he will consider the advisability of avoiding as far as possible the subjecting of unconvicted prisoners to public disgrace.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: From time to time I receive representations with regard to this practice at particular places, and steps are taken to obviate the necessity so far as practicable in view of the exigencies of each case, but the difficulty of ensuring the safe custody of a number of prisoners without having resort to some mechanical means of restraint is very great.

  CONVICTION OF TODMORDEN BOYS.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a sentence passed on the 11th instant by the justices sitting at Todmorden upon two youths of one calendar month's imprisonment with hard labour, without the option of a fine, upon a conviction for stealing gooseberries worth fourpence; whether his attention has also been called to the statement of the police superintendent concerned in the case that nothing was previously known against the accused; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, he will order the immediate release of the prisoners.
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has been called to this case, into which I am making inquiries.

  SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will endeavour to so re-arrange the time for the meeting of parliament that the House shall not sit in the months of July and August.
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The question that the hon. Gentleman asks is not a new one. It was discussed inn the House in, I think, 1890,
  1174
  when Sir George Trevelyan moved a resolution in the sense of the hon. Member's question. It was opposed by Lord Tweedmouth and the Government of the day, and lost by a small majority. I confess that I do not see how any such plan can be carried out, unless we were also to change our financial year. The financial year does not begin until March 31st, and I do not think it would be possible to get through the business of Supply by the beginning of July. It would also involve an autumn session. I have no reason to believe that these two changes find general acceptance, and if they do not find general acceptance I am afraid the change suggested by the hon. Gentleman can hardly be carried out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what Navy Votes will be taken on Friday, and in what order; and whether it is intended to interrupt the consideration of Navy Estimates at any hour to take the War Office Vote; and, if so, at what hour.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Vote A of the Navy Estimates will be taken first on Friday and the sub-departments of that Vote will be taken in the order of No. 3, No. 2, and No. 1. I should hope that the Navy Estimates will end about the middle of the sitting, and that adequate time, or at all events some important fraction of time, will be left for the discussion of the Army Estimates.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: There is no intention, then, of interrupting the discussion on the Navy Estimates?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion of the Navy Estimates will have to be interrupted, unless it comes to a natural termination.
MR. DILLON: In regard to to-night's business, if we get through the Food and Drugs Bill what other Bills will be taken before the motion of the hon. Member for Leominster, which has been starred?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible we may sit to so late an hour as to make it inconvenient to take to-night the starred motion of my hon. friend the Member for Leominster in reference to "the employment of women overtime in washing.

1175
bottles." I should certainly not propose to take any controversial measures
if we are fortunate enough to finish the Food and Drugs Bill to-night.
Mr. LOUGH: Is it not the case that the starred motion is very urgent and ought to be discussed at once?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the urgency is as great as that.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
MILLWALL DOCK BILL,
Without Amendments.
REDDITCH GAS BILL,

  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL,
  With Amendments.
  Amendments to—

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords].

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS AND WATER BILL [Lords].
  Without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend section one of the Poor Law Act, 1889, section four of The Poor Law (Apprentices, &c.) Act, 1851, and section four of The Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation Act, 1871." [Poor Law Acts Amendment Bill Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and the Law relating to Commons and Open Spaces." [Commons and Open Spaces Bill [Lords].
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Sea Fisheries." [Sea Fisheries Bill [Lords].

NEW BILLS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3).
  Bill to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, as to the election
  1176
  of Burghal Parish Councillors ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edmund Robertson, Sir Charles Cameron, Sir William Dunn, and Sir John Long.

  LAND DEDICATION.
  Bill to facilitate the Dedication of Land to the public enjoyment, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Brunner, Mr. Bryce, Lord Balcarres, Mr. Lionel Holland, and Mr. Thomas Shaw.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Bill to make further provision for Education in England and Wales, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Alfred Hutton, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Broadhurst.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, ordered to he brought in by Sir John Dorington, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Sir William Houldsworth, Colonel Lockwood, and Mr. Humphreys-Owen.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 3) BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, as to the election of Burghal Parish Councillors," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]
  LAND DEDICATION BILL.
  "To facilitate the Dedication of Land to the public enjoyment," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 274.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Education in England and Wales," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 31st July, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Electric Lighting Act, 1882," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  MR. LAMBERT: The Amendment I desire to move is one approved by the Select Committee which sat so long on this subject. We sat for three years, held thirty-five sittings, and examined sixty-eight witnesses, and the effect of our Report was that margarine should not be coloured so as to resemble ordinary butter. We have no desire whatever to restrict the sale of margarine; we only wish to put down fraud. We do not ask that it should be coloured blue, pink, or green; we only say it should not be coloured so as to imitate butter. Yesterday it was stated that margarine was a valuable article of food for the working classes. I am not prepared to dispute that. But I noticed that the statement came from hon. Members who admitted that they had never tasted it. Is it not rather a dangerous argument to put forward that an article which they themselves disdain to eat is a valuable article of food for those who earn their living by labour? It is certainly one which would not go down with a working-class constituency. Why should not the working classes be put in a position to know exactly what they are buying? We have been told that those who speak for the working classes have declared that they do not wish margarine to be sold any other colour except that of butter. I dispute that entirely. I do not believe there is a single scrap of evidence of their desire that margarine should be coloured so as to imitate butter. The hon. Members for Morpeth and Battersea, both working-class constituencies, have voted against margarine being made to resemble butter in colour. What is this mixture? It is composed of beef and mutton fat (thirteen parts), cotton seed oil (four parts), and milk (three parts). The beef and mutton fat is sold at 2d. per lb. I do not see why the working classes should be anxious to eat this fat mixed with cotton seed oil, which is an excellent cattle food. Tallow candles are made of beef and mutton fat. Again, the mixture is sometimes made with lard, and why should people of the Jewish persuasion have their feelings outraged by having forced on them an article abhorrent to them, but disguised as butter. Further, the small retailer of genuine butter in
  1178
  towns is put at a great disadvantage by having to compete with the shopkeeper, who unscrupulously sells as butter margarine which only costs 4d. or 6d. per lb. I am told that my motion amounts to an infringement of the principles of Free Trade, and the hon. Member for Dundee has declared that the Bill is founded on Protection. But I never knew that Free Trade meant Free Fraud, and it is fraud that I am anxious to put down. This Bill will necessitate the appointment of a very large number of inspectors, whereas my desire is to enable every purchaser to be his own inspector. When he purchases margarine, let him know that it is not butter. If it were such a valuable article of food, would not the manufacturers endeavour to keep it as distinct as possible from genuine butter, whereas they imitate it as closely as possible in colour, they make it up in pats, and these pats bear the impress of a cow. When I pointed that out to one of the witnesses before the Select Committee, he replied that both the milk and the fat come from cows. Yes, but the milk comes from the living cow and the fat from the dead cow. Let margarine be labelled as dead cow's fat if you like. The fact is that this mixture is in reality made to be sold as butter and not as margarine. I do not believe that my proposal would destroy the trade in it, although it might somewhat reduce the price of the article. Holland is the home of the margarine trade, for out of 899,000 cwt. of margarine imported into this country, 843,000 cwt. came from Holland. In connection with these figures it is significant to notice that the country from which the exports of butter have most largely increased is also Holland. I am convinced that a large amount of what purports to be butter, and comes from Holland, is really margarine. I have here the prospectus of a margarine company recently started in Holland, on the board of which it was desired that English Members of Parliament should serve, and I say that this is an attempt to induce hon. Members to countenance what is really a fraudulent trade. As to the colouring of butter, that has been much exaggerated. The secretary of the dairy section of the Bath and West of England Show has assured me that no prizes are given for butter artificially coloured. In any case, butter is never coloured to imitate margarine. We know the opinion

  1179
  of the Committee which examined into this very question—the Committee of which the Secretary to the Local Government Board was chairman.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. T. W. RUSSELL,): I dissented.
  MR. LAMBERT: Yes, but you were beaten by eleven to five. I am informed by the Secretary to the National Agricultural Union that the members of that body are pledged to a programme which includes the prevention of the colouring of margarine to imitate butter, and I am sure that if you allow this you will do it in opposition to the opinions of ninety-nine out of every hundred agriculturists. There is a great desire to induce people to return to the land, but how can you expect them to do so if you will not allow them fair play when they seek to sell the produce of the land on the market? I do not want, I repeat, to infringe the principles of Free Trade, but I contend that it is our duty to give our farmers fair play, and I therefore hope that even at this the eleventh hour the Government will consent to accept the clause which I have placed on the Paper.
  New clause—
  "It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or import any margarine which is coloured so as to imitate or resemble butter, and every person who manufactures, sells, exposes for sale, or imports any margarine so coloured shall be guilty of an offence under the Margarine Act, 1887."—(Mr. Lambert.)
  brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this clause be read a second time."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG, Liverpool,): The hon. Member has recommended this clause to the Committee in a speech which, I think, contains views by no means new, and I have heard nothing from him or from elsewhere which leads me to change the opinion I have formed, that the proposed change of the law embodied in this clause is unjust and impolitic, and, if carried out, would not attain the object the hon. Member has in view. This it should be borne in mind is not merely a clause to prohibit colouring it is to prohibit colouring
  1180
  in order to imitate butter, and therefore in order to make it effectual, one must, so to speak, project himself into the mind of the manufacturer in order to see if the colouring is not merely to make the article attractive to the purchaser—for if that were the reason the Act would be inoperative—but in order to imitate butter. That is perhaps only a technical objection, but it is one which makes this clause as framed absolutely ridiculous. I wish the House to consider what it is, on such very insufficient grounds, asked to do. The hon. Member said that butter was coloured only to a small extent. I entirely disagree with that view, for everyone knows that the butter industry is largely local in its character, and that the colouring of butter is a general practice. Neither is butter the only dairy product which is coloured. What does the hon. Member say with reference to cheese?
  MR. LAMBERT: Margarine does not imitate cheese.
  MR. LONG: But the suggestion is that the colouring of one particular article should be prohibited, and I am endeavouring to explain how it is impossible to justify the prohibition by law of a manufacturing practice which is allowed with regard to other dairy products. Certain kinds of cheese are made according to the fancy of the customer, and the cheese is coloured in the factory not to imitate another cheese, but because colouring is attractive to the purchaser. In view of that, what becomes of the suggestion—endorsed, I notice by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet—that the colouring is done for the mere purpose of imitation? I have inspected more samples of margarine than perhaps any other Member of this House, and the majority of samples have been coloured a kind of yellow. Is it suggested that the bulk of butter made in this country is yellow? On the contrary I believe that the greater amount of the ordinary butter consumed is white in colour. I am well aware that some of my hon. friends on this side of the House are in favour of this clause. I deeply regret it, and for the reason that in a matter of this kind it seems to me that some sections of the agricultural interest decline to profit by experience. I have been long enough a Member of this House to re

  1181
  member the controversies over the old malt duty. At that time the agricultural interest took practically the same line as they are adopting to-day in regard to this colouring question. When in 1880 Mr. Gladstone abolished the malt tax, what occurred?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: He put it on in other ways.
  MR. LONG: Yes, and does my right hon. friend think that the House is going to allow the colouring of margarine to be prohibited, and not at the same time prohibit the colouring of other dairy products? No, if you do it in one case, it is only just and right the prohibition should apply to other agricultural produce. We know what was the result of substituting the free mash-tun for the Malt Tax; it enabled many other articles to be used in the manufacture of beer, and I venture to assert that hon. Members now are running the same risk as they then ran. They are under a delusion if they fancy the prohibition will be confined to margarine. It is a great mistake to maintain that this margarine is a competitor of butter. There is no doubt that a great deal of margarine made in a particular way has been sold as butter. The object of the Bill is to make this impossible in future; but if this ridiculous clause is to be incorporated in the Bill, this kind of fraud will not be checked. The Amendment would indeed be fatal to the Bill, and the Government cannot accept it, because its effect would be to dislocate a very great trade which supplies a vast number of consumers in the country, and which produces a valuable article of food for the people. I have been told the working men of England desire that this prohibition should be made. I doubt whether the working men have realised what are the alternatives presented to them; but, even if they have, I should prefer to take the opinion of the housewives first upon this question, and I am sure they would hold a very different opinion, for they know how desirable it is to be able to obtain a cheap and wholesome article of food. I maintain that we ought not to interfere with the margarine trade unless we are satisfied that by no other means can we put down fraud. I am satisfied we can put it down by this legislation, whereas the proposed clause would not be workable at all. I earnestly ask
  1182
  agricultural Members not to take a step which would be prejudicial to their best interests, and fail in the object they have in view.
  MR. KEARLEY: The first question I ask myself in approaching the consideration of this question is, What is the object of the Bill? The reply is that it is to put down fraud. The next question is whether the provisions in the Bill as at present framed are sufficient to secure that end. I think that they are. Fraud has arisen from various causes, but the main one has been the failure of the local authorities to put in force the existing law. Again, margarine mixtures, have been made which have been sold in the place of butter at butter prices, and under this Bill the making of such mixtures is to be prohibited. That provision will, I think, have a very beneficial effect. Further, the Bill provides that where a man persistently commits fraud he will subject himself to very heavy penalties, and eventually find himself in prison. What would be the effect if the proposition of my hon. friend were carried? In the first place, it would interfere with a perfectly legitimate trade. I do not say it would destroy it, but it would deal it a severe blow. The margarine manufacturer, be it remembered, is entitled to protection just as much as any other manufacturer. It is not the manufacture of the article which is complained of, it is the manner of its distribution, and I submit that this Bill is ample to put a stop to the fraud which has been carried on in the past. As the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said—if you prohibit colouring in one direction you must prohibit it all round. I Wonder if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet is aware of the enormous number of food products which are coloured. I dare say he consumes many of them daily and raises no objection. He himself yesterday spoke of ices being coloured; would he look at a strawberry ice if it were not of a strawberry colour? It is admitted on all hands that butter and cheese are largely coloured, not with the idea of concealment, but in order to meet the demands of particular markets. If you send to Manchester a highly-coloured cheese they will not look at it. Tinned vegetables and fruits from France are artificially coloured so as to make them resemble

  1183
  the fresh vegetable; maccaroni, tapioca, Demerara sugar, and many other articles of daily consumption are coloured. I have the greatest sympathy with, and respect for, the feelings of agriculturists on this question, but I say they are taking a wrong view on this particular point, and if once the principle for which they are contending is admitted, it will prove highly destructive to more than one industry.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: In my Division the farmer is the predominant partner, and I should not like, therefore, to record my vote on this subject without explaining my reasons for it. I spoke at length on the motion for the Second Reading. But what is the present position? We have just had a very vigorous speech from my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, who has told us that if this clause is carried he is prepared to drop this Bill.
  MR. LONG: Hear, hear.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: That is a serious fact, and as agriculturists we must view the situation from that point of view. We are in the position of the dog in the fable which lost the substance in trying to get the shadow. In this Bill we have something substantial, but if we grasp at the shadow we stand a good chance of losing the substance. If, in order to secure the greater advantage offered by the clause of my hon. friend, we adopt a course which destroys the whole Bill, I think it will be a very unwise proceeding. There seems to be some confusion here between means and ends. The end to be aimed at is to stop fraud. The prohibition of colouring is only one means of stopping fraud. It may be the best, but on this occasion it is not the best, because if we insist on it we lose the whole Bill. There are other means of stopping fraud, such as an active and vigorous administration of the other clauses of this Bill. My right hon. friend, as every dog owner knows, is a very vigorous and able administrator of the law, and when once he has started the department in the right direction we may look for desirable results. For these reasons I cannot support the clause. A suggestion has been made that it is embodied in the programme of the National Agricul-
  1184
  tural Union, to which many hon. Members pledged themselves at the last General Election. I have no such recollection. I think the item has since been added, and I would point out that if we pledged ourselves to the programme as it then existed, we did not bind ourselves to accept everything that might subsequently be added to it. Even if I had pledged myself to the principle, under the altered circumstances I should deem it my duty to vote against the clause rather than risk losing the whole Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Member for South Molton suggests that those who oppose this clause have not tasted margarine. I have myself tasted margarine, and think it a most excellent food. I find it wholesome, nutritious, and, generally speaking, infinitely better than butter. I will not say better than the best butter, but you very seldom get the best butter, and good margarine is undoubtedly better than second-rate butter. My hon. friend seems to have margarine positively on the brain. He seems to imagine it is some horrible, noxious compound which is not fit for human beings to eat. He said it consisted of fat, cotton seed oil, and milk. What objection has he to either of those three wholesome ingredients? The truth is, that it does not depend upon what the compound was made of originally, but upon what it is in the end. Margarine is composed of the same ingredients as butter, less butterine. Butterine is so volatile that it disappears entirely when the weather is a little warm, and it has absolutely no taste; there is a slight smell and that is all. Beyond that there is not the slightest difference between margarine and butter. The fact is, we have improved upon the cow. At the present time the cow is almost a played-out animal as far as making butter is concerned. Does my hon. friend really imagine that when a cow eats grass that grass at once becomes milk, and that out of that milk you get butter? Not a bit of it. It passes through a process as in a factory. The grass becomes chyle, the chyle passes into the veins, in the veins is deposited a certain amount of fat, that fat passes through the lacteal glands, and you get milk; out of the milk you take the fat and you get butter. In a factory you put the same ingredients which produce the same effect,

  1185
  with the exception of the butterine, and you get precisely the same article. In one case you get your stuff from the tissues of the animal, in the other you get it from the blood and the interior of the animal. My hon. friend alluded to that fact and said: "The difference between milk and other products is this: it is true that milk comes out of the cow, but it does not come out of a dead cow, whereas the fat does come out of a dead cow." What is the distinction? When milk ceases to appertain to the cow, it is, to all intents and purposes, just as dead as the fat out of a cow; and if my hon. friend is prepared to eat dead meat, such as beef or mutton, why should he not, even assuming that milk is dead, drink dead milk? My hon. friend's Amendment is specially in regard to the colouring matter. He asked me if I had ever made butter. I have never made butter, but I have tasted both it and margarine, and I do know something about it. The peculiarity of the agricultural mind is that it imagines that unless a man goes into a field and keeps cows, he knows absolutely nothing about the matter. My hon. friend absolutely questioned whether butter is coloured. I will tell him what is done, and then he can go back to Somerset and acquaint the agriculturists of the fact. I will take Yorkshire. In Yorkshire there is no such thing as yellow butter in winter. When the animal is fed with dry food the butter is absolutely white. I do not live in Yorkshire myself, but so as not to prejudice my case, I yesterday asked an eminent agriculturist on the other side of the House, who has a great many cows and farms, to tell me what happened in Yorkshire. He said to me, "I make an enormous lot of butter, which in winter is all white, and if I were to sell it in Leeds as white butter I should get twopence per pound less than if I sold it as yellow butter." "What do you do?" I asked. "I put a few carrots or some saffron into the churn, and it comes out yellow butter, and sells at twopence per pound more than white butter." It is perfectly absurd to tell us that there is any fraud on the part of the margarine people in colouring the product yellow, when the butter people themselves do the same thing, and get twopence per pound for doing so. Then there was the argument about the poor man. I thought my hon. friend was going behind our old friend "Three acres and a cow." He
  1186
  told us what would happen. "Here is a poor man with his three acres, we want him to get his three acres"—undoubtedly "we want him to get his cow"—undoubtedly; "but unless you insist upon margarine not being coloured yellow, all our work and labour in getting this gentleman his three acres and a cow is useless, because he will not be able to sell his produce at a profit." The poor man naturally wishes to get his food as cheaply as possible. I have pointed out that margarine, as far as taste and wholesomeness are concerned, is just as good as butter. The poor man, if he is a wise poor man, buys margarine instead of butter, but he likes it better yellow than white. I do not know why, but he does—it appeals more to his eye. Why should my hon. friend deprive every poor man in the country of the pleasure which he derives when he spreads this compound upon his bread from seeing it is yellow instead of white? He says, "In order that there may be no fraud; in order that he should not buy margarine when he fancies he is buying butter." But I suspect the poor man knows perfectly well what he is buying. There is quite sufficient competition in the trade to prevent margarine being sold as butter. The poor man goes into a shop where margarine is openly sold; he is not in any sort of way defrauded. This special legislation in regard to margarine is an insidious attempt at protection on the part of my hon. friend and his supporters. The person he wants to benefit is not the poor consumer, but his friend with the three acres and two or three cows. I daresay if margarine could be driven out of the field, that person would to a certain extent benefit, and for that reason my hon. friend has gone out of his way to abuse and to vilify this excellent and wholesome compound. For my part, I am for the poor man being able to get an article precisely the same as butter, except that it comes out of a factory instead of out of a cow. He can get that for sixpence, whereas he would have to pay tenpence or one shilling for his butter, which means a saving to him of fourpence. It seems to be supposed that unless this clause passes, the Bill will be absolutely useless. The hon. Gentleman does not say so——
  MR. LAMBERT: I want to make it a better Bill.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: He wants to heap impediment upon impediment; he wants to make it difficult for the trade of the country to be carried on because he imagines he will make the Bill a better one. I think the Bill has already gone a little too far, but I am certainly not going to better it in the way here proposed. I have risen mainly because I think it is a pity that people should read in the Debates of this House the insinuations that they would be foolish, if their means are not large, to buy margarine. I have got neither a margarine factory nor a single cow, so that I am entirely unprejudiced; I speak entirely for the consumers of towns, and I believe they ought not to be told that margarine is a useless and bad article of food.
  MR. YERBURGH: I would like to answer certain expressions which fell from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill with regard to the Amendment. I do not approach the question from the point of view of the agriculturalist only; I believe it is a question in which the great body of consumers are interested as well. I sent a letter to certain representatives of working men's associations in the country, asking whether the members of that particular society were in favour of giving effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Food Products and Adulteration, to prevent margarine being sold as butter, and to ensure it being sold as margarine, and that its colouring and its mixture with butter should be prohibited. I had no reply taking exception to those proposals. I had replies from thirteen associations in favour of the proposals, representing altogether some 302,638 working men. Those replies came from different parts of the country—Glasgow, Derbyshire, Lancashire, London, Birmingham, and Nottingham—and from associations representing the mining interests, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, shipwrights, compositors, boiler-makers, and a co-operative society, and some members of weaving societies. All these societies that replied pronounced in favour of the recommendations of the Select Committee. That is to say, associations representing over 300,000 working men have pronounced in favour of the proposals which are embodied in the clause now before the House. I understand my right hon. friend to say
  1188
  that, granted that was the case, you had not to consider the working men themselves, but their wives. I did not quite grasp what he meant. Did he mean to convey that the working man would believe he was getting butter, but that his wife went behind his back and purchased margarine, which she put before her husband as butter? If he did not intend to convey that, I do not see what force his argument has. My contention would be this: I entirely agree that you do not want to prevent the sale of a wholesome article of food, if it is altogether wholesome; but if you prevent this particular substance being coloured so that it may be taken for another article, you must of necessity bring down the price of that particular article to its natural level. My opinion is, that by virtue of its fictitious colour the article has reached an artificial price, and my contention is that that price would fall at once if the article was sold in its natural colour. The interests of the wives of the working classes would undoubtedly be advantaged by the adoption of this proposition. It has been assumed in the course of these Debates, that this particular product is altogether wholesome. Is that really the case? I am anxious to have that proved, because I have in my hand a Report of a Commission appointed by the French Senate which was appointed to examine into a law containing the same provisions as my hon. friend's Amendment. This Report is extremely interesting, for it deals at length with this particular point. I take it that if margarine is produced under conditions which enable you to inspect it, and to see that proper materials are used, then you are entitled to say it is a wholesome article of food. I should like to ask if the House is aware where the larger portion of margarine comes from? The greater portion of it comes from Holland. I believe that in 1896 there were 773,991 cwts. of oleo-margarine imported into Holland, while Holland exported something like 100,000 cwts. over and above that amount of the finished article, margarine, to this country. I find that the United States in the same year exported 922,116 cwts. of oleo-margarine. Now, as Holland is the great margarine manufacturing country, we may take it that the greater portion of supply from the United States went to Holland in that year; that it was made up into margarine in Holland,

  1189
  and then exported to this country. I would like to ask my right hon. friend if there is any inspection of margarine factories in Holland, and can he assure us that the article sent over here is thoroughly wholesome for the consumer. I would further ask whether there is any inspection of the oleo-margarine factories in the United States.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be now dealing with the whole question of the manufacture of margarine. The only question now before the House is the desirability of preventing it being coloured.
  MR. YERBURGH: Might I be permitted to point out that the hon. Member for Northampton has laid great stress upon the fact that this was a very wholesome article of food, and that by preventing the sale of this article we are injuring the working classes of this country? I was endeavouring to show that, in the opinion of the experts of another country, there are good grounds for believing that this article is produced under conditions which would make it absolutely unfit for human food.
  MR. SPEAKER: But that will hardly justify an inquiry upon this Amendment into the whole manufacture of the article.
  MR. YERBURGH: May I be allowed to state, in the first place, that a large portion of this margarine is produced under conditions over which we have no control whatever; and in the second place, as the expert authorities abroad have shown, it is produced under conditions which interfere with its digestibility and its nutritive properties. Therefore I say that there are good grounds for
  believing that this particular article of food, which is being accepted as most nutrititious and wholesome, ought to be regarded with the greatest suspicion. I do not say that this applies to its production in this country, because as produced in England it may be the most wholesome article possible; but I think that a large portion of that which is produced abroad ought to be very carefully inspected. We are told that if we vote for this particular clause, we shall probably lose the Bill altogether. I do not think that is a fair threat to hold over us.
  MR. LONG: I have not the slightest desire to threaten the hon. Member, but what I said was that the Government decline to take the responsibility for such a proposal.
  MR. YERBURGH: As far as I have been able to ascertain the views of the working classes, they are in favour of such a clause. As regards the agricultural interest, which my right hon. friend so ably represents, and whose interest he has so thoroughly at heart, I wish to point out that the whole of the agricultural interest are in favour of this proposal; and, to go further afield, Belgium, France, and Denmark have all adopted similar propositions. The only difference made by Denmark—which is dependent upon its agriculture—is that they have adopted a varying scale of colour for butter and margarine which enables you to colour your margarine up to a certain point. This is a compromise which I offer for the consideration of my right hon. friend. It has been adopted by Denmark, where it has been found to be of the greatest service. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to accept a compromise of that sort, I should be disposed to vote against this clause as presented at present; but if the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this compromise, I shall feel bound to support this clause.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I desire to allude to the remark made by the last speaker in reference to a compromise. I happened to be the Chairman of the Select Committee when that evidence was given, and the impression I formed was that to adopt the scale in force in Denmark would land us in very serious difficulties. I cannot congratulate the hon. Member upon the force of his argument, when he says that his view is supported by the working classes, because the societies he alludes to would represent some 300,000 persons. From this he draws the inference that 7,000,000 working men are on his side.
  MR. YERBURGH: The working men Representatives in the House have spoken in favour of the clause.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I believe some of them will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion during this

  1191
  Debate. I feel pretty confident that the 7,000,000 workmen in this country are not anxious that the sale of a cheap and wholesome article of food should be interfered with. The whole evidence that we had before the Select Committee in reference to margarine was in favour of its wholesomeness, and we had not a single piece of evidence against the wholesome character of this product, made, as it is, under special precautions from selected fats of good animals. I believe it is a wholesome article of food. Being convinced of the wholesome character of the food, I should strongly deprecate any interference with its manufacture which would make it less pleasant to the eye. The man who eats margarine has just as much right to have it coloured as the man who eats butter, and it is, after all, only a question of fancy. In some parts of the country, such as Devonshire and Cambridgeshire, the butter produced there is of a deep rich colour, whilst in other parts of the country it is of a much paler colour. If you allow colouring for one kind of food, you have no right to limit it for another kind. I believe that if we attempt to interfere in any way with the production of this food we shall be doing a serious injury to the working classes, and we shall be trying to put back the clock of progress as regards the artificial production of food. If carried, I regard this Amendment as one which cuts at all artificial food production in this connection, and it is unworthy of the time in which we live.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman has just argued that the consumption of margarine is perfectly legitimate in itself. This Amendment does not suggest any impediment in the way of the manufacture or consumption of margarine. What it does propose is that margarine should not be sold in such a form as to imitate butter. Nobody wants to place any check whatever upon colouring, so long as such colouring is not had recourse to for the purpose of deceiving purchasers. I have been reminded that strawberry ices would come within the meshes of the Amendment placed by the hon. Member for Dundee next on the Paper. If such ices are produced from ingredients other than that which is indicated, that would be a distinct fraud. The hon. Member for Devonport stated that Demerara sugar is coloured; but
  1192
  it is not sold as any other article than what it is. It is not coloured to represent any other article than Demerara sugar. If any other article is so coloured as to represent something else, that is a fraud. Chicory is an article of food that has been similarly dealt with, and the proposal in this clause is to place margarine in the same category that chicory has for several years occupied, in order that the purchaser must not be led to, think that he is buying something else. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has compared this to the Malt Tax. I will not go into that question now, though I may observe, in passing, that I was not one of those who were taken in by the abolition of the so-called Malt Tax. I said at the time it was a fraud on the public, because the tax was reimposed in a more objectionable form. I know there were others taken in, but I am glad to say I was not. My right hon. friend pointed to that tax as a case in point; but is it any reason for rejecting this clause that Mr. Gladstone took in a certain number of people by transferring a tax from one pocket to another? Then my right hon. friend says, "Oh, if you force this clause upon us, it stands to reason it will be carried still further." I must remind my right hon. friend that the repeal of the Malt Tax was a fiscal question, but that is not the case at present. Nobody means to stop the colouring of articles simply with a view to interfering with the trade in them, but in order to prevent a false impression being created in the minds of purchasers. My right hon. friend talks about the feeling of the working classes in this matter. He passed by the hon. Members for Morpeth and Battersea, and the other hon. Members who spoke on behalf of large sections of the working classes, and more than that he passed by the working men themselves, and constituted himself the exponent of the views of the wife of the working man. I should like to, know what credentials my right hon. friend has received to speak on behalf of the working women of England in this matter. Why does my right hon. friend imagine that domestic discord will follow if the clause is accepted? If the opinion of the wives of the working, men of this country had been so pronounced as my right hon. friend appears to assume, without any authority, why have

  1193
  we not heard of it long ago? The representatives in this House who speak on behalf of large sections of the working classes do not apprehend any such consequences as my right hon. friend represents would follow. He has told us very plainly—he did not say it at all in any discourteous manner, or in any sense offensive to our ideas of Parliamentary traditions—that if the House, by a majority, expressed a preference for the clause, the Government would drop the Bill. I venture to think my right hon. friend has spoken without having consulted his colleagues upon the issue raised. In saying that if the House of Commons displayed anything approximating to general approval of this clause that the Government would drop the Bill, I think my right hon. friend has taken it upon himself to come to a decision as to what he would do under circumstances which have not arisen. But if such circumstances did arise, my right hon. friend would do nothing of the kind. Not a single argument has been really brought forward against the principle of this clause. We have had adequate tributes to the virtues of margarine, and no one seriously questions the nutritious character of that remarkable commodity, but no argument has been addressed to us as to why a purchaser of margarine or of butter should not be clearly informed as to what he is buying; and if any ingredient is coloured in such a way as to have the effect of concealing from a purchaser what that commodity is, the sooner Parliament interferes the better.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have listened with interest to this Debate, and when I saw my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet rising, I immediately perceived the cloven hoof. I have been a great many years in this House with my right hon. friend, and I have seldom heard him speak—I have always listened to him with pleasure—except when he saw an opportunity of getting in the thin end of the wedge of protection. Does anyone believe that this proposal is made except for the purpose of diminishing the supply of a commodity which is used as a substitute for butter?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: A large quantity of butter is imported as well as margarine, and if I saw an opportunity
  1194
  of putting a duty upon both I would be very glad to do it, but that has nothing to do with this clause.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The time is not quite ripe for that, and therefore that is what I would call the thick end of the wedge. My right hon. friend just now is concerned with the thin end only. Can anyone honestly deny that the hope and expectation of those who support this clause is that its effect will be to diminish the quantity of the article sold instead of butter? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has made, in my opinion, a very sound and a very courageous speech. He has said—and
  is perfectly true—that if you forbid the colouring of one thing you must forbid the colouring of all. As regards butter—yellow butter in the market seems the natural product from a high class of cow; but the butter produced at various seasons of year, and from in inferior class of cow, does not look like the superior article, and therefore it is a widely extended and almost universal practice to colour English butter up to the mark, which represents it to be of a higher quality than it really is, and it fetches a higher price in consequence. All modern manufacturers endeavour to make their products look something better than they really are, in order to obtain higher prices and larger profits. To suppose a demand of this kind can be made with regard to a single article is perfectly absurd. What the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject is quite true. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire is also perfectly right with regard to the deliberate misrepresentation of margarine as being what it is not; but what does my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet say with reference to English butter of an inferior quality being made to look like butter of a superior quality in order to fetch a higher price? This seems to me a proposal which in principle is absolutely wrong, and which, if it produced the effect it is expected to produce, would be an injustice. I shall certainly support the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I desire to most strongly support the Government. In fact, I do not think it would be possible to strike a greater blow at British agriculture than by adopting this clause. You would be putting British agriculturists in the

  1195
  position of saying, "We are engaged in very great competition with the margarine manufacturers, and we therefore appeal to this House to take a step which will have the effect of destroying an industry which is in opposition to us." A blow of that sort would be one of the worst that could be delivered at British agriculture. I know there is a great amount of support for this clause in certain quarters. A few days ago I had an opportunity of talking with a large dairy fanner in the country. He told me he was very much in favour of this clause. He said "Oh, we have very great competition with the margarine manufacturers." I, for one, as an agriculturist—though I may not have as much knowledge as other hon. Gentlemen, yet my interest is as great—strongly support the Government in this matter, and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the stand he has taken.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: A very important point was raised in regard to the colouring of margarine to represent butter, and that was that it enabled the manufacturers of that commodity to raise the price and palm it off as butter. The speech which made the greatest impression on me in opposition to the Amendment was that of the hon. Member for Northampton, who came before the House of Commons as a brilliant example of the excellence of margarine. He said he had been fed on margarine of most excellent quality, and that he liked it very well. Of course, I cannot myself speak from experience, for I do not know that I have ever eaten margarine; but, considering the excellent effect it has had upon the hon. Member's constitution, he must furnish a splendid advertisement for that article. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of the colouring of butter by putting carrots into the churn, and I hope that the idea will not be lost on the butter makers of Ireland, as it struck me that it was a splendid one. Butter, no doubt, is artificially coloured, but I object to the colouring of butter as much as to the colouring of margarine. In Ireland we find it is not necessary to colour the best butter; and we insist that this colouring of margarine to represent butter is not honest trading, but simply a proceeding to enable a fraud to be perpetrated on the public. Any measure which has for its object the securing of
  1196
  good, pure food for the people of this country will have my support. We have been told that all the margarine that is made, or is likely to be made, would not compete with butter, and that therefore there is no reason why we should fight so hard in behalf of butter as against margarine. But in nine cases out of ten margarine is sold as butter, and for that very reason I should have liked to see this Bill go even further than it does. We have been told that there are a great many other things, which are in daily use, that are coloured as well as margarine; and reference was made to tinned French vegetables. But my contention is that all articles which are coloured to represent what they are not ought to be put down. We are not opposed to the manufacture of margarine, but to the selling of margarine as butter. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill says there is no reason why margarine should not be coloured. Be it so; the manufacturers may colour it red, blue, or orange, so long as they do not colour it the colour of butter.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What is the colour of butter?
  SIR. THOMAS ESMONDE: Good butter is the colour of that Mace [pointing to the Mace on the Table].
  MR. JEFFREYS: Although I am going to vote against my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill on this point, I am quite sure that all the farmers are very thankful to him for having introduced it; and whether we carry this Amendment or not, I hope the Bill will in a short time become an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Northampton contrasted the various properties of butter and margarine. The farmers, no more than I do, wish to go into that. The farmers do not deny that margarine is a very wholesome diet, but they insist that margarine should be sold as margarine instead of as butter, and at double its real price. I hope hon. Gentlemen will recognise that in voting for tins Amendment they are not voting to stop the sale of margarine, but only to stop the sale of margarine as butter. Some hon. Gentlemen drew attention to the colouring of cheese. I would remind the House that cheese is not coloured in order to represent some-

  1197
  thing else. Gloucester cheese, for instance, is highly coloured in order that the cheese may be sold and known as Gloucester cheese. The colouring is a particular trademark, and therefore there is no fraud in the transaction at all. Dutch cheese is also coloured, but it is never sold as anything else than Dutch cheese. As I have said, these cheese colourings are trade marks. If we could only stop this fraud, it would not matter what colour margarine was. My right hon. friend has undertaken to stop the fraud. He has undertaken a very large task, and I hope he will succeed. But whether margarine is coloured or not, he is trying to stop it by methods quite different from those which are employed in foreign countries. I never wish to hold up foreign countries for imitation, but I do say that nearly all the margarine is made abroad, and that there they take very good care not to allow it to be coloured to imitate butter. In France under no circumstances may colouring matter be added to margarine. What is that for? It is in order to stop fraud. But as soon as it is exported to this country margarine is coloured to imitate butter, and is sold as butter. I wish hon. Gentlemen would more often read the reports of the cases which are brought before the police courts in London relating to the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter. I call assure them that every week there are cases, and sometimes a whole string of cases, where men are prosecuted for the fraudulent sale of margarine and heavily fined. But I am told that these men resort to the practice of fraud on such a large scale, that although they may be fined £20, they make more than five times that sum in a very short time, and are, therefore, easily able to pay. But let me go on to Belgium. A great deal of margarine is made in Belgium, but it must not he coloured except with such matters, and to such a degree, as may be authorised by the Minister of Agriculture. In Denmark margarine must not be of a deeper colour than certain shades of yellow. In Italy colouring matter may not be added to make margarine resemble natural butter. In Russia margarine may not be coloured so as to give it the appearance of real butter. In Germany the colouring of margarine is not absolutely prohibited, but all margarine must contain not less than ten parts by weight of sesame oil to every 100 parts of fats and oils used in
  1198
  the preparation of margarine. Practically therefore, the colouring of margarine to imitate butter is prohibited in France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, and Russia. That is all we desire to secure by this Amendment. I can only hope, in conclusion, that this Bill will become law, and that the fraudulent dealing in margarine may be stopped.
  MR. COLVILLE: A great deal has been said by hon. Gentlemen as to protecting the interests of the working men. But I take it that if this new clause were added to the Bill, the working men might very well judge for themselves what is the most wholesome and desirable article of diet. Any attempt to restrict the sale of margarine would be looked upon as a distinct return to Protection. They can themselves judge whether they wish to buy pure butter or this article which has become so popular, and which is not merely used by the working classes, but to a very considerable extent by those who do not like to be so described. Not merely inferior butter, but some of the very highest class butters have to be coloured in order to make a market. Some of the very highest class butters in Scotland are highly coloured, and that not because they are in any sense improved by the colouring, but because they are more popular in the market. if the hon. Member who moved this new clause was willing to add to it a provision prohibiting the colouring of all other articles of diet, one could understand the consistency of such a clause; but so long as he attempts to deal with one class of food to the disadvantage of another, I think it is the duty of every Member, especially of those who seek to represent the masses of the community, to oppose this Amendment.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I naturally approach this subject from the point of view of the agriculturist, but I think experience has taught us that it is hardly possible to put the agricultural interest in a worse strait than by opposing it to any measure which would be for the benefit of the community at large. I would strongly, therefore, warn my brother agriculturists to consider whether they will be wise in taking up an attitude which practically pits the agricultural interest against the

  1199
  interest of the masses. I feel convinced that at this moment the masses of the community are in far more prosperous circumstances than the agricultural community, and, other things being equal, I should have been very glad indeed to see my way to support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. But it seems to me that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are arguing against the Amendment have lost sight of one important point. We are not instructed by the agricultural community to make a crusade against the colouring of margarine, except in so far as it amounts to the fraudulent sale of that article. There is unquestionably a very strong desire that the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter should be stopped. The right hon. Gentleman who has framed this Bill undertakes to deal with the fraudulent part of this question. He thinks that, by the method he has introduced in this Bill, he will be able to check, restrain, and put an end to the fraudulent selling of margarine as butter. If that can be effected, surely our object is achieved. If that object is not achieved, then we shall stand upon very strong ground when we come and ask for the amendment of this Bill in the direction we desire. Therefore, although I am naturally prejudiced in favour of this Amendment, I cannot but recognise that the argument is very strong against it, and I think that I shall best consult the interests of agriculture and of fair play, on which agriculture depends, by giving the Bill a chance as it stands, and not supporting the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I should like the House of Commons to look at this question from the standpoint of those who will be compelled to carry out the Act. I have given some little attention to this subject as a medical officer of health who carried out the old Act, and also from the scientific standpoint, and I want to point out the impossibility of this clause being any good whatever. My hon. friend probably knows the kind of butter he gets from Scotch farms—it is made from Ayrshire, shorthorn, and Channel Islands cows. The butter from the Ayrshire cow is almost pure white, and in Glasgow, where nine-tenths of the butter is Ayrshire butter, the public have it absolutely white, and the
  1200
  best butter is sold as nearly white as possible. Shorthorn butter is slightly yellow, and Channel Islands butter fairly yellow. Therefore, as far as these three great milk-producing cows are concerned, they all give you different standards of colour. What standard are you going to establish? Is there any regular colour for margarine? No. There is scarcely a pint of milk in London which is not coloured, and if you got it uncoloured on your breakfast table in the morning you would think some mistake had been made, and that it was of very poor quality. If you are going to prevent uniformity of colour by preventing colouring, you must apply the same process to butter, and you will prevent a great many classes of useful butter being sold.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am the last man in the world to deny the importance of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, or the discussion it has given rise to, but I would venture to suggest to the House, after the arguments we have listened to, that the matter has now been thoroughly debated. So far as I am able to form an opinion, the great body of opinion is on the side of the Government; and, under the circumstances, I think, having regard to the interests of the business of the House, and the interests of all concerned in the measure, we should now proceed to a Division, if necessary, and that the House should show, as it will, I believe, by a large majority, that it supports the attitude of my right hon. friend.
  SIR JOHN LENG: It is quite obvious that the House has become weary of this discussion, and I merely desire to say, that though I have an Amendment upon this point, as I am desirous of seeing the Bill pass, I shall not move it.
  MR. STRACHEY: There is only one point which I wish to raise. I agree entirely with my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, that we must not look upon this measure as a
  Protectionist measure, and, for my part, I have always looked at it from the point of view of the consumer. I also agree with my right hon. friend when he says he is against deliberate mis.

  1201
  representation, and that we ought not to allow butter or dairy produce to he coloured to deceive the consumer, any more than we ought to allow the colouring of margarine for the same purpose. The point I wish to call attention to is that representative farmers and others in Devonshire have declared, and I believe in public, that they do not use any colouring matter, and they are prepared to accept any prohibition which may be ordered. All we want is that margarine should be sold on its merits, and we are, in the West of England, prepared to sell ordinary produce on its merits.
  MR. KILBRIDE: We have been asked why we support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Molton, and it is perfectly evident that those who ask us have not read the evidence taken before the Committee up-stairs. That evidence, which was mostly with regard to adulteration and fraud, compelled the Committee to come to the conclusion that, so long as margarine was allowed to look like butter, it would be impossible to stop fraud. Professor Lawrence opposed the colouring of margarine because it gave the trader facilities to impose upon the consumer by giving him an article which was not what it professed to be; whilst Mr. Hamilton said, if margarine was sold as margarine it would command a large sale, and the prohibition against colouring the margarine would not have the effect of killing the trade at all. It would only prevent the retailer making an inordinate profit by the fraud he commits by palming it off as butter. It is for that reason that we shall vote for the Amendment if we are compelled to go to a Division.
  MR. MADDISON: It has been stated by the hon. Member for Chester that the overwhelming bulk of the working classes are in favour of this Amendment. From the societies he mentioned, he evidently means organised labour. I would like to point out how very misleading the hon. Member's remarks are. In the first place, the question submitted to these societies was of a kind which laid down as a premiss that it is wrong to force on a working man a fraudulent article. It then ingeniously led up to the conclusion that the only possible precaution to take was by way of an Amendment of this
  1202
  kind. But other precautions are taken in this Bill, so the question put to these working men is of no value at all. The hon. Gentleman cannot tell us even whether this question was put at mass meetings, branch meetings, or executive meetings; and even if it was put to all, there are only 300,000 men in these societies, and that is only one-fifth of organised labour. One point I wish to draw attention to is, the societies the hon. Gentleman addressed were the skilled workmen—they are not driven to buy margarine; but there is a class whose views I desire to voice in this Debate, and that is the unskilled labourers, whose precarious employment only returns some 13s. or 14s. a week. What will they say if their Parliamentary friends in this House tell them that their margarine can be painted grey, or drab, or black. Is it fair?
  MR. CHANNING: Nobody suggested it.
  MR. MADDISON: My hon. friend has only just come in, and I do not think he is omniscient. The alternative that you offer this class is, "You can colour margarine any colour you like, except butter colour." I wonder how hon. Gentlemen would like to sit down to bread with margarine painted green. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will maintain his position. I object to another portion of the Bill, but if this proposal were passed it would be a wrong act, not to the skilled artisans, but to the poorest of the poor.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: There are two kinds of fraud which this Bill ought to stop. There is the fraud of substituting margarine for butter—we all want to stop that; and there is the worse fraud by which margarine is sold at about double its proper price. In the name of the class for whom the hon. Gentleman opposite professes to speak, I protest against that. Why is it desired to colour this substance? Because it makes it look more like butter. The colouring makes it not a whit more digestible or pleasant-flavoured, but if you prevent colouring, margarine will be sold at fourpence or fivepence instead of tenpence or a shilling per lb. as it sometimes is at present.
  MR. CHANNING: I should not have taken part in this discussion but for the statements of my hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. I think he is wrong in thinking that working men support his view. Some years ago I took part in a very important deputation to the President of the Local Government Board on this very question, a deputation organised by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. Prominent
  the deputation were representatives of the whole of the great co-operative societies representing hundreds of thousands of working men, the movement with which my hon. friend claims some connection. I should like him to explain how it was that representatives of the great co-operative societies came and joined us in urging the imperative necessity of dealing with these frauds, and dealing with them on the programme which included the provision suggested in this present proposal. The hon. Member for Brightside has put his case for the support of the Government in resisting this Amendment on the one plain issue that the unskilled labourer will be deprived of a cheap and wholesome article. How can he establish that case unless he can show that margarine is sold all over the country under its own name and at its true value? It is not sold at its true value except in a very few shops. I believe that three-fourths of the margarine in this country is sold as butter, and at butter prices. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures, with which I cannot now trespass on the time of the House, but I came to a decided conclusion it would not be rash to estimate that that means a fine, and a fine mainly imposed upon the very class for whom my hon. friend pleads, of £1,500,000 per annum. I should unhesitatingly support the Amendment, because I believe we shall be protecting the pocket of the poorer classes by securing the fullest possible precautions
  against these frauds, the greatest instrument in the perpetration of which is undoubtedly the colouring of margarine to resemble butter. I repudiate with scorn the suggestion that the article should be coloured some offensive hue. My own view is that very likely we shall arrive at some such result as obtains in Denmark, where they are allowed to colour their margarine to secure an attractive appearance, but are simply prohibited from colouring it the same shade as butter. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee to inquire into this question of colouring, as well as the question of preservatives. I hope we may look forward to that Committee conducting an impartial and exhaustive inquiry into this question of colouring, into the procedure adopted in other countries, and into the whole of the legal aspects of that question, so that if the Government is against us to-day it may not be ultimately against some reasonable proposal in this direction. The cry of "Protection" has been raised, but who are the protectionists? It seems to me that they are those who are going to maintain this instrument in the hands of the great fraudulent manufacturers and the whole army of retailers who are demoralised and debauched by those manufacturers into committing this fraud, and are guaranteed as to fines and penalties by those who instigate these frauds. By rejecting this Amendment you are protecting those capitalists who are levying an enormous blackmail upon the consumers of the country, and especially upon the poorer classes of consumers who cannot protect themselves, that is where protection really comes in under this Bill.
  Question put—
  The House divided:—Ayes, 68 Noes, 297. (Division List, No. 276.)

  AYES.

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

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

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gunter, Colonel

  Bill, Charles

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Dillon, John

  Hardy, Laurence

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C-

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finch, George H.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Morris, Samuel

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kitson, Sir James

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

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

  Macaleese, Daniel

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

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  MacDonnell, Dr. M.A (Qn's.C.)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough).

  M'Leod, John

  Price, Robert John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East).

  Molley, Bernard Charles

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Lambert and Mr. Duncombe.

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Strachey, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Clough, Walten Owen

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

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

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Coddington, Sir William

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Asher, Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Colston, Charles E. H. Athole

  Gretton, John

  Atherley-Jones L.

  Colville, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Courtney, Rt. Hn. Leonard H.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

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

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Crombie, John William

  Harwood, George

  Banes, Frederick Gorell

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hatch, Ernest. Frederick Geo.

  Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. S.-(Hunt

  Dallbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. (Chas. Seale-

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Bathurst, Hon Allen Benjamin

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Helder, Augustus

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H. -(Bristol

  Denny, Colonel

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dewar, Arthur

  Henderson, Alexander

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Billson, Alfred

  Doughty, George

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Birrell, Augustine

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Drucker, A.

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Duckworth, James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Bousfield. William Robert

  Dunn, Sir William

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex).

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Joicey, Sir James

  Brassey, Albert

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (South'ton

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evershed, Sydney

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn Sr U.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Burt, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Keswick, William

  Butcher, John George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kimber, Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, E. R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth.

  Caldwell, James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. (Man.)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lafone, Alfred

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'gow

  Fishier, William Hayes

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn,

  Campbell, Sir T. D. Gibson

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool),

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Causton, Richard Knight,

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

  Leighton, Stanley

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fry, Lewis

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Garfit, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. ofLond.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. J.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l).

  Ghelsea, Viscount

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

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

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Lorne, Marquis of

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lough, Thomas

  1206

  1207

  Lowe, Francis William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Purvis, Robert

  Thorburn, Walter

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Randell, David

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W.

  Ure, Alexander

  M`Crae, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Ewan, William

  Robertson, Edm. (Dundee)

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Killop, James,

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Rutherford, John

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

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un. L.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Monk, Charles James

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W.R.)

  Morrison, Walter

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

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

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Myers, William Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath

  Newark, Viscount

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

  Woodall, William

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Woods, Samuel

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Souttar, Robinson

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

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Spicer, Albert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Wyndham, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Perks, Robert William

  Stock, James Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strauss, Arthur

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lancs SW

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  GENERAL LAURIE: When I first placed this clause on the Paper I intended it to be a substitute for Clause 19, but according to the Rules of the House I find that my clause must be dealt with first, and Clause 19 considered separately, but it would be almost impossible even to allude to this clause without pointing out that I proposed it instead of Clause 19. The whole of the Bill really hangs on Clause 19, because it is very little use laying down what is wrong, and ought to be punished, unless we devise some means of carrying the punishments into effect. There are two troubles that local authorilies have to contend with in this matter, viz., the defence of the warranty itself, and, secondly, the postponement necessitated by the dismissal of the case owing to the defence of the warranty and the time-limit laid down by the Act of 1875, and perpetuated in this Bill. You really cannot obtain a conviction against the warrantor within the time limit, and consequently this provision will be a dead
  1208
  letter unless we are able either to extend the time limit or to put aside the defence of a warranty. For that reason I put this clause on the Notice Paper. I fully believe the Bill is intended to be framed in the interests of the consumer, especially the poor consumer, but at the same time all men affected by it should have justice. It is a very extreme ease that a man giving a warranty for, say, a ten-gallon can of milk should be responsible for that milk when it is distributed in half-pint cans and taken out into the street. Yet so it is under the present arrangement. Therefore, I propose that only until the bulk is broken should the warranty be binding. In regard to the possibility of dealing with the warrantor, our experience is that it takes fourteen days to bring an original defendant into a police court; then he pleads a warranty, and you have to begin again against the warrantor at a distance. Twenty-eight days pass, and the proceedings fall through. Is it fair to charge local authorities with not doing their duty when

  1209
  you do not give them time enough to discharge the duty you ask them to do? If Clause 19 is left as at present, you might as well throw the Bill into the fire, and therefore I beg to move this clause.
  New clause—
  "(1) A warranty shall only be accepted as a defence under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in cases where the package has remained intact, and bulk has not been broken.
  "(2) Where there is intention on the part of the person proceeded against to rely upon a warranty as a defence, the person so proceeded against shall forthwith, on receipt of summons, at once give written notice to the court in which proceedings arc taken that he holds a warranty, and giving the name and address of the person from whom be received it. such person being a resident in the United kingdom, and that he has sent notice of his intention to such person, and the court shall thereupon at once associate the name of the giver of such warranty as one of the defendants in the case, and proceedings shall be continued with such adjournments as the court may deem necessary for the due hearing of the case."—(General Laurie.)
  brought up and read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the clause be now read a second time."
  MR. LONG: This clause would practically reverse the law in regard to the warranty, and is directly opposed to the Amendment made in the Committee upstairs. There is an inconvenience in discussing the question in this form, and I hope my hon. friend will consent to withdraw his new clause, and reserve any opinions he may have to express for the consideration of Clause 19. I hope then to be able to move an Amendment carrying out the views expressed last night—viz., that the difficulty with regard to the defence of the warranty is a very real one. It would be impossible to read a second time a clause which is diametrically opposed to the spirit and intention of Clause 19, and for the reason I have given I hope the hon. Member will withdraw it.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Under the circumstances, with the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I think it will best serve the interests of the House if I at once ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I should like to have a more explicit statement as to what will be the purport of the Amendment which the Government is going to propose on Clause 19. At present, if the defendant can prove that there was a warranty in writing, and that he sold the article in the same state in which it was received, that is held to be an answer to the primâ facie case made out by the Crown against him. Clause 19 says that an invoice shall have the same effect as a warranty under the Act of 1875, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the clause requires amending.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will be out of order in discussing that matter now. The question before the House is whether this clause shall be read a second time.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: This clause on the Paper is being moved in lieu of Clause 19, and I have no objection to the withdrawal of the clause if we have some explicit statement.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I understand that the hon. Member has withdrawn or proposes to withdraw this clause upon the understanding which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. The point I wish to call attention to is that this clause is a very serious alteration of the existing law, and it would be a very serious matter, because it says that the warranty must remain as long as the package remains intact. That would be very awkward in the case of many articles in the sale of which the retailer would not be protected at all. I should like some assurance from the President of the Board of Agriculture that his Amendment is not going to take the form of this clause.
  MR. LONG: I endeavoured to say as plainly as I could that the new clause proposed is one which we could in no sense accept. My hon. and gallant friend referred to certain difficulties in regard to prosecutions; that is to say, where adulteration has been proved and the liability has been shifted from the shoulders of the first person summoned to somebody else from whom a warranty is produced. We hope to put into Clause 19 some Amend-

  1211
  ments which will remove that difficulty, but of course it will not proceed in the reverse direction which my hon. and gallant friend has indicated.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Somerset is out of order.
  MR. STRACHEY: Upon a point of order, I desire to point out that it is not a question of colouring margarine, but skimmed milk.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is going to take a different line of argument to that which has been already taken in discussing the colouring of margarine, he will be in order.
  MR. STRACHEY: I do desire to argue this from a totally different point of view. This is simply a question between the public and the dairy producers, or the men who sell dairy produce. What I am anxious to do is to prevent either the farmer or the retailer of milk, cream, condensed, separated, or skimmed milk, from imposing upon the public. We have seen a most deplorable state of things in reference to young children fed upon separated milk or skimmed milk without knowing that it has been coloured in such a way that it represents genuine milk. There was some very important evidence given on behalf of the Camberwell Vestry upon this point. The medical officer there said he attributed 40 per cent. of the deaths of infants in the Camberwell district to the use of this separated milk, which he said was only giving the children chalk and water. It is not only a fraud, but it causes injury and death, and 40 per cent. is a very large percentage. Besides this, the public are deceived. I do not believe that mothers would purchase this milk if they were not deceived by the colour of it, for it looks as if it was the very best milk, because there is no statement upon the tins to show what it is. I think milk ought to be sold entirely upon its merits without the addition of any colouring matter whatever. It is perfectly ridiculous to see how milk is coloured in the winter time, when we know that it is
  1212
  impossible to have such a high colour without colouring. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me on this point, for he thinks his Bill is quite perfect on this matter. I am quite ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman has conducted these proceedings both in Committee and in this House in a most able manner, and if this Bill had not been in charge of a gentleman so cognisant with agricultural matters he would have had great difficulty in piloting this Bill, and in giving his agricultural friends any benefit. I beg to move.
  New clause—
  "It shall be unlawful to sell or import any milk, cream, condensed, separated, or skimmed milk, to which any colouring matter has been added."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. LONG: I think the point of my hon. friend is that this milk is consumed by children, and that it is very injurious to their health and strength. I am afraid there is no doubt that there is a certain amount of consumption of skimmed and separated milk by the children of the poorer classes, which is very much contrary to what one would wish, but to deal with a difficulty of this kind in a manner like this is a suggestion which I think the House will not seriously entertain. I do not know that colouring gives milk any special advantage, but if you want to deal with this question a very different method will be required to that which is now proposed. I think the House will require stronger evidence as to the effects of a prohibition of this kind before it can accept the Amendment of my hon. friend opposite.
  DR. CLARK: I think if my hon friend had limited his proposal to skimmed or condensed milk something might be said for it, but the clause is for all milk and all cream, and you will be striking such a terrible blow at the dairy trade that you will be practically making a crime of it. I agree with what has been said with regard to condensed milk, and I think it is absolutely necessary that

  1213
  something further should be done. But I surely you do not expect that we are going to make this revolutionary change in our system. If the colouring had done any harm then I could understand it, but simply because a certain taste in colour is at present popular, are you going to make it a crime? The result of the use of some of this condensed milk shows a terrible mortality, but that ought not to affect ordinary milk and cream.
  MR. ARTHUR J. MOORE: I cannot understand why there is such a desire on the part of those on this side of the House to protect every sort of fraud. What is the use of having this coloured milk forced upon the children? Do hon. Members not know that the very colouring matter which is put into the milk causes children to get thinner and thinner? It is a great pity that we have not got a Government in office which is not afraid to tackle this question and also to tackle the margarine question by insisting that the working classes shall have value for their money. I support my hon. friend because the more colouring matter you put in the less milk you will get.
  MR. ROBSON: It seems to me that this proposal is being contested upon grounds entirely different to those raised in considering the last clause, which was obviously an endeavour on the part of the agricultural interest, if not to destroy, to impede and hamper the trade. They coolly state that colouring the margarine injures its quality or prevents people from knowing it. It is, however, an entirely different matter when one comes to condensed milk. In this case it is the parent who is deceived into buying something which is intended for the benefit of the child, and the parent ought to be protected. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this clause is too wide in its application, but I think there is no difficulty in cutting down the clause so as to make it applicable only to condensed or separated milk. My right hon. friend asks us to reject that which he appears to admit is a beneficial clause. Why on earth should not condensed milk be sold in its original condition, so that every parent shall know by its appearance whether it is pure or not? There is no reason why any special favour should be shown to persons who put adulterated matter into milk for the pur-
  1214
  pose of deceiving the purchaser. I certainly do not think that the person who adulterates condensed milk with colouring matter should be allowed to go scot free. The colouring of milk deceives the parents and involves suffering upon the children who are fed upon it, and there is no reason why any of the dairymen who colour their milk should be protected. If it is true that the colouring of milk is a universal habit, then the legislature cannot interfere too soon to stop it.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I desire to point out that we are dealing now with a totally different case from the colouring of margarine. The object of colouring margarine is to make it resemble butter, but nobody wants to buy milk which has been made to resemble water, or something else from which every good quality has been extracted. Margarine is a more or less wholesome product, but nobody can say that bad, weak, and injurious milk coloured to represent good milk is a good thing for anybody. In these circumstances, I think my right hon. friend ought to see that there is a considerable difference between the cases we have just been considering, and I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. friend opposite.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I should like to say a word or two with reference to this Amendment. I think the hon. Member is perfectly justified in bringing this question before the House, but I think the position is a good deal altered with reference to this milk by the first clause of the Bill. No doubt a gross fraud is being perpetrated on the public, and thousands of children are practically starved to death by being fed on condensed separated milk which is imported. This milk is bought by parents as good food for the little ones, with the result that the infants risk starvation. That is a very grave condition of affairs and ought to be stopped. I think, however, it will be stopped by the fact that the first clause insists upon this milk being labelled as "separated" or "skimmed" milk, and that will be a warning to the parents. This separated milk is made to resemble pure milk by the addition of colouring matter, and this is not only perpetrating a fraud upon the public, but it is also injuring very seriously the

  1215
  health of the children. It is possible we may be able to amend the first clause so as to meet this difficulty, and there is, moreover, a Departmental Committee sitting on this very question. I am entirely with the hon. Member as far as his object is concerned, but I think at the present time it would be unwise to press the clause which he has moved.
  MR. MUNTZ: My opinion is that if a man sells skimmed milk to represent new milk or cream he should be treated as a rogue. You prosecute a man for introducing water into milk, which is not half so injurious as this colouring matter. For my own part I entertain a very strong opinion on this matter, for I think the colouring of milk is a gross fraud. I had no idea that this fraud was being perpetrated in the country, and I venture to say that the Government ought to take the strongest steps possible to prevent the injury which is being done. If the hon. Member goes to a Division with his Amendment I shall certainly support him, but I do hope the right hon. Gensleman will do something to put an end to something which is now doing a very serious injury.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: No doubt it may be perfectly true to say that the colouring matter in milk is injurious to health, but this is one of the points which have been reserved for the consideration of the Committee which is now considering the whole question. In reference to milk, I think the effects of colouring have been exaggerated, for the real injury which is done to the children does not he in the fact that the milk is coloured, but is due to the fact that the nutritious substances have been taken out of it. That is an entirely different matter to the point of colour. I myself have the strongest feeling that everything should be done to prevent parents being misled as to the nutritious quality of the milk which they purchase. It is well known that there are an enormous number of penny tins of condensed milk sold, and they are purchased by the working classes; and, of course, it is the duty of the Government to do what they can to prevent fraud in this respect. I would respectfully submit to the House that the
  1216
  question of colouring has nothing to do with this matter, and I think other provisions should be made in this Bill to, ensure that the nutritious qualities are not extracted from the milk.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: This colouring matter in milk is attended with very serious consequences, because it deludes the purchaser into believing that the milk which he or she is purchasing is of good quality, when it is as a matter of fact impoverished. It seems to me that this is. an Amendment which ought to be accepted by the Government. My hon. friend suggested that milk in Wales is a light colour. That does not coincide with my own experience, which is that milk in Wales is like milk elsewhere. The colour depends on the time of the year and the nature of the vegetation more than anything else. What we ask for is that dealers should be compelled to sell milk as it is, not as they would wish people to believe it is. I shall be glad to support my hon. friend's Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEY: As I understand it, the object of this Bill is to prevent fraud. There is no doubt whatever that there is a process by which inferior milk is made to look like good milk. That comes very suspiciously near fraud. It does seem to me to be an adulteration of milk, and it is essential in great cities that nothing should be done to milk to give it a fictitious quality. I cannot quite understand why, if we are going as far as this Bill goes now, we should be afraid to go further, and protect the consumers of milk in our great, cities.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): I think the attention of the House ought to be called to the existing law on the subject. Section 6 of the Act of 1875 provides that any person who sells prejudicially to a purchaser any article of food not as substantially described is liable to a penalty of £20. Accordingly, as far as condensed milk is concerned, the man who sells it for good milk is liable to a penalty under that Act. Section 9 of the same Act provides that no person can sell any article of food from which such a part of it has been abstracted as to render it in-

  1217
  jurious, under a penalty not exceeding £20. That section applies to persons selling milk after a valuable part of it has been abstracted. The Amendment is to prevent the addition of colouring matter to milk or to condensed or sepaated milk. No one pretends that in the case of condensed or separated milk the addition of colouring matter does any harm. The harm is done by the fraud perpetrated in selling poor milk as if it were good milk, and that is already provided against. With regard to the proposal to penalise the addition of colouring matter, I would really suggest to the House that inasmuch as it has already decided by a large majority not to interfere with colouring matter in the case of margarine it would be a very questionable step if we were now to proceed to penalise colouring matter in the case of milk. The strongest argument, to my mind, against legislation in such a matter is that we should be only touching one part of a large subject. We cannot pick out one particular article and leave all the others alone.
  MR. BRYCE: The answer to the Solicitor-General appears to me to be that confessedly the existing law has failed. It has been abundantly testified this evening that a great quantity of milk which is not nutritious is sold in defiance of the Act of 1875. That is because the class to which it is sold is
  very ignorant, and does not know the provisions of the law or how to enforce it. This Amendment, however, goes further than the House is likely to go, and I think that the first clause of this Bill proposes a new remedy which is more likely to be efficacious for the protection of the humbler classes than the existing law, and we might await its operation before we attempt any alteration of the law on the general subject of colouring.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: We have been given to understand that the object of this Bill is to protect the public generally from having certain articles of food palmed off on them as of a certain quality whereas they are not of that quality. By adding colouring to milk the public are distinctly defrauded, because they are led to believe they are buying milk which is of a better quality than it is. A large number of persons who purchase milk, more especially in London, are ignorant of what good milk really is, and it is rarely that poor people in London are able to buy such milk. The dealers, by colouring poor quality milk, lead parents to believe that they are giving their children milk of first-class quality.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 23S. (Division List, No. 277.)

  AYES.

  Abraham William (Cork, N. E.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Col. W. H. (Lancaster)

  Morris, Samuel

  Beach, W. W. Bramston (Hants.

  Gretton, John

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gunter, Colonel

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

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

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hardy, Laurence

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

  Palmer, George W. (Reading)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pickard, Benjamin

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

  Howard, Joseph

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Joicey, Sir James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dighy, John, K. D. Wingfield-

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swan.

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lowter, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent

  Weir, James Galloway

  Doogan, P. C.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Mr. Strachey and Mr. Llewellyn.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Asher, Alexander

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Monk, Charles James

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Garfit, William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

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

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morrison, Walter

  Barry, Rt Hn A H Smith-(Hunts

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

  Barton, Dunbar Plunkett

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bill, Charles

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Billson, Alfred

  Gouldin, Edward Alfred

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Randell, David

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Harwood, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Rutherford, John

  Caldwell, James

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Holland, Hon. L. H. (Bow)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Campbell-Bannerman Sir H.

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

  Savory, Sir Joseph

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

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Seely, Charles Hilton

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

  Jones William (Carnarvonsh,)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Sidebottom, T. H (Stalybr.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Sidebottom, William(Derbys.)

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

  Keswick, William

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Kinlock, Sir John George S.

  Souttar, Robinson

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Spencer, Ernest

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lafone, Alfred

  Spicer, Albert

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)

  Colville, John

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stanley, Sir H. M (Lambeth)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lees, Sir. E. (Birkenhead

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Leng, Sir John

  Stock, James Henry

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lloyd-George, David

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Crombie, John William

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tennant, Harold John

  Curzon, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Thomas, David Alfr. (Merthyr

  Davies, SirHoratio D (Chath'in)

  Lough, Thomas

  Thorburn, Walter

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lowles, John

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dorington, Sir john Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doughty, George

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Valentia, Viscount

  Drucker, A.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wallace, Robert

  Duckworth, James

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Dunn, Sir William

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M`Killop, James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Evershed, Sydney

  M`Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maddison, Fred.

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

  Fenwick Charles

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Wilson, John (Govan)

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

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milton, Viscount

  Woods, Samuel

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  1220

  1221

  Wylie, Alexander

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wyndham, George

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  MR. STRACHEY: The Government not being ready to protect temperance drinks, perhaps they may be able to protect an alcoholic drink, although it is of a very mild character. At the present moment a very large amount of cider is produced in this country which is not made from the juice of the apple. Ingredients of a thoroughly bogus character are used, and it is in the interests of the public that only cider made from the juice of the apple should be allowed to be sold. I am quite ready to add perry, and I agree that all perry should be made from the juice of the pear. Manufacturers are so clever nowadays that they are able to produce cider and perry from other articles altogether. I beg to move the clause with the addition of the words "or perry" after "cider," and the words, "or pears" after "apples."
  New clause—
  "It shall be unlawful to sell or import for sale any liquid under the name of cider or perry, unless the same be made from the juice of apples or pears only."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. RADCLIFFE COONE: I have great pleasure in supporting the new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman, especially as he has moved it in the form in which my clause appears on the Paper. Cider and perry are most wholesome products, and much better than many foreign wines. The reason why we desire that these liquors should be mentioned in this Bill is that since the trade in them has increased, as it has very considerably within the last few years, it has been found profitable by some persons to produce liquors which they call cider and perry, but which do not contain a single ingredient belonging to apples or pears. About a hundred years, ago or rather less, the demand for cider and perry was very considerably in Devonshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire, and Herefordshire. The trade fell away in consequence of the malpractices of those
  1222
  engaged in it, who adulterated it after a fashion of their own, though not so astutely as the manner now adopted. Since the trade has revived persons have endeavoured to Manufacture so-called cider. I have several specimens of labels taken from so-called cider now on the market. One label is marked "Champagne Cider, Superior Quality." I had a bottle of that liquor analysed by a gentleman who holds the position of county analyst in my neighbourhood. He reported to the effect that there was not a trace of apple juice in it, but that a certain flavour of fruit given to it was produced by a drug which I am informed has a very deleterious effect on the heart. I notice that people drop off very often from failure of the heart's action, and I am inclined to think it is because of the adulterated things they drink. I have another label marked "Puris Champagne Cider, Protected by Registration; Highest Awards, London, Newcastle, 1887." The analyst also examined that champagne cider and reported that it had never seen an apple and that it was flavoured with acid, sugar, and honey. It is quite clear that a great many people are injured by this system of adulteration. The consumers themselves are injured in their health, whereas if they drank the genuine article it would benefit them. They also get an extremely erroneous idea as to what good cider and perry ought to be, and if one gave them a glass of the genuine article they would declare it was not cider at all. That is injurious to the producer and gives a false impression of what cider really is. For these reasons I beg to support the new clause, and to express the hope that the Government will look with increasing interest on this great and growing industry. In the South-Western and Midland Counties and also in Kent and Norfolk it is becoming it great industry. It is, so far as I know, the only agricultural interest now left in this country which is capable of indefinite expansion, and I hope it will be protected in a legitimate way.
  MR. LONG: We are all anxious that every reasonable facility should be given for the manufacture and sale of cider and perry. I beg to point out to the hon.

  1223
  Member for South Somerset and the hon. Member for Hereford that they hardly realise the full extent to which the clause asked the House to go:
  "It shall be unlawful to sell, or import for sale, any liquid under the name of cider or perry, unless the same be made from the juice of pears and apples only."
  The existing law in regard to adulteration is sufficient, I am advised, to prevent anyone selling cider or perry as such if it were only made from sugar and water and chemical compounds. We have certainly not sufficient knowledge as to the conditions governing the manufacture of these beverages to justify us in adopting a clause of this kind. I would remind the House that the Select Committee which inquired into the operation of the Adulteration Acts for four years did not embrace tins subject within the scope of their inquiry. We have no definite information on the point, and we heard nothing of it until this proposed clause appeared on the Paper. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. friends will be satisfied with having raised the subject.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. CHANNING: The clause I have put on the Paper raises, not the question of fraud, but a question of great importance, the question of public health. It is notorious to all who have gone into this subject that the use of antiseptics and preservatives, in order to enable food to be kept for a time, much longer than its nature permits, has grown to enormous proportions within the last few years. The ordinary processes of preservation by heat and by cold, which are perfectly innocuous and safe, are practically being neglected in a great many cases, and drugs are being used instead. I am bound to bring this subject before the Committee, because of the absence of any adequate restrictions on the use of drugs in preserving food. Food is placed daily on our tables full of preservatives. Our milk and cream and butter is full of boracic acid, our bacon is cured in it; our jam is full of salicylic acid, while fish are also now soaked with preservatives. And, further, in this way we may be dosed ten or a hundred-fold beyond the amount which science would say was safe for human con-
  1224
  sumption. The use of preservatives is being regulated entirely in the interests of those who manufacture or dispose of these food products, not in any sense in a scientific manner. This question has been repeatedly brought before the attention of the public through great scientific gatherings. A very important inquiry was undertaken by the Lancet in 1897. The special Sanitary Commission on this question initiated by the Lancet not only demonstrated the extensive use of boracic acid and salicylic acid, formalin, and other antiseptics, but also elicited most important opinions from the leading medical experts of the day. And the opinion of the medical authorities is uniformly in favour of some such clause as I propose. Sir Henry Thompson expressed the strongest objection to the dietetic use of any drugs whatsoever. Dr. Allen said that whatever antiseptic may be used, if it is strong enough to preserve by checking various processes of decomposition brought about by bacteria, would also be strong enough to check the digestive processes which were helped by beneficial organisms. Dr. Sims Woodhead, another great authority, spoke very strongly as to the danger of the use of antiseptics, especially as regards the digestibility of food, and he thought that until the scientific aspect of the restriction of the use of preservatives in food products had been thoroughly worked out, "it should certainly be made illegal to use them." At the Congress of Sanitary Science and Preventive Medicine held in Birmingham, in 1896, the President, Dr. Alfred Hill, in an exhaustive address on this subject, said that by the manner in which milk and cream and many other articles of food are being doctored in this way, consumers are being subjected to experiments on their constitutions by those who have no knowledge of the matter whatever, and that these experiments involve very serious risks. The purveyors of food have the most indefinite notions of what is required. One man will add 18 grains of boric acid to a pound of butter, the next man will add 80 grains. Another danger is that antiseptics are not only used by the first producers and by importers, but also by retailers. One case was given of very serious results happening to a family from eating blancmange which had been first adulterated by the manufacturer, and then another dose added by the servants in the house.

  1225
  "From this point of view," says Dr. Hill, "I can only come to the conclusion that the use of chemical preservatives ought to be prohibited altogether." One gentleman who made inquiry for the Royal Agricultural Society illustrated the absurdity of allowing the free use of these antiseptics by saying that one part of boracic acid added to 3,200 parts of milk or cream was quite sufficient to preserve the milk or cream, but that a solution of boracic acid amounting to one ounce in two gallons is actually in frequent use, while to hide the bitter taste of the antiseptic glycerine or gelatine is added. In some of the American States, in France, in Denmark, Belgium, and in Germany it has been decided to absolutely prohibit the use of preservatives altogether, because of the administrative difficulty of deciding by law or regulation the proportion of these preservatives which might be made use of in food. In France they have recently prohibited the importation of American bacon which is largely doctored by boracic acid. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will reply to me that he has appointed a Committee to deal with this question. Well, if he does, I will put to him the same inquiry in regard to that Committee which I put, too late, in regard to the colouring of margarine. I would like to know whether we may look to the Committee to determine whether preservatives should be used at all, or merely to lay down what is a safe proportion of these drugs and preservatives which may be allowed in food, and whether the Government will be prepared to give effect to their recommendations by legislation or by Order in Council during the ensuing year. I venture to say that the more this question is studied of the introduction into the human system of these drugs in small quantities hour by hour, and day by day, the more it will be seen how important it is that some such proposal as I have made should be adopted.
  New clause—
  "It shall be unlawful to sell or import for sale any margarine, butter, milk, cream, or bacon with which boracic acid, salicylic acid, formalin, bisulphite of lime, or other preservative, excepting salt, has been mixed."—(Mr. Channing.)
  brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. LONG: There can be no doubt that the question raised by the proposed new clause is one of the very greatest importance in this sense—that the use of these preservatives can very easily be abused, and the results of that abuse might be most injurious to human health. But, unfortunately, we have not had, up to the present, knowledge as to the effect of the use of these preservatives which would enable us, if necessary, to put the existing law into force. The hon. Gentleman has asked me what is the object of the Committee which my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board recently appointed. The object is to examine precisely those questions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, namely the use of these preservatives and colouring matters, and whether that use to any excessive extent becomes injurious to health, and whether their use to a limited extent is not necessarily injurious to health. We hope that that inquiry, which has already commenced, will result in getting some definite information with regard to this matter. If we are able to lay down rules for the guidance of the health officers of the country there will be no need for issuing an Order in Council or for fresh legislation. The existing law would be sufficient. If the preservatives are not injurious to health, then I do not think the House would agree for one instant to prohibit their use for a proper purpose.
  MR. LOUGH: What is the character of the Committee?
  MR. LONG: The Committee is composed of scientific experts, and the names have already appeared in The Times.
  MR. LOUGH: Not in the other papers?
  MR. LONG: I cannot say. No doubt they have appeared in the other papers, but as it happens The Times is the only paper in which I have seen them, and therefore I mentioned it.
  MR. LOUGH: I only wanted to know for my own information.
  MR. LONG: The Chairman is the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire, and there are two medical officers of the Local Government Board, including Professor Thorpe, if I remember rightly. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that the Committee is one to whose deliberations and conclusions the greatest possible weight will be attached; and the reference is one which will bring into the inquiry all those difficulties to which the hon. Member has referred in his speech. I gathered from the remarks he made that all he wanted was to raise a discussion and to elicit further information as to the appointment of this Committee, and the work it is intended to do, rather than to ask the House to vote on his Amendment. I think it would be extremely improper to include in an Act of Parliament a prohibition of this kind, which is unnecessary, if these articles are injurious to health, and which ought not to be put on the Statute Book, if these articles are harmless. If the Report of the Committee shows that these preservatives ought not to be used, and cannot be used without injury to health, then the law of the land is already amply sufficient.
  MR. STRACHEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to place himself in the hands of these experts?
  MR. LONG: The carrying out of the Act of Parliament does not rest with me or with any Minister of the Crown; it rests with the local authority.
  MR. STRACHEY: Quite so; that is the point. We are told that the object of this Bill is that the right hon. Gentleman is to have a roving commission in order to see that the local authorities are doing their duty. That being the case, is the right hon. Gentleman going to pledge himself to the views of this Committee? Is he satisfied that fifty or sixty grains of boracic acid in a gallon of milk is safe? No doctor would convince me that that is a desirable or right thing. Now boracic acid is used as a medicine in certain diseases, and if a man takes butter, milk, margarine, fish, or any kind of food which has been preserved with boracic acid, he is not only taking a much larger quantity than fifty or sixty grains of boracic acid a day, but he gets saturated with it. The consequence is,
  1228
  that the boracic acid medically prescribed would have no effect upon him, like a man who is saturated with alcohol. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Amendment was only meant to raise a discussion. Is he ready to say a little later on that he will accept the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for Caithness, which provides that every man should know exactly what he is buying and that the amount of preservative used per pound or per gallon should be stated? The right hon. Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment upstairs; is he ready to-accept it now?
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: This is an exceeding discouraging discussion, as it suggests, immediately before the dinner hour, that the food we are about to partake of may be overdosed with these preservatives. Seriously, I do not think that we can quite follow the example of other countries in this matter, as England is a much larger importer of food than these are, and some of the foods must necessarily be preserved in order to reach this country. I quite agree with my hon. friend the Member for East Northamptonshire as to the importance of this question, and I also agree with the spirit in which he raised it. We have on the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the subject a Member of this House, in whose general ability we have great confidence. We have also the most distinguished chemist of the time, and one of the leading officials of the Local Government Board, and a medical man to assist him. We have therefore, all the elements necessary for arriving at a sound conclusion, and when that conclusion is arrived at, I have no doubt the operation of the ordinary law will restrict the use of these preservatives. No one can speak dogmatically on the use of these preservatives, for it is a question which science has not yet solved. Therefore, I think that to persevere with this new clause at the present time is unnecessary, in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
  MR. KEARLEY: The hon. Member for South Somerset has pointed out to us all the horrors which may arise from the excessive use of these preservatives, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he proposes to accept the verdict of the Committee before the Committee has hardly.

  1229
  met. A more extraordinary question to a Minister I have never heard, and I think my hon. friend's zeal outruns his discretion. I would point out that my hon. friend's demand is unreasonable, especially as the mover of the Amendment is satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The proposed clause would prohibit the use of every preservative except salt. Surely it is not proposed to prohibit ice. I believe it would be an enormous mistake to enter into these terrifying details, and I think it would be best to withdraw the clause and leave the country under the impulse of the horror created by this Debate, which I think will send a thrill thoughout the country to-morrow morning. As it is, I am afraid to go to dinner.
  DR. CLARK: I hope my hon. friend will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to wait until we see the Report of the Committee. Then, if the Committee report on the lines that my hon. friend thinks, no change will be required in the present law. The only difficulty at the present time is that there is a difference of opinion as to whether boracic acid is more harmful than salt. A large number of medical men will tell you that they are equally harmful and equally harmless, but I take it this Committee will try and gather a consensus of opinion on the subject, and after it has been thoroughly thrashed out in Committee, we shall have one medical man giving his opinion to the magistrates that a certain preservative is injurious, and another medical man saying that he believes it is perfectly innocuous.
  MR. CHANNING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, under Clause 4 of this Bill, to make regulations dealing with the quantity of preservatives that may be added, before or after this Committee has reported?
  MR. LONG: I could not make any regulation as to the quantity of preservatives until we have the Report of the Committee before us.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 1, line 5, after the word 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'for consumption therein.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH moved to insert at the beginning of Clause 1 the words "butter and cheese." The object of the Amendment was to widen the scope of the Bill. A great deal of bad butter was imported into this country, and bad cheese other than margarine, and he submitted that equal information should be given with regard to this trade.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, before the word 'margarine,' to insert the words 'butter and cheese.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment to a Division. I cannot understand the introduction of good butter and cheese into the list of questionable articles as to which the clause provides precautions.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid he thought this Amendment would have a most serious effect, and he was much surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington should recommend it. if Danish butter were marked it would be impossible to sell English butter. People bought Danish butter because they preferred it to any other butter, and until the English farmers made English butter equal to Danish the large importation of Danish would continue. To place butter in the same category as margarine would be a very great mistake, and he was very glad, therefore, that the Government refused to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. COLVILLE MR. COLVILLE moved the omission of "margarine cheese" from the articles as to which the restriction was provided. He pointed out that skimmed milk cheese and other kinds of cheese were not

  1231
  included, and therefore submitted that the words "margarine cheese" should be left out.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words or margarine cheese.'"—(Mr. Colville.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or margarine cheese' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope this Amendment will be withdrawn. I can see no reason for leaving the importation of this article unrestricted.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERONexpressed the hope that the hon. Member would not withdraw his Amendment. This was another example of the vicious system of legislation which
  selected a few articles and proceeded to deal with them in a fragmentary and inefficient manner. The Solicitor-General had said that there was no reason for this Amendment. If he dealt with milk products, why did he not take the matter all round? They were advancing one step deeper into the quagmire into which they had drifted when the House passed the Margarine Act.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He could not understand how, in the interests of legislation for preventing fraud by margarine-filled cheese, the Amendment could be supported.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 19. (Division List, No. 278.)

  AYES.

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Keswick, William

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Kilbride, Denis

  Arrol, Sir William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kimber, Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lafone, Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Balfour, Rt Hon A J (Manch'r)

  Doughty, George

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Drucker, A.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Evershed, Sydney

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Beach, Rt Hon Sir M H-(Bristol)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  Lowles, John

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Fenwick, Charles Loyd,

  Archie Kirkman

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Field,

  Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macartnev, W. G. Ellison

  Binson, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  MacIver David (Liverpool)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Maclure, Sir John-William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  M`Killop, James

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Middlemore, Jno. Throgrnorton

  Burns, John

  Fry, Lewis

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Burt, Thomas

  Garfit, William

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Morrison, Walter

  Chaloner, Captain R. G W.

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Morton, Arthur HA (Deptford)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

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

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Pender, Sir James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Penn, John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pickard, Benjamin.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helder, Augustus

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Purvis, Robert

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W

  Howard, Joseph

  Randell, David

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Davis, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.

  Rutherford, John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath)

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stock, James Henry

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Wilson J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  NOES.

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Crilly, Daniel

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Weir, James-Galloway

  Duckworth, James

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Price, Robert John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Leng, Sir John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Mr. Colville and Sir Charles Cameron

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  MR. CALDWELL: I rise to move, as an Amendment to Clause 1, page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "or impoverished." Obviously these words are not applicable to butter; there is no such thing known to law as impoverished butter.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the facts that the Minister in charge of the Bill is not in the House, and there are not forty Members present.
  MR. SPEAKER: I recently ascertained that there were forty Members in the House.
  MR. CALDWELL: It is impossible for there to be impoverished butter. There might be impoverished milk, but you cannot impoverish butter without destroying its character. If you make the butter from inferior milk you may have a less quantity of butter, but the constituents will be the same. It is the quantity, not the quality, that will be affected. Observe how the words are brought in here. They are brought in in a section which obviously applies to imported articles. You do not find the word "impoverished" in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act dealing with articles manufactured in this country. "Adulteration" is referred to in Sub-section 7, and is held to apply to any article if it has been "mixed with any other substance or if any part of it has been extracted so as injuriously to affect its quality, substance, or mixture." "Impoverished butter" could not mean anything
  1234
  added; at any rate, that would be adulterated butter, while if you take out any substance it is butter no longer. It is the same as if you take hydrogen or oxygen out of water. These words are not needed at all; the word "adulterated" is quite sufficient. It is always an injudicious thing in Acts of Parliament to begin a new definition of an offence. We know what "adulteration" means, and it can be made to apply to every offence that is covered here.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 10, to leave out the words 'or impoverished.'"—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or impoverished' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Grand Committee he would have discovered what was news to many of us, but a fact, nevertheless, that there were methods of treating butter which could only be met by the term "impoverished." The word "adulteration" is not sufficient——
  MR. CALDWELL: Why not—as in Sub-section 7?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The word "adulteration" is not sufficient. It is one thing to add one article to another and so adulterate, but it is an even worse offence to abstract from an article one of its valuable qualities, and sell the article as if

  1235
  nothing had been extracted from it. The words are absolutely essential, and I hope the House will not waste time in discussing the question.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I served on the Grand Committee as constantly as any man here, and I confess it is absolutely impossible for me to conceive what impoverished butter is. The hon. Member has said there were methods described of treating butter by abstracting valuable qualities from it. I never heard anything of a method by which a valuable quality of the butter was extracted, but we did have evidence as to a method by which the acid constituting the rancidity was washed out and the butter purified. That certainly was not impoverishment. This is a very important clause, and will probably give rise to litigation as to what its meaning is. It is a clause under which a cargo of butter might be stopped. Adulterated butter is a very proper thing to stop; impoverished butter might be if we knew what it was, and I confess I do not know what it is. The words appear to me to be absolutely unintelligible, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman refuses to consider an Amendment so reasonable as that of my hon. friend.
  MR. KEARLEY: The most important question to consider in connection with
  this Amendment is whether we are to raise all these small issues. If so, we shall not get the Bill through at all. It is an unquestionable fact that butter can be impoverished; we had evidence of it before the Committee, and the Government are perfectly right in safeguarding themselves against this new form of adulteration by introducing the word "impoverished." Only the other day I received a circular of some company that is going to deal with butter which has lost some of its essentials. Why should not that be dealt with just as much as adulteration? This word "impoverish" will be most fitting for dealing with that system. I hope the Government will not delete the words, and that my hon. friend will not persist in raising small matters like this, because I am sure we all desire the Bill, which is a very useful one, to pass.
  Mr. D. A. THOMAS: We have been told that this matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee. But now that the Bill has come back to this House we are entitled to consider the whole matter, and I think before we proceed we ought to have some answer as to the meaning of the word "impoverish."
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes,, 24. (Division List, No. 279.)

  AYES.

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Banbury, Frederic George

  Cox, Irwin Edward B.

  Flower, Ernest

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Crilly, Daniel

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cross, Alexander

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.),

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Fry, Lewis

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Curzon, Viscount

  Garfit, William

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Billson, Alfred

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dillon, John

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

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton.

  Burns, John

  Doughty, George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

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

  Douglas, Rt. hon. A. Akers-

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Drucker, A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm.

  Duckworth, James

  Henderson, Alexander

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol,

  Charrington, Spencer

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailywyn Edw.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Myers, William Henry

  Steadman, William Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stock, James Henry

  Keswick, William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Strauss, Arthur

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Stuart, Jaynes (Shoreditch)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Sutherland. Sir Thomas

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Pender, Sir James

  Thorburn, Walter

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Long Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lowe, Francis William

  Purvis, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lowles, John

  Randell, David

  Valentia, Viscount

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Rentoul, Jamer Alexander

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Williams, R. (Dorset)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Williams, Jobs. Powell (Birm.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

  M'Killop, James

  Ritherford, John

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Wyndham, George

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Wyndham, George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalyb.

  Sir Willam Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

  NOES.

  Burt, Thomas

  Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ure, Alexander

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Price, Robert John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Colville. John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Laugley, Batty

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Souttar, Robinson

  Mr. Caldwell and Sir Charles Cameron.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  DR. CLARK: In regard to the question of skimmed milk, the Camberwell Vestry have taken the matter up, and they have memorialised the Local Government Board in regard to this matter. This Vestry has sent out information to nearly all the members of the local boards, town councils, district councils, and the principal corporations of England. They point out that when the word "separated" is used in connection with condensed milk, it is generally understood that the water has been taken away from the milk, but it is not the taking away of the water that does the harm. Separated milk is the very worst form of milk. Skimmed milk is not bad at all, because you cannot take away all the cream, but when the milk passes through a hydraulic separator you can remove all the cream. By this process you take away all the cream, and then the milk is condensed without any cream at all. The result is that the children who are fed upon it suffer terribly from indigestion. I have spoken to some of the largest manufacturers, including the Swiss Milk Company, and they inform me that they have been
  1238
  compelled to bring in this separated or impoverished milk in order to compete with the other brands in the market. The "Milkmaid" brand contains the highest percentage of cream. As a rule there is about 3 per cent. of cream in condensed milk, but there ought to be about 10 per cent. When this is called separated milk poor people are confused, for they imagine that it is the milk separated from the water. I think you ought to convey the meaning that it is impoverished milk, and let the purchaser know that the milk has been impoverished by subtracting the cream.
  Amendment. proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, to leave out from the word 'words,' to the word 'are,' in line 18, and insert the words 'skimmed or impoverished milk.'"—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LONG: I think we all want to achieve the same object which the hon. Member desires—namely, that some limitations should be placed upon the sale

  1239
  of this impoverished milk, but everything really turns upon what words will be best to convey the meaning of the Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman proposes to omit the words "separated milk or skimmed milk," and insert the words "skimmed or impoverished milk." I entirely agree with what he has said as to the character of separated milk. It is very inferior to skimmed milk, and I believe as an article of food separated milk is absolutely worthless, and certainly as an exclusive diet for young children it ought not, under any circumstances, to be used. So perfect has become the practice of certain people in the country in this respect, that I believe they have actually succeeded in persuading their customers that separated milk, instead of being the very lowest class, is a better article than whole or pure milk, because it has gone through some particular process which makes it better. If we could meet these difficulties by the words which have been moved by the hon. Gentleman I would accept them, but I am afraid that by drawing a distinction between skimmed and other milk and using the term "impoverished milk," no tradesman would use the word "impoverished" if he could find any other name. Does the hon. Member propose that all separated milk shall be called impoverished milk?
  DR. CLARK: I suggest that all condensed milk from which the cream has been removed shall be called impoverished milk.
  MR. LONG: The hon. Member does not draw any distinction between skimmed and impoverished milk. I believe the whole House desires that this Bill shall secure in the future that articles shall be sold for what they are as genuine articles, and that anybody who seeks to commit a fraud shall have his attempts frustrated as speedily as possible.
  DR. CLARK: My hon. friend the Member for Ilkeston has a better suggestion to make, and I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I move this Amendment in order to got rid of the difficulty in which we are now placed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 17, after the words 'skimmed
  1240
  milk,' to insert the words 'and not fit food for infants.'"—(Sir Walter Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BARTLEY: Does the word "infants" mean people under twenty-one years of age?
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I do not know from this Amendment at what age the line will be drawn for infants. If you say it is not fit food for infants you imply that it is fit for adults.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: But it cannot hurt adults.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: If it cannot hurt an adult I do not think it would do him or her any good. I suggest that the Amendment is not a desirable one because parents and guardians will very soon get to know that either separated or skimmed milk is not fit food for infants. I therefore suggest that it is not desirable that this addition should be made.
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry that the hon. Member who moved the previous Amendment withdrew it, because I hardly think we shall get the present proposal inserted in the Bill. Separated milk is not fit food for either infants, grown-up children, or adults. It is not fit food even for calves or pigs, and in Ireland young stock as well as children are suffering from the consumption of this abominable separated milk which is sent out from the creameries. Undoubtedly the term "separated milk" is a most unfortunate term, because it does not grammatically and properly describe the process to which the milk has been subjected. Even the Minister in charge of the Bill admits that people have defrauded their customers by making them believe that separated milk is something particularly good. I do not see why we should be a party to perpetuating an expression which does not properly describe the process. I regret that we are not taking this opportunity of christening this milk by a name which indicates its real character. Separated milk ought not to be sold for human food, and although it may be too much to require an absolute prohibition of its sale, I am not at all sure that it would not be a wise thing to prohibit the sale of it for infants. I think we ought to require that this milk should be marked by some name which will convey to uninstructed people the fact that the

  1241
  milk has been very seriously impoverished.
  MR. LONG: I think all of us are agreed as to what we want, and I believe the majority of this House are anxious that this Bill should be passed with as little delay as possible. I will, therefore, throw out this suggestion. As the House knows, it is a very dangerous thing to accept or propose words which will have the result of altering the phraseology of a clause without very careful consideration, and consultation, and this it is impossible to have under the pressure of a Parliamentary Debate. I am extremely anxious that we should secure that this article shall be sold for what it is, and that anything that can be done by legislative interference shall be done to prevent this particular article being used as food for infants. If the House will accept this assurance, I will promise to consider whether the Government can propose some words to meet the difficulty which I hope to be able to insert in another place.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should bring his proposal before this House instead of risking its insertion in another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LONG: I beg to move this Amendment in consequence of an undertaking which I gave to the Standing Committee. It was there suggested that certain specified articles should be inserted in the clause, and I undertook to introduce words which would extend the clause without incurring the danger of using specific words. I understand that the hon. Baronet opposite wishes to omit the words with reference to the Order in Council, but I think it is desirable that before any additional articles are included application should be made for the issue of an Order in Council, one advantage being that the Department mainly concerned would to a certain extent be checked by the Privy Council.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'type,' to insert the words or (d) Any adulterated or impoverished article of food to which Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall be applied, unless the same be imported in packages or receptacles conspicuously marked with a name or description indicating that the article has been so treated."(Mr. Long.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I have an Amendment to this clause. The right hon. Gentleman has not correctly described what occurred in Committee. I moved an Amendment to the effect that there should be added to this list, for inspection at the port of entry, any article adulterated under the Food and Drugs Act. That would extend to all articles an excellent method of preventing adulteration. But on a Division it was negatived by a small majority. The right hon. Gentleman did not give way then, but on the discussion on the next clause we endeavoured to accomplish the same object by the inclusion of the Local Government Board as one of the authorities who would see that the Act was satisfactorily carried out. The right hon. Gentleman gave way on that point, and undertook to consider it. It certainly did not carry out the object of my first Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the advantage of the course he proposes will be that it will place some check on the Board of Agriculture when it proposes to prohibit the importation of any article in consequence of adulteration. But the disadvantage is, that when it is discovered that a consignment of some adulterated article is coming over, it will be necessary to obtain an Order in Council before it can be interfered with, and in the meantime the country may be inundated with it. Give the Customs power to stop any consignment without any further formality. That would have the advantage of making a general rule applicable throughout, would avoid a system of isolated treatment, and would relieve the Department of the necessity of going through a tedious formality to obtain an Order in Council. If it were known that a cargo of impoverished or adulterated food were about to be landed, let the Board of Customs have the power to stop it, on the initiative, of course, of the Board of Agriculture or the Local Government Board. That would enable the Customs to act at once. I beg to move, Sir.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'to which Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall be applied.'"—(Sir Charles Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. LONG: I sincerely hope the House will not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Baronet. It would make the clause absolutely inoperative. The hon. Baronet says he desires that impoverished and adulterated articles should be stopped at once, but, in moving such an Amendment, I doubt very much whether it can be reconciled with his expressed desire to see his Bill made efficient and effective.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: On a point of Order: Is the right. hon. Gentleman justified in imputing to me a want of desire that the Bill should be efficient and effective
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not out of Order in imputing to the hon. Member a desire to defeat the Bill.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to my defeating the Bill.
  MR LONG: If I have said anything to cause the hon. Baronet any personal pain, I withdraw it without the smallest reservation, and apologise for it. I was, however, under the impression that the hon. Baronet described this Bill as a mischievous Bill, and that he did not desire to see it on the Statute Book, but I am unwilling to cause him the smallest personal pain in the matter. He argues that if his Amendment is accepted the Customs will be able to act at once. The Customs at present act under the Department concerned, and nothing could be more prompt than the procedure we suggest. In the first instance, we would have a Government Department to which an individual can go whenever he believes that interference is necessary. The matter would then be brought to the attention of the Department, and the Department would move the Treasury, who would communicate with the Board of Customs. That is the procedure in force at present, and it has been found thoroughly efficient with regard to the importation of butter. There is no justification whatever for the Amendment, and instead of making the Act more efficient it would delay its operation, because it would throw on the Board of Customs duties they have never performed.
  MR. KEARLEY: I think that the original Amendment is very deniable,
  1244
  because it gives power to intercept goods other than agricultural products. Now that the scope of the Bill is so enlarged, an Amendment to Sub-section 7 of this clause will be required. The definition of adulteration set out there is perfectly fair to the particular products with which you are now contemplating to deal, The new definition would prohibit absolutely the importation of certain commodities that have been added to for the purpose of preparing them as articles of commerce. For instance, some slight addition is made to Dutch cocoa, in order to improve its digestive qualities.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member comes on at at a later stage.
  MR. KEARLEY: I only wished to ask the Government whether they had overlooked the fact that an Amendment will be necessary to Sub-section 7.
  MR. BRYCE: The most conclusive reason against the Amendment of my hon. friend is that it would very considerably extend the right of the Executive Government to prohibit the importation of articles. The extension of the power of the Executive Government is a very serious matter, and should be carried out only after solemn deliberation. There is also another reason against the Amendment. Every year a volume is issued containing all the statutory rules and orders, and everything that has been done by a Department, under the authority of the Sovereign in Council. That volume can be consulted, and is a great convenience and safeguard. The Amendment of my hon. friend would prevent these orders appearing in that volume, which would be a public inconvenience.
  MR. LOUGH: I would also ask my hon. friend whether he cannot with draw his Amendment. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman has met with a great deal of favour. Everything that tends to extend the Bill will probably increase the hostility with which it is viewed. The advantage of these Orders in Council will be that at any rate traders will know what articles are excluded. Otherwise some articles might suddenly be added to the list, and no trader would know anything about it.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Words inserted.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I have put down the next Amendment in order to get an assurance that this clause will not apply to shipowners, railway companies, and common carriers.
  Amendment proposed:
  "In page 1, line 26, after 'article' to insert except shipowner, railway company, or common carrier.'"—(Sir John Leng.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: Certainly not. The clause only applies to an agent or broker.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGH: I am proposing this Amendment in order that we may have an explanation. It seems to me that the machinery adopted is very clumsy. You are bringing in the Board of Customs, the Treasury, and the Board of Agriculture, and you will, as a result, have the business done badly. I think the responsibility ought to rest on one Department. Why cannot the Board of Customs act independently, and not wait for the directions of the Treasury, given after consultation with the Board of Agriculture?
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 1, to leave out the words from the word 'shall' to the word 'take,' in line 3."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'Board,' in line 2, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LONG: The appearance of this sub-section deserves somewhat the description which has been given it by the hon. Member. But its appearance is very much worse than its practical effect. It is exactly the procedure in force at the present time. As a matter of fact the three Departments discharge different duties. If the Board of Agriculture believes that these powers can be exercised in the interests of the community, it must obtain the assent of the Treasury, without which no addition can be made to the expenditure incurred by the Department, and then there is the Board of Customs to carry out the directions of the Department. The procedure appears more prolonged than it really is. As a matter of fact, if the Department is satisfied that action is necessary, that action can be taken within forty-eight hours or less.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I wish to put in the Local Government Board instead of the Board of Agriculture. I do so because in all these matters I think the Local Government Board should be the acting authority in the future as in the past, and the alteration just made by the right hon. Gentleman giving power to the Privy Council to introduce other articles of food, makes it more important that the Local Government Board should be substituted. That Board has had the administration of the Adulteration Acts for twenty-three years and has done good work in administering them under great difficulties. If this Bill passes—and I am doing my best to facilitate it—the Local Government Board will for the first time, under Clause 3, practically have power to compel the local authorities to act under its control as far as prosecutions are concerned. That power did not exist before. The fault we have had with the administration of the Food and Drugs Act in the past was that it was a permissive Act, but in the future it will be the duty of the local authority to appoint an analyst and to take samples. This is the best clause in the Bill. I think that as regards inspection at the port of entry the Local Government Board would be a better authority than the Board of Agriculture, as these questions are difficult to separate from the public health of the country. Adulterated food coming through a port of entry has to be followed by the local authority under the control, more or less, of the Local Government Board. I should further like that the local authority should look to one central authority as in the past. The Local Government Board has also a scientific staff, not, of course, in connection with the Food and Drugs Act, but still worthy of being consulted. In a word, the Board of Agriculture was not constituted originally for the purposes contemplated in this Bill. It was originally intended to take over certain duties of the Land Commissioners and to look after diseases of animals and the muzzling of dogs, which latter duty is carried out with much effect in the stamping out of rabies. I prefer the Local Government Board for the reason that I prefer being in the hands of the doctors connected with it than in the hands of the vets. con-

  1247
  netted with the Board of Agriculture. The Local Government Board, moreover, is not connected with any producing industry, whereas the Board of Agriculture is. I believe that the Bill would obtain much more confidence in the country generally if we inserted throughout "Local Government Board" instead of "Board of Agriculture," and we should in the end obtain a much more satisfactory arid efficient administration. If we keep in the Board of Agriculture we shall have a dual control, and I do not want a dual control in the administration of these Acts. I do not want them to he worked in the interest of any producing class, but in the interest of the community as a whole, and it is for that purpose that I move this Amendment. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will allege that the Local Government Board has already more work than it can do satisfactorily. My answer to that is very simple—make it strong enough to continue to discharge the duties it has had charge of for the past twenty-three years.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, after the second word 'the,' to insert the words 'Local Government.'"—(Sir Walter Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Local Government' be there inserted.'"
  MR. LONG: I do not think it is necessary to enter into any elaborate defence of my Department, or to make any comparison between the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture. I am bound to say I listened with some astonishment to the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board had done its work so well for twenty-three years that it ought to be allowed to continue, for the hon. Gentleman himself, when he was President of the Local Government Board, called upon the Board of Agriculture to do this work. The hon. Gentleman tells us that the country would have more confidence in the Local Government Board. All I can say is that the Board of Agriculture has done this work on the suggestion of an Irish Member, and under the direction of the right hon. the Member for West Monmouth. The country, so far as I know, has never expressed any opinion for or against either of the Boards in regard to the work of administration. I
  1248
  am sure the work could not be better done than it has been by the Board of Agriculture. The result is that the introduction of adulterated imported butter, which was considerable when the hon. Gentleman was at the Local Government Board, is at the present time, under the direction of the Board of Agriculture, reduced to nil. In fact, the great majority of the articles to which this clause applies belong to the administration of my Department. We have dealt with them on the initiation of my predecessor, and most successfully. We are only regularising the work initiated in 1893. When my hon. friend said that he prefers the doctors of the Local Government Board to the vet.'s of the Board of Agriculture, he made a remark not worthy of himself. Obviously the latter have nothing to do with the control of the imports of food. I hope that the House will he content to leave in the hands of the Board of Agriculture, in a regularised form, the work they have hitherto discharged.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will support him if he goes to a Division. There is a very important change in this Bill so far as administration goes. The local authorities in the country have hitherto looked to the Local Government Board for the administration of the Foods and Drugs Act of 1875, and subsequent Acts. But if this Bill passes they will not know to which Board they will have to apply. If the right hon. Gentleman insists that this 1st Section shall be under the control of the Board of Agriculture, he might, at any rate, put the administration of the other parts of the Bill in the country under the control of the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do that, it would be a fair compromise. Under an important provision of this measure, the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture will have the right to appoint inspectors but I hold that when the local authorities will not do their duty, it should be left to one Department of the State, and not to two, to carry out the work.
  MR. STRACHEY: I am not convinced by the argument of my hon. friend the late Secretary of the Local Government Board. I cannot help thinking that he

  1249
  goes on the shoemaker's principle that there is nothing like leather. He says that the administration of the Local Government Board would command most public confidence. I can tell him that is not so. We who live in the country districts are tired of the way in which the Local Government Board carry out the present Acts, and we should be very glad to see this Act put under the Board of Agriculture. I certainly shall vote with the Government on this matter.
  MR. BRYCE: I have no favour or affection in regard to one of these Boards or the other. But there are two reasons why it seems to me it would be better if the administration were carried out by the Local Government Board rather than by the Board of Agriculture. The first is, that, after all, these proceedings will depend very much on what is going on in the country, and on what is discovered by the local authorities. When they discover that adulteration is going on, they will be the persons to set the powers of the Act in motion. Clearly, the local authorities will naturally communicate with the Local Government Board, for they are under the Board, and for them to go to the Board of Agriculture would be a very roundabout process. It appears to me that it would be in conformity with good principles of administration if the Local Government Board were to take the place of the Board of Agriculture in every part of the Bill. As to the second clause, the issue between the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board is quite different, and I do not want to prejudice it. The Local Government Board is to interfere, in relation to any matter appearing to affect the consumer; but the Board of Agriculture is to come in in relation to any matter which affects the general interests of agriculture—that is to say, not to protect the consumer or trader, but to protect people who think they are subjected to severe competition; and in their interests the Board of Agriculture is to set the Customs in motion.
  Mr. LONGdissented.
  MR. BRYCE: The hon. Gentleman appears to disclaim that interpretation of the words in the Bill, but I do not see that any other interpretation can be put
  1250
  upon them. Now, my second reason is this. We have been told repeatedly that this Bill is grounded on the desire to prevent fraud, and nothing else. That is the justification for the Bill; it cannot be justified on the ground that it will prevent competition. The prevention of fraud is in the interest of the consumer, and by Clause 2 of the Bill the Local Government Board is made the protector of the consumer and the Board of Agriculture the protector of the interests of agriculture. It is very clear from the words used by the Government that the Board of Agriculture has no business in this matter and that the Local Government Board ought to have the sole authority.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: The right hon. Gentleman says that the local authority is the proper authority to call the attention of a Government Department to what is going on. I quite agree with that. But what we are now dealing with is the act of importing, an altogether earlier stage then that with which the local authorities have to do. I therefore submit that the first reason given by the right hon. Gentleman is a very bad one. And his second reason is not much better. It is based on the second section. He says that the Board of Agriculture under Section 2 is to look after the interests of the farmers and endeavour to repress adulteration. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he entirely misunderstands the second section. The Board of Agriculture has power to deal with any agricultural products, but there may be other articles which affect the interests of consumers generally and which do not affect agriculture, and accordingly provision is made that in any case where the interests of the general consumer are concerned the Local Government Board will interfere.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: Taking the analogy of Clause 2 you should have both Boards empowered to put the Customs in action. As the Bill was drafted there was no reference to the Local Government Board in Clause 2, but owing to the discussion that took place in Committee, the overwhelming opinion of the Committee was that the Local Government Board should look after the interests

  1251
  of the general consumer. The absurdity of limiting the protection to the purely agricultural interest was seen, and it was agreed that the Local Government Board should be introduced. The result was to make Clause 2 the basis of a real anti-adulteration Bill. But what have we here? It was originally proposed under Clause 1 to deal with butter, milk, cream, cheese, and other milk products, and when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture says, as an argument against the adoption of my hon. friend's Amendment, that the Local Government Board dealt only in butter in a pure state, he has butter on the brain. What we wanted was to have other forms of adulteration suppressed, and for that reason we wanted inspectors sent down by the Local Government Board in the interests of the general consumer. The logical and symmetrical way is to put this clause on all fours with Clause 2.
  MR. LOUGH: There is one clear point that should be considered by the Government before this discussion closes. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the Board of Agriculture has been doing this work, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that the Amendment he has carried into the Bill includes many other matters than agricultural produce. The Agricultural Board has not hitherto been acting on statutory authority. We are now giving statutory authority, and applying it to every article of food, and therefore, are settling the matter on a
  permanent basis. I trust the Government will give a more generous consideration to the Amendment, for it will tend to simplification of administration in the country if the work is done exclusively by the Local Government Board.
  DR. CLARK: I am rather in the curious position to-night of having voted with the Government in every Division, but I certainly. cannot support them in this case. Someone must move the Treasury in order that the Treasury may move the Customs officials. The question is, who is first to move them? Now, what Department will first know of the importation of any adulterated article? The Board of Agriculture have no method of inspiration to tell them that something adulterated is coming in. The ordinary way of finding out adulteration is when the adulterated article is being sold, and it comes to the knowledge of the Government through the Inspector of the Local Government Board. There is no other way of getting information about it. Now you are going to take away the control from the Department which has hitherto had control of it and are going to have a divided authority, and all forms of food will pass under the Board of Agriculture. I do not see any reason why this change has been made.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 197. (Division List, No. 280.)

  AYES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Burt, Thomas

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Caldwell, James

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

  Randell, David

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Joicey, Sir James

  Chancing, Francis Allston

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Schwann, Charles E.

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

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSir U

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Colville, John

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Spicer Albert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir John

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Steadman, William Charles

  Duckworth, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sullivan Donal (Westmeath)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M`Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Ewan, William

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Maddison, Fred.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Jonathan Samuel and Mr. Longh.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Woods, Samuel

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Garfit, William

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Myers, William Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St George's)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Penn, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe

  Beach, RtHn. SirM.H. (Bristol)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Purvis, Robert

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Haubury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, Laurence

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Bond, Edward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harwood, George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Helder, Augustus

  Robinson, Brooke

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Rutherford, John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

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

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalyb.)

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

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans.)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kemp, George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Colomb, SirJohn CharlesReady

  Keswick, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Lambert, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Lawrence, Sir EDurning-(Corn.

  Stock, James Henry

  Cornwallis, Fiennes StanleyW.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Strachey, Edward

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leighton, Stanley

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Uni.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans,

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Long, Et. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lorne, Marquess of

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Doughty, George

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Drucker, A.

  Maclure, Sir John William

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

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liver pool

  Wodehouse, Rt Hon E R (Bath)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, James

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyne Edw.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Man.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wylie, Alexander

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Milton, Viscount

  Wyndham, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flower, Ernest

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'ths.)

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morgan, W. Pritchard (Merthyr

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fry, Lewis Morris, Samuel

  Sir William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  MR. STRACHEY MR. STRACHEY moved an Amendment the object of which, he explained, was to provide that all milk, cream, or butter containing any preservative should be imported and sold as preserved, stating the amount of the preservative and the amount per gallon or pound of such preservative. The effect of the Amendment would be to let the general public know exactly what they were buying. He could not see what objection there could be to his proposal unless the Government took the line that the public should not know that they were buying sophisticated articles.
  Amendment proposed:—
  "In page 2, line 27, after the word `health,' to insert the words: 'But any milk, cream. or butter containing any preservative shall he imported and sold as preserved, stating the name of the preservative and the amount per gallon or per pound of such preservative."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I think my hon. friend will agree that instead of the word "and" at the commencement of line 2, it would be better to substitute "or."
  MR. STRACHEY: I have no objection.
  Amendment amended, by leaving out, after the word "imported," the word "and," and inserting the word "or"—(Mr. Humphreys-Owen)—instead thereof.
  Question. "That the words, 'But any milk, cream, or butter containing any preservative shall be imported or sold as preserved, stating the name of the preservative, and the amount per gallon or per pound of such preservative,' be there inserted."
  MR. LONG: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to divide the House upon this Amendment. The law as it stands can deal with injurious preservatives, and the Amendment will only embarrass the trade. It is because there are some doubts as to whether preservatives are harmless or not that the Government have appointed a Committee to ascertain whether the use of these preservatives is injurious. It is undesirable
  1256
  to propose legislation of a troublesome character which will not have any compensating advantage, and which may seriously interfere with large businesses. If the result of the inquiry is to show that the use of preservatives or colouring matter is injurious, the question can be dealt with.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think we ought to prohibit preservatives, but I think the public should know whether they are buying a pure article or a mixed article.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I desire to move an Amendment on Clause 2, which refers not only to the Local Government Board but to the Board of Agriculture. The object of this Amendment is to keep the Local Government Board in the position which it has hitherto held as the controlling authority over the various parts of the country as regards the administration of this Act. This clause does not relate simply to agricultural produce, but to articles of food and drugs generally, and it is therefore on all fours with the old powers exercised by the Local Government Board. I wish those powers to remain in the hands of the Local Government Board, and not to be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture as well. I do not think it is expedient to have two Government Departments interfering with the local authorities with regard to their administration of this Act. In my opinion, the words in question, which refer to "the general interests of the consumer" or "the general interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom," suggesting as they do motives for the action of the Board, are destructive of public confidence in an Act of Parliament. Every Act of Parliament ought to do its duty between every subject of the realm, without suggesting motives for action, and I do not wish this Bill to be an exception.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words from the word 'may' to the word 'direct,' in line 32.'—(Sir Walter Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: I can to a certain extent meet the hon. Member. I could

  1257
  not accept the suggestion that only the Local Government Board should act, but I can meet the point raised by the hon. Member by striking out certain of the words objected to, so that the clause would then run that the Local Government Board or the Board of Agriculture may direct its officers to sample articles of food, &c.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To my mind the Solicitor-General does not seem to meet the whole of the objection made by my hon. friend to the clause as it now stands. The intention of the Government must be to entrust this matter either to one Department or another, and the one that initiates the Act will no doubt have the administration of it. I should like to see the duties entrusted definitely to the Local Government Board and not to both Boards.
  MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think the Government ought to consider this point, because if it is left under two Departments it will be very difficult for the local authorities to put the law in motion at all. They will not know which Department to appeal to. In my view the administration of this Bill ought to be given to the Local Government Board, which is in touch with the local authorities day by day, and I think there will be very great objection on the part of the county councils to any dual control in these matters.
  MR. BRYCE: Our objections to this clause are not entirely removed by the concession of the Solicitor-General, for the clause has to be considered in connection with Clause 3, and if the words "Local Government Board or Board of Agriculture" are retained we shall find a large series of duties alternating between two Boards. There is no precedent for such duality. We shall have two Departments working independently of each other, and two sets of inspectors, which will greatly add to the general confusion. I think the Government would do wisely in accepting the Amendment of my hon. friend.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that any Amendment is moved by the Solicitor-General. What I understood was that the hon. Member would make a concession if the Amendment of
  1258
  the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow was withdrawn.
  SIR R. B. FINLAY: That is so.
  MR. LONG: The course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite is not likely to induce the Government to make concessions. As the Bill was introduced the authority for carrying out certain powers was the Board of Agriculture, and to meet the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite the Government assented to the insertion of the words "Local Government Board." Now we found that that concession is to be turned into a handle for the elimination of the authority which originally stood in the Bill. That is to my mind a most unreasonable demand. We are prepared to stand by the Solicitor-General's undertaking, but only on the understanding that it is accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the House is to be asked to discuss that concession plus certain suggested additions, then we should much prefer to stand by the terms of the Bill as it is at present.
  MR. LAMBERT: I certainly think that the Department which ought to deal with this matter is the Board of Agriculture. I think the Government would be well advised in striking out the words, whether the Amendment be pressed or not, because great difficulty has been experienced in getting local authorities to carry out the provisions of similar Acts, and for my part I should prefer that the administration of the Bill should be in the hands of the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. LOUGH: In Clause 1 we deal with ports of entry, and in Clause 2 we are dealing with localities and not with ports of entry, and in the operation of the clause it will be found as we go on more mid more impossible to exclude local authorities from administration. The best system of administration will be to delegate to the Local Government Board the duty of galvanising local authorities into life. Responsibility should lie with that Board to secure uniformity of action.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: It seems to me that the experience we have had of the Local Government Board does not justify the agricultural community in considering that Board a repre-

  1259
  sentative authority for their interests. One of the main objects of the Bill is to look after agricultural produce in the interest of consumer and producer. In the preceding section the Customs authorities arc required to give information to the Board of Agriculture, and I
  fail to see that that would be of any use if power to take action were withheld from the Board.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 183; Noes, 68. (Division List, No. 281.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  FitzWygram, General Sir F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gedge, Sydney

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Goldsworthy Major-General

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.-(Brist'l

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Penn, John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St.George's)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bigwood, James

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Rankin, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Richie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gretton, John

  Robinson, Brooke

  Butcher, John George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cayzer. Sir Charles William

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Rutherford, John

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Helder, Augustus

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Alexander

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

  Kemp, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Stock, James Henry

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Keswick, William

  Strachey, Edward

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Lafone, Alfred

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

  Cox, Irwin EdwardBainbridge

  Lambert, George

  Thornton. Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw.Murray

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Llewelyn, SirDillwyn-(Sw'ns'a

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardig'n)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Wilson, john (Falkirk)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R, (Bath)

  Doughty, George

  Lorne, Marquess of

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Wylie, Alexander

  Drucker, A.

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wyndham, George

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V,

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Fergusson, Rt Hn SirJ (Manc'r)

  M`Killop, James

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Finch, George H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Milton, Viscount

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Fishier, William Hayes

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

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. Johh

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Asher, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hen.

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Haynes Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Billson Alfred

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

  Randell, David

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U

  Spicer, Albert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Causton, Richard knight

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Steadman, William Charles

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Leuty, Thomas Richard

  Tennant, Harold John

  Colville, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthr)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Dewar, Arthur

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Warner, Thomas Cournenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Crae, George

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Ewan, William

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Duckworth, James

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Woods, Samuel

  Emmott, Alfred

  Maddison, Fred.

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Sinclair and Mr. Jonathan Samuel.

  Evershed, Sydney

  Morris, Samuel,

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Other Amendments made.
  MR. STRACHEY: I contend that in cases where the analysis is in favour of the local authority that local authority should not be made to pay the cost. I think this is an Amendment in the nature of a compromise which the right hon. Gentleman might easily accept, and I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 3, to leave out the words of paragraph (b), of sub-section (1), of Clause 2.—(Mr. Strachey.)
  Question proposed: "That the words of paragraph (b) stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. LONG: I am afraid it would he impossible for me to accept this compromise, for I think that to relieve the local authority which has been in default up to that moment, because a particular analysis found the article not to be adulterated, would be a very odd proceeding. I am sure the House will realise that if under the law as it stands the local authorities are to carry out the Acts, and are to be responsible for the expense, it would be a poor way to effect this. to tell them that if they would leave it to the central authority they would escape the cost. The Government Department cannot act at all unless they have primâ facie
  1262
  reasons for believing that the local authority is in default, and in those circumstances the local authority ought to pay.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Another Amendment made.
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 20, to leave out the words from the word 'food' to the words 'the Board,' in line 22."—(Sir Walter Foster.)
  Other Amendments made.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I desire to move the omission of Clause 4, because it makes a fundamental change in the existing law, and I very much prefer the law as it is. Under this clause the right hon. Gentleman takes the right of fixing the standards in regard to milk, cream, butter, and cheese. In the Act of 1872 one part deals with adulterations which are injurious to health, and the other part deals with the adulterations. At the present moment, if an adulteration takes place, the law provides machinery for trying whether it is injurious to health, and the court decides this point,

  1263
  and until such decision has been arrived at these very serious penalties do not ensue. But under this proposal, instead of expert evidence being taken, the right hon. Gentleman, on his own responsibility, undertakes to declare that a certain admixture is injurious to health. I have no doubt this power is aimed at the preservatives in butter and milk, although there is a Committee now inquiring into this subject. I have no desire to labour the question, but the introduction of the words enabing the right hon. Gentleman to declare what is injurious to health in connection with the third section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, would effect such an important change that it must be regarded as a matter of very serious importance. 1 think attention should be called to this subject, and if the House desires that to be the law it should pronounce it with its eyes open. I beg to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 1, to leave out Clause 4."—(Sir Charles Cameron.).
  Question proposed, "That the words to the word in,'in line 5, stand part of the Bill.'"
  MR. LONG: I do not think that this clause lays down what is injurious to health. The House will remember that the appointment of a committee of reference for the establishment of standards of purity is a question in which a great deal of interest has been taken. This subject was carefully inquired into by the Committee, and one of their recommendations was that a committee of reference for the selection of standards of purity should be appointed. When we took up the consideration of this question we felt that the difficulties in the way of carrying out that recommendation were insuperable, and that great risks would be run if such a committee were to be appointed; and that while undoubtedly this would be
  the case the advantages to be derived from such a committee, if appointed, would be very doubtful. At the same time, we felt that it was very desirable that something should be done to guide expert opinion upon these questions. We therefore adopted what is now contained in Clause 4 as a sort of compromise. Having arrived at the conclusion that it was desirable to appoint a committee of experts and others, we thought that committee would be able to examine these different questions, and advise us as to what ought to be the proper regulations. At present, unfortunately, there is occasionally a difficulty to be, found in the difference of the opinion of the district analyst and the analyst acting for the Government What we hope is that there shall be established a presumption of what is to be pure food, and having got that we are hopeful that it will result in bringing together the Government analyst and the district analyst and providing them with information of a definite character. We believe that by helping in this way we shall be simplifying the procedure and making it more efficient. I hope the House will not consent to the omission of this clause.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid that the clause whilst it proposed to raise the presumption of standards did not show in what way that presumption was to be obtained. In his opinion the matter would have been much better dealt with by a Departmental Committee. He did not think the scheme proposed in the clause would work at all well, and therefore he would be very glad to see it omitted from the Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 44. (Division List, No. 282.)

  AYES.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Chamberlian, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bond, Edward

  Channing, Francis Allston

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

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Brodrick Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Barton, Dunbar Plunke

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Rt.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Cooke, C. W. Rt. (Hereford)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cornwallis, Fiennes StanleyW.

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Purvis, Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Curzon, Viscount

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Rentoul, James A1exander

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Dalyrmple, Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Kemp, George

  Robinson, Brooke

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Denny, Colonel

  Keswick, William

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Doughty, George

  Lafone, Alfred

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. H. Akers-

  Lambert, George

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Douglas, Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lawrence, Sir E, Durning-(Corn

  Smith. Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Drucker, A.

  Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H

  Lee, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Stock, James Henry

  Field, Admiral (Eastboune)

  Lockwoood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Finch, George H.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long. Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Wentworth, Bruce C.-Vernon-

  Gedge, Sydney

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whiteley, H. (Asht'n-under-L.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Maclure. Sir. John William

  Wilson John (Falkirk)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  M'Killop, James

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Massey-Mainwaring. Hn. W. F.

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R (Bath)

  Goschen, Rt Hn GJ (St George's)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Wrightson, Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Wyndham, George

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Greene, W. Raymond.-(Cambs.)

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

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Col.Wyndham (Bath)

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

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Newdiga e, Francis Alexander

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Evershed, Sydney

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Billson, Alfred

  Foster, Sir Waiter (DerbyCo.)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Bryce. Rt. Hon. James

  Gladstone.Rt.HnHerbertJohn

  Randell, David

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Caldwell, James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Cairmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Horniman. Frederick John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Colville, John

  Joicey, Sir James Stuart.

  James (Shoreditch)

  Dalziel, James Hentry

  Jones. William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Sullivan. Donal (Westmeath)

  Dewar, Arthur

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Leng, Sir Jehn

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Doughlas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lough, Thomas

  Duckworth, James

  Macaleese, Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Charles Cameron and Captain Sinclair.

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Evans, Samuel, T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Other Amendments made.
  Further consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third rose, and passed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (SALARIES.)
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be 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."
  Bill ordered to he brought in by Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE [SALARIES] (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the Law with respect to the salaries and allowances of the Commissioner, Receiver, and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. (Bill 277.)

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an annual sum, not exceeding £25,000, for the purposes of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Acts, including the payment of the salaries or remuneration of officers employed by the Board, and the administrative expenses of the Board, in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to the Congested Districts Board (Ireland)."
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he felt bound to enter a protest against the method adopted in those matters which affected both Ireland and Scotland. The Irish Bills were always brought forward, but the Scotch were left to take their chance.
  DR. CLARKalso protested, but raised no objection so long as an amount equivalent to that given to Ireland by this Bill was given to Scotland.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NAVAL WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, (1) That it is expedient to make further provision for the construction of works in the United Kingdom and elsewhere for the purposes of the Royal
  1268
  Navy, and to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of such sums not exceeding in the whole £3,100,000, as may be required for those purposes, and to apply the provisions of The Naval Works Act, 1895, and of The Naval Works Act, 1896 (as to the mode of raising money, and as to the application of surplus income) to the said purposes. (2) That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the construction and use of tramways for naval purposes.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, ETC.
  The following notice of motion stood on the Paper in the name of Sir JAMES RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)—
  "That the Order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending to factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the special exception (Employment of Women Overtime) ought to be annulled."
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked when this motion would be taken, and stated that on the previous day many hon. Gentlemen had made arrangements under the belief that it was definitely postponed until that day. It was a matter which was exciting a great deal of interest, and the right hon. Baronet thought it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury could give a definite promise as to when it would be discussed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE, TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)thought it would meet the convenience of hon. Members if the matter, although appearing on tic Paper, should be put off to some night when it could lie taken at a fairly early period of the evening. He had some little difficulty in fixing a day for its discussion, but he would endeavour to fix an early date.
  In pursuance of the Order of the House of the 17th day of this instant July, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned accordingly at One of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
  ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  Read, and agreed to.

BEXHILL AND ROTHERFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  DARWEN CORPORAIION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.
  MENSTONE WATER BILL.
  Committee to meet on Friday next.
FURNESS RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]

    KIRKCALDY CORPORATION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
  Leave given to the Select Committee to adjourn over To-morrow.
GREAT WESTERN AND GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION MARKETS BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW RAILWAY) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee with Amendments.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
Reported with Amendments
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
Moved, that the Order made on the 9th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 27th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
SOUTHPORT AND LYTHAM TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
    LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [H.L.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL [H.L.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL [H.L.]
    GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.].
    WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
    WOKING WATER AND GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
    WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
    HARROW AND UXBRIDGE RAILWAY BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 20) BILL.
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

    L. Kenyon,

    L. Ribblesdale (chairman),

    L. Granard (E. Granard),

    L. Plunket,

    L. Greville.

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Chairman of Committees' Committee made: Standing Committee negatived:
1124
The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 3a(according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No.)2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  TRADE REPORTS (1890) (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2319. Philippine Islands.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT.
  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, and to consider whether any more effective measures can with advantage be taken to prevent the spread of that disease; together with the Minutes of evidence, appendices, etc.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL, now SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing.

  1125
  Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 169.)

  OYSTERS BILL [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the Select Committee to be printed for the use of the Members of this House; but no copies thereof to be delivered, except to Members of the Committee, until further order. (No. 170.)
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BYE LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments to be considered on Thursday next.

POOR LAW ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Further Amendment moved—
"In clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'deficiency,' to insert 'or of vicious.'"—(Lord Harris.)
On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
LORD NORTON: My Lords, I propose to amend Clause 1, which vests more largely in the guardians of a poor law union the control over children of parents not fit to have charge of them, by leaving out the words "vicious habits or mode of life" in the following sub-section:
"Where the guardians are of opinion that by reason of mental deficiency, or of vicious habits or mode of life, a parent of the child is unfit to have control of it."
Under the Poor Law Act of 1889 the guardians undertake the care of children who have been deserted by their parents, and act in loco parentis of those practically orphan children. That is a distinct, clear, and defensible position, but under this Bill the guardians are to assume control of children, even till the age of twenty-one, whose parents are, in the opinion of the guardians, unfit by their mode of life to have the care of them. This is a very strong advance in the direction of the State relieving parents of their proper responsibility in regard to their children. The Poor Law Acts provide that where a parent is imprisoned in respect of an offence against his child the guardians may take charge
1126
of that child; but under this Act that is greatly extended, and, where a parent has been sent to prison for one act of cruelty to one of the children, the guardians, if they think fit, may undertake the maintenance of the whole family of children of that parent till they reach the age of twenty-one. If a vicious parent commits a crime against his child he can be punished by the law, and during his imprisonment the child would be sent to school, and the parent, after his punishment, could be compelled to enter into recognizances that he would treat his child properly in the future. That would meet the case much better than the provision in this Bill. The only answer which Lord Harris was able to give in Committee to my statement that the tendency of the Act would be to offer a premium to parents to get rid of their children was that Guardians would not be likely to incur more expense in this direction than was necessary. It is a poor defence of a Bill to say that it will not be acted upon, and that appears to be the only defence of the exaggerated provisions of this Bill. I am glad to see the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), who presided over the Standing Committee, in his place, and I would appeal to him whether he did not acknowledge that the words which I now propose to omit were too vague, and whether he did not suggest that the noble Earl in charge of this Bill should insert words that were more explicit. The word vicious which has been consequently added by the noble Lord, and agreed to to-night, does not meet my objection, and I do not think it meets the objection of the noble Earl opposite. It is moreover undesirable except in extreme necessity to allow guardians to retain children under their care up to the age of twenty-one. One of the great faults in our industrial school system is that children are kept many years longer than they ought to be at school.
Amendment moved—
"In clause 1, page 1, line 12, to leave out 'vicious habits or mode of life.'"
LORD HARRIS: This subject was discussed in the Standing Committee, and although it is quite true that one of the arguments I then used has been quoted by the noble Lord who has just spoken, namely, that in my opinion guardians would not be likely to extrava-

1127
gantly spend the ratepayers' money on taking under their care children of vicious parents for a longer period than was necessary. I used other arguments to which the noble Lord has not referred. If you are going to refuse to extend sympathy to poor law children already under the maintenance of the guardians, who, through no misfortune of their own, have to suffer from parents of vicious habits and modes of life, you will, in order to be consistent, have to undo a good deal of the legislation of past years, which I venture to think has been of a very humane and very wise character. For many years past the object of legislation in this direction has been to get hold of children of vicious parents at an early age, and to prevent them being led into similar habits. I think the returns of crime already show unmistakably that that legislation has had good effect. This is only another step in the same direction. The Bill only affects children who are already under the maintenance of the guardians, and there is nothing to prevent the guardians from recovering the cost of the maintenance of the children from the parents. There is no reason why the children should live in the workhouse without doing any work until they are twenty-one years of age, and there is nothing to prevent guardians from putting them out to honest labour. It must be remembered also that only with the consent of the child can the guardians keep him or her after the age of eighteen. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) contended that the words "habits or mode of life" were not sufficiently precise, and the Local Government Board think the insertion of the word "vicious," for which purpose an Amendment has already been agreed to, would make them sufficiently precise. This Bill is a step in advance of the existing Acts relating to this question, and is based on the Report of a Departmental Committee appointed in 1896 to consider the question of Poor Law Schools, and it distinctly recommended that guardians should have greater power than they have at present of dealing with the children of vicious and drunken parents. This is a wise and charitable Act, and will do something to improve the future of these poor children. On this ground I hope your Lordships will agree with the wording of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: So far as I am concerned, the insertion of the word "vicious" meets the objection which I entertained. I agree in the main with what has been said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I think this is a case in which, in the interests of the children, we may safely go as far as the Bill proposes. The safeguards are sufficient, inasmuch as there is power to appeal to a competent Court, which may annul the decision of the guardians. It is a very serious matter that children should be left under the control of parents whose mode of life is such that the children are likely to be brought up in a corrupt and vicious manner, and I think the advantages of the Bill will outweigh its disadvantages. I therefore assent to the Bill as it now stands.
On question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," agreed to.
Moved "That Standing Order No. XXXIX. be considered in order to its being dispensed with"; agreed to, and the said Standing Order dispensed with accordingly; Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GORDON MEMORIAL COLLEGE AT KHARTOUM BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

LAND ACTS (IRELAND).
LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the following resolution of the Landowners' Convention, held in Dublin, 22nd February last:
"RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE LANDOWNERS' CONVENTION IN DUBLIN, FEBRUARY 22ND, 1899.
"That as Parliament has for public purposes thought fit to deprive the Irish landlords of a large portion of their legal rights and property in the soil, and has done so without that compensation which, previous to the passing of the Irish Land Acts, has been always recognised and granted wherever Parliament has deemed it necessary to interfere with such rights and property, we again call upon Parlia-

1129
ment to consider the claims of the Irish landlords to compensation from the State for the loss they have sustained by the Land Acts and their administration, in the following respects:—

"(1) For the injury inflicted on them by being deprived of the right of resumption, and by the transfer from the landlord to the tenant of the right to the occupation of the soil;

"(2) By the practical abolition of free contract in the letting of land;

"(3) By the landlords being deprived of the right of obtaining in the open market the best rent for their property which solvent tenants would willingly pay;

"(4) By the serious interference and diminution of the landlords' rights and income by the arbitrary fixing of so-called fair rents;

"(5) By the reduction of rents below anything that could be justified by economic causes;

"(6) By the heavy legal expenses periodically entailed upon the landlords by the process of fixing their rents judicially;

"(7) By the impediments which have been placed in the way of their obtaining even the rent which the State still allows to them, while at the same time payment in full is enforced by the State for tithe rent-charge and all other State charges; and

"(8) Generally, by the depreciation of the value of their property by legislation, as well as the deprivation of many valuable proprietary rights, the proper exercise of which was beneficial, not only to the landlords, but also to their tenants and to the community at large."

And to move to resolve:
"That the question of compensation to the Irish landowners for injuries inflicted upon them by recent legislation demands the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government."
The resolution passed by the Landowners' Convention in Dublin states in a short and concise form all I wish to put before your Lordships, and if there is nothing that is untrue in that resolution—and I contend there is not—it is sufficient to justify the landowners' claim to have this question of compensation considered. Many of your Lordships are, perhaps, not aware of the manner in which the Landowners' Convention is constituted. It consists of representatives from every county in Ireland, who are elected to represent their county on the Convention, and to speak on behalf of the landowners in that county. Therefore, my Lords, in addressing your Lordships on this subject to-day, I feel that I am not expressing my own opinions or the
1130
opinions of those who sit with me in this House, but that I am giving you the opinions of the whole of the landowners of Ireland. We have been blamed, and I think not unjustly, because we, as the representatives of Ireland in this House, have not done our best to bring this subject before Parliament. The subject is an exceedingly difficult one, and when it is considered, it will be seen that we are not so much to blame as we are thought to be in Ireland. Your Lordships must know that this is a question far more fitted for the other House of Parliament, and if we had in that House representation such as we ought to have, we should, of course, bring the question up in the House of Commons. Therefore, I ask your Lordships' indulgence in calling attention to the matter here; and I have more reason to do so, because I took up a very large portion of your time two years ago in calling attention to the matter then. I am afraid it will be impossible for me to put this case again before your Lordships without a certain amount of repetition. The subject is a very wide one, and there are no less than twenty-five Acts of Parliament dealing with it and extending over as many years. On the former occasion I did not allude to a very important Act, which really is the first Act upon which there are grounds for us to ask for compensation; and if compensation had been then asked for, and pressed for, as I think it ought to have been, very likely we should not have had the legislation which has followed. The Government have themselves, on various occasions, admitted that the Act of 1869, to which I am going to draw your Lordships' attention, did do great injustice to the landlords in many ways. That Act was the Act for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Ireland, and our grievances in regard to that Act come about in this way. The Church was disestablished, but we were left to pay the tithes which were payable before for the maintenance of the Church, and also, in addition, to keep up the Church at an enormous expense. I think the landlords of Ireland have behaved nobly in this respect. They have not only continued to pay their tithes, but they have found a revenue for the Church which amounts to £400,000 a year; in fact, the Church of Ireland at the present moment has an endowment of no less than £8,000,000, a great deal of

1131
which has to come out of the pockets of the landlords. That alone gives the landlords some claim to consideration; but I would go further, and say that we have not only had to do that, but that we have strong grounds of complaint in reference to the tithe rent-charge itself. Many of your Lordships may not be aware how this tithe rent-charge came about. Before 1823 the tithe was paid by the occupying tenant in Ireland out of the corn produce of the country, and was revised every seven years according to the prices which then obtained, and the tenant himself had to pay it. Between 1823 and 1838 various Acts of Parliament were passed, the result being to place upon the landowner the duty of paying this tithe which had hitherto been paid by the tenant. This was not thought to be such a great hardship at the time, because landlords then had the power to recoup themselves out of the rent, which they could increase or vary as they pleased—though, in justice to them, I ought to say that they did not increase the rents on account of having the tithe rent-charge thrown upon them. The transferring of the tithe rent-charge from the tenant to the landlord naturally increased the value of the interest on the land; that is to say, the letting valuation of the land was increased. In 1838, an additional alteration was made by which demesne lands and grazing lands, which, of course, constitute a very large part of Ireland, were included, and the tithe was made payable on these lands. Then came the Act of 1869, which, as I have just now informed your Lordships, took the tithe away from the Ecclesiastical purposes for which it was at first raised, and devoted it entirely to secular purposes, leaving the landlords to supply the Church with funds. This went on until 1872. In that year it was determined to alter the arrangement by which the tithes were raised, and, instead of altering them every seven years, as had been the custom, it was resolved that the tithe rent-charge should be commuted into a terminal charge, and that money should be lent from the Exchequer to pay off these tithes. The arrangement was that the interest was to stand at £3 10s. per cent., and the money was to be lent to the landlord to pay off the tithes in 52 years. The total charge, including Sinking Fund as well as interest, came to £4 9s., so that by paying £4 9s. per cent. the landlord was able to get rid of
1132
the payment in respect of tithes in 52 years. But since this arrangement in 1872, rents have been lowered to the extent of something like 40, 50, and 60 per cent., but the same charge still remains upon the landlords as that fixed in 1872. That is a grievance which Mr. Balfour himself said in 1896 was a serious one, and which the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was then Lord Privy Seal, condemned ten years ago as a very great grievance, and one which ought to be remedied. Nothing has been done since that time to remedy the grievance until this year, except one thing, which was, as usual, brought forward in the interests of the tenant, and the tenant only. The Government found, in 1896, that they were obliged to make the landlord buy up the tithe in cases where he sold to the tenant; therefore, they brought in an arrangement under which the landlord could pay off the tithe in forty-five years instead of fifty-two. In point of fact, it had been discovered that a miscalculation had been made in reference to the fifty-two years, and that the period should have been originally fixed at forty-five years. As this alteration was made in the Act of 1896, you would naturally have thought that if this really was just for a landlord, when selling his right to the tenant, it should extend to other landlords. The Government promised us that they would amend this matter, and they introduced a Bill very late this year, although they promised to bring it in earlier in the session. I and other noble Lords had intended to move an Amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, but we refrained from doing so on receiving an assurance from the Government that they would deal with the question of tithe rent-charge in Ireland this session. We have, however, been treated very badly by the Government, inasmuch as the Bill was, in the first place, introduced at so late a period of the session, and, secondly, has now been dropped. I hope the noble Lord who will speak for the Government will make it perfectly clear that they do not mean to leave things as they are, but will bring forward their Bill at an early stage of next session and push it through. The legislation of 1870 was the commencement of that by which Mr. Gladstone gave effect to his land policy. Before 1870, Mr. Butt brought forward a Bill, which included the three "f's." I

1133
do not know whether it is necessary for me to explain the three "f's" to your Lordships, but, as I shall have to use the words frequently in my speech, I think I had better do so. The three "f's" are generally taken to mean fixity of tenure, fair rents, and free sale. Fixity of tenure means perpetuity rents, free sale means the right of the tenant to sell his interest in the land to the highest bidder, and fair rents mean valued rents. Mr. Butt, in his Bill of 1869, introduced these three "f's," and Mr. Gladstone was at that time very strongly opposed to them. How his opinions became altered to such a degree within a year or so afterwards it is difficult to make out. At that time Judge Longfield, who was judge of the Landed Estates Court in Ireland, than whom no one was able to speak with greater force, spoke strongly against any proposition of the kind. He said that the rent which ought to be charged for land is really the economic rent—the rent which the land would fetch in the market. He said that the only test of value was the price the public were willing to pay; that rent by valuation only appeared just to those who did not know what the value of land was; and that landlord and tenant have the only and best means of knowing the value of the land. He said it was probable that, if a tenant right measure was passed, the tenant or occupier would be certain to pay the full rent in the end, because he would not only have to pay the rent but the price of the tenant right. He added that, therefore, between the two rents which the tenant would have to pay, he would have to pay just as high a rent as in the market. I suppose Mr. Gladstone must have been reading Judge Longfield's remarks at the time he said what I am going to read to your Lordships. Speaking on Mr. Butt's Bill, including the three "f's," Mr. Gladstone said:
"Inasmuch as perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord, and as the mere readjustment of rent according to prices can by no means dispose of all the contingencies the future may produce in his favour, compensation would have to be paid to the landlord for the rights of which he would be deprived. This compensation must be paid either by the Consolidated Fund, or by an immediate increase of rent, in order to compensate the landlord by positive augmentation in the present for loss of his chances in the future. The effect of such a provision will be that the landlord
1134
would become a pensioner and a rent charger on what had been his own estate. The legislature, no doubt, has the perfect right to reduce him to that condition, giving him a proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money."
Could anything have been clearer than that? Sir Roundell Palmer (afterwards Lord Selborne) stated the same view. He said, speaking in March, 1870:
"Fixity of tenure, in plain English, means taking the property of one man and giving it to another. My right hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone) said, according to the principles of justice, if we transferred property in that way we must pay for it. No doubt we may take a man's property, but in that case we must compensate him for it."
This was the view expressed by Mr. Gladstone in 1870, and it is an extraordinary thing that he should have changed his opinion so soon afterwards. I will try and trace what was in his mind. Mr. Gladstone, having refused the three "f's," brought in a Bill in 1870 legalising the Ulster custom, and giving tenants the right to claim compensation for disturbance. Then it was that landlords should have insisted on their claim for compensation. Under the Act of 1870, a landlord wishing to resume possession of a paying farm, the Court held that the tenant was entitled to £500 compensation, though he had been in occupation only a short time and the land was almost valueless to him. Under the same Act, landlords have had to pay compensation for improvements to which they have themselves contributed. After the Act of 1870 we come to the Act of 1881, but, before I deal with that Act, I would remind your Lordships that two Commissions sat during those years, one presided over by the Duke of Richmond, and the other by Lord Bessborough. The Richmond Commission was a very important one, and, after a long inquiry, they came to the conclusion that the landlords had not done the things which it was said they had done, and supported the landlords' claim for compensation if the three "f's" were established. But before the Richmond Commission reported, Mr. Gladstone appointed the Bessborough Commission, and every witness examined before that Commission had the three "f's" thrust down his throat. It will be admitted that it was extraordinary that Mr. Gladstone should be anxious to bring forward the three "f's," having used the language which I have quoted in 1870.

1135
In 1881, when Mr. Gladstone brought in his Land Bill, he said in his statement that the three "f's" were not included, because the rents he proposed to have fixed were not necessarily reduced rents. Mr. Gladstone said he agreed that, if Parliament were to universally reduce rents to Griffith's valuation, that would be a fair case for compensation. I would ask your Lordships to look at the results, and you will see that subsequent evidence has shown that Mr. Gladstone was entirely wrong in 1881, for rents have been reduced much below—in some instances 25 per cent.—Griffith's valuation. Perpetuity of tenure, Mr. Gladstone said, was not in the Bill, because, at the end of the fifteen years' lease, a landlord could resume; but it is well known that has turned out a fallacy, and judicial rents are renewable in perpetuity. Between 1881, the time the Land Act was passed, and 1891, there were 139 applications to the Land Commission for the purpose of resumption of land, but only nineteen of those applications were granted by the Land Commission. There were eighty applications to the Civil Bill Courts, out of which only twenty were granted. The landlord, Mr. Gladstone said, would have the right of pre-emption, but in fact this has been otherwise, and he can only exercise the right by the payment of a prohibitory sum for his own property. I have shown your Lordships, clearly I hope, that Mr. Gladstone was entirely wrong in the grounds upon which he excused himself in giving compensation to owners, and those who opposed him were right; and now I am justified in calling upon those gentlemen who opposed Mr. Gladstone with arguments, the soundness of which have been proved by subsequent history, to give effect to the opinions they then expressed, and not to eat their own words. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to read what the Members of the present Government said upon this subject—and their words are so strong that I cannot understand how they can get out of the obligation to pay compensation. Mr. Edward Gibson (now Lord Ashbourne) said during the Debates of 1881:
"The measure concedes the three 'f's,' but gives no compensation to landlords for what it takes from them, and no security for what is left, though it offers them a guarantee for universal litigation renewable for ever."
1136
And, again, Lord Ashbourne said:
"If landlordism is to be done away with; why should not the transaction be done openly, and in the light of day? Don't filch their property without confession, or mutilate it without acknowledgment. What you take, take openly, and pay for what you take."
I think the noble Lord deserves great credit for his foresight, and for having, spoken those words. He cannot turn round now, when we show him that what he anticipated has taken place. Mr. Arthur Balfour said:
"It now appeared, by the Bill of 1870, that, without intending it, they had conferred on the tenant property which belonged to the landlord, and they now thought it necessary to legalise deliberately this accidental confiscation. Free sale must end either in rack-renting or in robbery."
We have been hauled over the coals over and over again for saying our property has been confiscated, but here is an admission of that fact. Free sale has ended in both rack-renting and robbery. Sir Richard Cross (now Viscount Cross), said:
"Let them say for the public good that this must be taken out of your estates, but, as in all other cases where we take the property of one loan for the benefit of others, we offer you I compensation full, fair, and ample for the injury we undoubtedly do to your estates."
The next quotation I will read to your Lordships contains very strong language, and it is from a speech by Mr. Chaplin:
"Are you going to give the man to whom you have sold the estate yourselves compensation, or, failing that, are you not bound to, repurchase his estate on equitable terms? You are bound—there can be no question upon this point—to give him compensation. You give none. You tell us of judicial leases and judicial rents. I say that this part of your Bill is nothing else than one great scheme of judicial plunder."
I have another extract from a speech by Mr. Chaplin, the language of which is equally strong. He says:
"These sweeping and extravagent proposals, proposals which conveyed to the breakers of the law the bulk of everything they have demanded, and which differs little, if at all, from those schemes of public plunder which the Prime Minister himself so unsparingly denounced, except, indeed, in this particular—that the Government gave no compensation to the landlord; and which certainly were-included in every scheme which has been: either suggested or attributed to the hon. member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)."

1137
In every scheme which Mr. Parnell brought forward he included provision for compensation. Mr. Chaplin continued:
"You teach the lawless and the disaffected that by outrages, by violence and crime, by persistent and daring defiance of the law, they can wring—nay, they have wrung—from the Imperial Parliament the grossest and most unhallowed act of great public confiscation that ever yet has been attempted by any Minister or Statesman in any civilised society or country in the world."
This is is pretty strong, I think. This is what Lord Salisbury said on the subject. Speaking on free sale, the noble Marquess said:
"I defy anyone to show that this money is given to the tenant without taking away the property of the landlord."
Lord Lansdowne said:
"You are going to divide the interests of landlord and tenant, restricting the former and leaving the latter free. The landlord's property must suffer."
There is one letter which I should like to read to the House. It is from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (the Lord Chancellor) in reply to a letter from a landlord in Ireland, asking him his opinion on the subject of compensation. The noble and learned Lord said:
"Dear Sir,—As my words were not committed to writing, I cannot speak with absolute certainty as to what they were. But what I think I said was, that I cou'd see no reason why Irish landlords should be excepted from the principle which was generally applied in all cases where State policy involved taking away something to which an individual had a right—that is to say, that compensation should always be given where, for State reasons, private rights were invaded."
I believe I have made it clear that it is impossible for the members of Her Majesty's Government to deny that they anticipated the very evils which it is my business to show have occurred. Mr. Gladstone, in introducing his Bill of 1881, said:
"If as has been said, Parliament is about to invade the property of Irish landlords, the question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. If those classes, either or both of them, have a just claim for compensation in consequence of the manner in which their interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it to them."
1138
No language could be clearer than that. In another stage Mr. Gladstone said:
"We, in 1869 (on the Disestablishment of the Church), provided that every holder of an advowson in Ireland should receive the full market price of his property. This we held to be the true principle on which compensation should be based, and this is the principle on, Which the question should be approached on, the present occasion. If after experience should prove that, in fact, ruin and heavy loss is likely to have been brought on any class in, Ireland by direct effect of this legislation, that is the question we ought to look directly in the face."
I could quote many of Mr. Gladstone's, colleagues to the same effect. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government, in answering me on a previous occasion, told the Irish landlords that they must appeal to the constituencies and get public opinion on their side, and so long as they did not ask for any money he could give them his complete sympathy. What, my Lords, is the good of sympathy without money? I am speaking on behalf of men who have been ruined, and not for those landlords who are well off and get their money from other sources than their estates. I was in a house in Ireland recently which was previously occupied by a family in a very comfortable position, with an income of some £3,000 or £4,000, a year, but the lady who was living in that house, on account of difficulties, is now receiving only 14 ts. a week, just enough to keep body and soul together, from the mortgagees. I am putting before the House the position of thousands in Ireland. A great cry has arisen, and will increase in volume until a remedy is provided. If we appeal to the constituencies they either will not understand our case, or they will say:
"We have the strongest Government this country has seen, which is perfectly capable of understanding the mater, and it is their duty to see that the Irish landlords are compensated."
Our case must be heard, and we insist upon having it heard. Millions of pounds have been taken away from Irish landowners, and they are entitled to compensation. What the Irish landlords say is this: "You have reduced our rents, you have taken a large slice out of our property and handed it over to the occupying tenant, who is at liberty to go wherever he likes with the money." That is what Parliament has done. It has handed over to the occupying tenant

1139
the difference between the old rent and the judicial rent. I will take in illustration a peculiar case upon my own estate just after the Act of 1881 was passed, and which I mentioned to your Lordships when I had the honour of calling attention to this question two years ago. I happened to put a tenant into a farm a year before the Act came into operation. The tenant was to pay a rent of £150 a year. He had not paid a farthing for that, because tenant right did not exist in the South of Ireland, and as regards my own estate, it was especially guarded. The tenant asked the rent to be reduced to £120. He asked to be allowed to sell, and he was allowed to sell. The result was that he got £1,250 for his interest, having come in the year before without having paid for any interest whatever. This man walked off to America, or somewhere else, with his £1,250, and left the present tenant subject to the rent of £120 plus interest on £1,250, which, I am bound to add, the tenant is paying very regularly. The other day the tenant applied to have his rent fixed for the second Term. It was fixed at £90, so that the original rent has been reduced by £60, or about 5 per cent. on the sum paid for the tenant-right. That is a clear case of carving the tenant-right out of the rent. Numerous cases of this sort could be cited. I had intended to refer to other matters, but I fear that I have already detained your Lordships at too great length. I would conclude by impressing upon the Government the absolute necessity of looking seriously into this question, and if they offer the same answer which they gave on a former occasion I shall feel compelled to appeal to your Lordships to put a little pressure upon them.
THE DUKE OF ABERCORN: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to the excellent speech which has just been delivered by the noble Lord, and the most extraordinary part of that speech is that it is perfectly true, however incredible it may seem that any Government could have brought any class of Her Majesty's subjects to such a state of misery and poverty. I am sure the noble Lord's speech will meet with the sympathy of your Lordships, and especially of the three noble Lords opposite who have held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and who are thoroughly
1140
acquainted with this question. The noble Lord at the beginning of his speech referred to the tithe rent-charge, and I should like to be permitted to say one word with regard to the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced at the beginning of the session. To the astonishment of those who had trusted to the promises of the Government, we learned this morning that this Bill had been withdrawn, and I fear that when the news is received in Ireland it will be read with amazement and consternation by most of the landowners in that country. I cannot help thinking that the Government have treated us very badly in this matter. I might even use a stronger term, for my noble friends and myself naturally assumed that when the Bill was introduced the Government intended to proceed with it. Mr. Balfour stated that he hoped to bring in the Bill early next session with better results, and I trust the First Lord of the Treasury will fulfil his obligation to the landlords of Ireland. Why should this Government, the strongest in our own time, not only in ability but in votes, not support their friends who support them, instead of listening to the smooth words of those who have never helped them, who are their political enemies, who will continue to be their political enemies, and who, the more that is given them, the more will want? Slowly but surely the Irish landowners are being bled to death, and by the next generation there will hardly be a middle-class or small landed proprietor left in Ireland in a state of solvency. That has been brought about by various Acts of Parliament passed by different Governments, and I hope that to-night we shall have a satisfactory answer to the question laid before your Lordships by my noble friend.
LORD FARNHAM: My Lords, after the very able and exhaustive speech of the noble Lord who introduced this question, I do not intend to detain your lordships at any great length, but I feel I should not be doing my duty to those who look to us, and whose only representatives we are, if I did not make a few remarks upon their case. Were it not for their representatives in the House of Lords the landlords of Ireland, contributing as they do large sums to the revenue, would, nevertheless, be almost as much without repre-

1141
sentation or means of making their voice heard as are the Uitlanders in the Transvaal. I was present during a Debate in your Lordships' House a short time ago, when it was proposed that some form of Fair Rent Fixing Court should be introduced into Wales, and I was struck by the shudder of horror with which the suggestion of an extension of the Irish Land Acts into Wales was received. In that Debate the noble Duke, the Duke of Argyll, stated that in passing the Irish Land Acts your Lordships had salved your consciences by believing that in Ireland the improvements were made by the tenants, whereas in England they were made by the landlords. In the first place I indignantly deny that there is, or ever has been, any desire on the part of the great body of the Irish landlords to confiscate the improvements of their tenants. On the contrary, they would have welcomed any measure which Would have secured to the tenant the unexhausted improvements of his holding. But, if it was expedient to legislate for the purpose of securing the tenant his improvements, why should it have been thought necessary to take from the Irish landlord those rights which the English landowner enjoys along with him? I had always understood that it was a maxim of English law that when the property of a private individual is taken from him, he should receive fair and full compensation. Sir Stafford Northcote said that when you sacrifice the interests of a class for what you consider a general benefit you ought to be called upon to make compensation. The question is whether recent legislation was brought about by political exigencies or not. My case is that the whole of the Irish land legislation was the outcome of political, and not of economic, necessity. It was laid down, more than fifty years ago, by Mr. Finton Lalor, that the mere question of separation was not in itself sufficient to enlist the sympathies of the peasantry of Ireland, and that in order to do that it would be necessary to tack on to that some other question, and this question, he said, is found in the land. That article, forty years later, was quoted by Mr. Michael Davitt, who said that those were the principles which presided over the birth of the Land League, and started the land agitation. The object was to drive out the landlords, not so much qua landlords, but because they
1142
constituted the English garrison. The rent agitation was set on foot for a political object, and the Land Act was passed for the same object. Mr. John Bright said on May 9, 1891, on the Second Reading of the Land Bill of that year:
"It is for the peace and tranquillity of the realm that this Bill has been drawn up and introduced to the House."
And, later on, Mr. Bright speaks of it as
"A measure on which depends to a large extent the social interests of Ireland, and, I believe also, on which depends to a large extent the political interests of the United Kingdom."
If the custom as to improvements of holdings differed in England and Ireland, that was a mere question of practice; but when we come to the other questions, such as right of occupation, free contract, etc., they are questions which depend on abstract principles of right and wrong. If the rights of which the Irish landlords have been deprived by legislation were consistent with justice, the Irish landlords ought to have been compensated for their loss. If those rights are unjust, then the English landlords, who still enjoy them, ought to put their house in order, and bring in a measure to provide for the surrender of rights which they ought not to possess. But I do not consider that those rights are unjust, and it is impossible to deny the equity of the claim put forward by the Irish landlords for compensation for their loss. If we have suffered, and if we deserve compensation for the loss of those rights which we used to, and which the English landowners still enjoy, much more do we consider that we are entitled to it on account of the manner in which the Land Act has been administered, and the way in which the predictions concerning it have been falsified. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, we were told that it would rather benefit the landlords than otherwise, and that if they did lose a small amount of their rents it would be amply made up to them by the security they would enjoy, and the regularity by which their rents would be paid. It was stated by Mr. Parnell, in July, 1881, in Committee on the Fair Rent Clause, that the Bill would undoubtedly reduce many rents which were extreme rack-rents; but he thought that, on the other hand, it would raise many rents which were at the

1143
present moderate, and that, as regarded the class of rents which were too high, but which could not come under the denomination of rack-rents, it would leave them untouched. The net result would be, said Mr. Parnell, that the total amount of rent paid to the landlords in Ireland would be increased rather than diminished. The extraordinary thing which we find is that there does not appear to be any difference made between what may be called rack-rents and other rents, inasmuch as rents which had been recently raised to what might be termed rack rents, and those which had remained unaltered for generations, have been subject to the same percentage of reduction. As to the rents which have been left untouched, we could almost count them on our fingers, and the alteration has invariably been in the same direction. We have an original and fundamental grievance which exists in the Act. It is one which I called attention to when I had the honour of addressing your Lordships last year, and it is this, that the State has undertaken a task which it has never performed. The State undertook to fix fair rents as between landlord and tenant, but the State has never gone so far as to define what a fair rent is, or the principles upon which such a rent may be fixed. I called attention to that last year, and the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland), in answering me, said:
"The Act itself, however, when an opportunity was given to it of defining a fair rent, shrank from the task and did not define it, so that some consideration should be given to those who are given the administration of the Act, which itself declines the difficulty of a definition."
That is exactly what we complain of. I submit that our grievances are none the less keenly felt because the defect is inherent in the Act itself. We have suffered severely under it, and from the vague ideas that are in the minds of the sub-Commissioners as to what fair rent is. I submit that on that head alone we are entitled to compensation for the loss we have sustained. We have claims also in regard to the extraordinary proceedings of the courts of sub-Commissioners. I do not intend to go into all the cases to which I might refer, but I would call your Lordships' attention to one or two. I will first call attention to the evidence of Mr. Bassett, a valuer, given before the Fry
1144
Commission. He was speaking of a holding in which the rent had been reduced from £70 to £41, and when he was cross-examined he said that he had deducted, as part of the cost of production, 300 tons of manure—£30. The witness was asked: "Do you mean farmyard manure?" And his reply was: "Yes, Sir, 300 tons at 2s. a ton are £30." Is it conceivable, my Lords, that the manure which is taken out of the farm, and which the tenant pays nothing for whatever, should be charged for under the head of cost of production and deducted from the rent? That £30 made the difference between the old rent and the new rent. Another case has recently come under my notice—the case of General Everard. Previous to the passing of the Act of 1870, General Everard let a portion of the demesne as an ordinary yearly tenancy, no fine being paid by the tenant on getting possession. The tenant applied, after the passing of the Act of 1881, to have a fair rent fixed. He claimed no improvements, and had seriously deteriorated the holding. He lived four miles away, and used the land merely for grazing purposes. The rent was reduced by the Court from 25s. to. 20s. per statute acre, and the true value fixed at £7 10s. per statute acre. General Everard did not reside upon the estate, and was only tenant for life. His nephew, Major Everard, barred the entail on coming of age, but as he did not for some years require to occupy the land, he found that the farm had thereby become undemesned. He is now obliged to rent the farm from his tenant yearly on an eleven months' grazing agreement, for which he has to pay him 35s. per statute acre, and to herd the cattle and keep the fences in order at his own cost. This is, indeed, a monstrous case. In the report of the Fry Commission special attention was drawn to the methods of the sub-Commissioners when valuing a farm and inspecting drains. The Fry Commission say:
"In our opinion it should be the practice of these officials, from time to time, to direct that, before their inspection, such openings should be made in the drains as may be necessary to test their existence and condition, and that they should do so in every case in which the landlord makes a request to that effect."
This was alluded to, and commented upon, by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland

1145
both last year and this year. My noble and learned friend said on July 28 last year:
"The suggestion as to the inspection of drains is a very important matter. It commended itself to everyone, and has peen incorporated in the instructions to valuers."
More recently the Lord Chancellor of Ireland said the recommendation of the Commission in regard to drains had been put in force, and was at the present moment working with great advantage. When I heard that my heart was filled with hope, and I believed that one point upon which we had very great difficulty would be set at rest. But my dream was soon dispelled by a letter which I received from my own agent a few days ago, drawing attention to a conversation he had with the lay Commissioner when visiting the lands of one of my tenants, James Reilly, Clonlohan. The Commissioner looked at the outlet of a drain, and on being asked by my agent what steps he took to ascertain whether the length of the drain claimed for by the tenant was correct, he told him that they had no way of ascertaining, and always accepted as correct what the tenant swore to in court. So astonished was my agent that he called up the bailiff as witness, and he encloses a letter from the bailiff confirming his statement. Surely it is conceivable that a tenant might make an exaggerated statement as to the amount of drains he had made. It is also within the bounds of possibility that he might make a statement at variance with the truth. Are we to believe that his statement is to be accepted in court without any investigation? Would any noble Lord, when he is selling a flock of sheep, expect to have his word taken as to the exact number of sheep in the flock? If there is one direction more than another in which proper supervision and inspection should be exercised, it is in verifying the statement of the tenant as to the improvements he has made in his holding. I would ask, my Lords, What is it that the State has done? It has, if I may be allowed the metaphor, constructed an enormous vessel built upon principles opposed to any preconceived ideas of naval architecture; fitted her with powerful engines, with no appliance for stopping or going astern; sent her to sea unprovided with any efficient steering apparatus, and started her on her voyage either without a compass,
1146
or with one on which the north point, the cardinal pint of a properly-defined fair rent, has never been defined; manned by a crew mainly composed of inexpert landsmen, and only capable of being navigated at enormous cost. Starting on her wild and erratic career, she damages or sinks all who come in her way, and we, I think not without justice, consider that we deserve some form of compensation as the unwilling and protesting victims of an unprecedented and dangerous experiment. Who are we who now appeal to you? We are not those who have been marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire. We are not those in whose eyes England's difficulty has been Ireland's opportunity. We have, as your outposts, borne the brunt of the first attacks on property and the Union. Faithful, though not favoured, we have kept our claims in the background: when, by pressing them, we might have embarrassed a Unionist Government; but when We see that ruin and exile is the immediate fate of many of our number, and the ultimate fate of almost all, we can keep silence no longer, but come forward to ask that it shall not be said of the justice-loving people of England that they have placed upon men's backs burdens too grievous to be borne, which they themselves will not touch with one of their fingers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, the noble Earl who moved this motion has presented his case clearly and fairly, and with every anxiety not unduly to occupy the time of your Lordships, but he set before himself an immense task when he went on to discuss an enormous code, which he said comprised twenty-five Acts of Parliament and which dealt with a vast variety of complex subjects. At the close of his speech, which was necessarily a Very long one, he asked your Lordships to affirm the proposition that the question of compensation to the Irish landowners for injuries inflicted upon them by recent legislation demands the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. That recent legislation, he stated, had its starting point in 1869, with the passing of the Irish Church Act, which was followed by the Land Act of 1870, and by other Acts of Parliament, notably by the Act of 1881. My noble friend, when he came to the Act of 1881, gave your Lordships

1147
many quotations from speeches of Members of your Lordships' House, and he did me the honour of quoting some words which I had used and he said it would be impossible for us to eat our words. Personally, my Lords, I have never wished to withdraw, qualify, or deny one solitary syllable I have said in reference to the Act of 1881. I was one of its most resolute and consistent opponents. I challenged its policy from the start to the finish, and I attacked every one of its clauses. I therefore repudiate any suggestion that I am bound to defend the Act of 1881, or to vindicate the policy which was responsible for it. We have now to face a practical question, and my noble friend (Lord Inchiquin) and the noble Lords who followed him must, as practical men, present to your Lordships some practical conclusions that can lead to some practical results. My noble friend dealt with various topics, and one of those was the reduction of rent which has taken place in Ireland. That, of course, was the most important subject he referred to. Your Lordships will at once recognise that the reduction of rent is not peculiar to Ireland, although it has been brought about by voluntary action and concession it might be in England and Scotland, while the legislature stepped in in Ireland and worked out the results which have been arrived at. What is the practical way of dealing with this question? Does my noble friend suggest that it is possible to retry all the fair-rent cases in Ireland? Does he suggest that it is possible by an inquiry into those vast topics to find a way by which compensation might be sought? Anyone connected with Ireland knows that there is much truth in the suggestion that the landowning class in Ireland have been subjected to grave and serious loss in recent years, and I know, from being more closely connected with them, how keen the suffering has been to the smaller landed proprietors, many of whom have been reduced to urgent straits. When the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had his attention called to this subject on a former occasion he spoke with the deepest and kindliest sympathy, but he said it must he made clear to the tenants in Ireland that you do not mean to upset the Act of 1881, that compensation in any shape, in pounds shillings and pence from the English Exchequer is not to be sought for, but that an effort
1148
should be made to enlist public sympathy with what my noble friend called a merited tenderness for interests which have been hardly treated. This is the way, a difficult way, no doubt, in which this question must be approached, because it must be dealt with as a practical question. My noble friend (Lord Farnham) referred to the Fry Commission and its recommendations. I admit, at once, that it is a reasonable suggestion that any fair proposal that is capable of being worked out and applied with justice to both sides should be fairly tried. Upon more occasions than one this question has been before your Lordships, and not long ago I went in the fullest possible way into every one of the operations of the Land Commission to give effect to such of the recommendation of the Fry Commission as they themselves approved of, and as appeared desirable they should adopt, and I heard with surprise the statement of Lord Farnham as to the mode of inspection of drains. I was informed that a certain practice was being adopted, and if a contrary practice has been adopted, then it was a matter for inquiry. There is another matter, apart from giving direct compensation, which may also do a great deal for land in Ireland, and which I have always looked upon as a matter of the highest importance in reference to the working out of the whole agrarian problem in Ireland—that is the development of the purchase system. We are always entitled to be asked how that system is working, and to-show that we are alive to the importance of giving every facility for the working of that great policy. I am happy to say that that system is working vigorously, well, and progressively. I gave figures two or three months ago, showing that the output up to the date at which I spoke was quite 2,000,000 a year, and that it was going on steadily, and even at an increased rate. The year that terminated on March 31 last shows a great increase on the preceding year, which itself showed a vast increase on the year that preceded it. I have made inquiries as to the progress of the system during April, May, and June of this year, and I find that during these three months there has been a steady, marked, and most encouraging increase. Is it not satisfactory, in regard to this great land question in Ireland, to find that the purchase system is in vigorous,

1149
successful, and progressive operation? A matter of obvious importance has been referred to by the noble—namely, the fact that a Tithe Bill was promised in the Queen's Speech. The measure, which was introduced in the House of Commons, was intended to be perfectly fair to all parties, and to enable right to be done, and no one regrets more than I do that that Bill could not be passed into law this session. It is evident, however, from the language of Mr. Balfour in another place, that the Bill was dropped with great reluctance and regret, and that the intention is to re-introduce it at an early period of next session. I can only express my own deep regret that that Bill was dropped. I believe my regret is shared by many others, and no effort will be spared on my part to endeavour to ensure the introduction of the Bill at a very early period next session. I trust, in these circumstances, that my noble friend will withdraw his motion.
THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I confess I heard the concluding words of my noble friend with a certain amount of satisfaction, but I would rather have heard him give an absolute promise that the Bill should be introduced at an early period next Session. All who wish to deal fairly in this matter cannot but have heard with sympathy the grievance under which the Irish land-owning classes are suffering. I do not think anyone can deny that the Laud Acts of 1870 and 1881 have to a very great extent benefited one class in Ireland to the injury of another; but if the motion of my noble friend had attempted to deprive the occupying class in Ireland of any single item of advantage they have derived under the legislation I should not have supported it. The land-occupying classes in Ireland have obtained enormous advantages under the Land Acts, and they have been perfectly justified in taking every advantage of those Acts, but I feel that those classes who have benefited by this legislation would, in a great many cases, be the first to desire that those who have been deprived of the benefits they possessed in the past should
1150
be recompensed, and, if possible. compensated for losses in the future. No one, I think, will deny that at the present moment the original landowner in Ireland has become nothing more than a rent-charger. We know full well that the powers of Parliament are unlimited, and that Parliament can take the roof over my head and the coat off my back if it chooses; but I do not think Parliament has ever confiscated a man's property without giving him honest and fair compensation; and some compensations, direct or indirect, should be given to those who have had their property in Ireland gradually, but surely, squeezed away from them. Whenever this question is raised the noble and learned Lord who responds for the Government on Irish questions invariably attributes this legislation to the Government of 1881. He adheres to the speeches he then made, and says he does not repudiate one single sentence. I should have liked to see the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council and the noble and learned Loral the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in their places tonight, as they were responsible for the Act of 1881, and to have heard what were their views upon it. In all probability they would have told us that they anticipated that the Land Bill of 1881 would do no harm whatever to the land-owning classes. They probably thought that the passing of that Land Bill would bring about an absolute millennium to the land-owning classes. I think they must now admit, however, that their prognostications have been falsified by the results. Lord Selborne, during the passing of the Bill of 1881, made use of the following expression:
"I deny that the Bill will in any degree whatever diminish the rights of the landlord or the value of the interest he possesses."
Five years after the passing of the Act Lord Selborne ventured to observe that he would rather have cut off his hand than have been a party to the Act. Moreover, the legislation to which I have alluded has been, in my opinion, a breach of contract on the part of the Government, who put forward every inducement to people to invest their money. People were assured that the rents were so low that they could easily be raised, and owing to the assurance of the Government £52,000,000 was invested in this

1151
way. What is now the position of those who bought that land? The property has been damaged in the market to the extent of thousands, and even millions, of pounds by this legislation, and it is a clear case of mutilation of property. Realising as he does the damage that has been done to the land-owning classes in Ireland, is my noble friend not justified in asking that compensation of some kind, either direct or indirect, should be given to those people who, as I have said, have had their property squeezed away from them? The Irish Land Commission during the past year has cost no less than £172,000, and it does not appear that these expenses are going to be curtailed in future, for the salaries of commissioners and sub-commissioners in 1899–1900 were £127,722, as compared with £114,579 in 1898–1899. If I were to say that the decisions of these commissioners were considered unfair by the land-owning classes, your Lordships would probably regard my assertion with scepticism. But I will quote what Mr. William O'Brien says on the subject. He says:
"There can be no finality, no security, either for landlords or tenants so long as the rents of Ireland go on dropping and changing every fifteen years, according to the whim of whatever Land Commissioners get hold of them. It is a mere gambling transaction what a man's rent may be. It depends on what Government is in, or What kind of Land Commissioners they appoint. It depends on whether the landlord is rich enough to carry it to the Appeal Court. For all practical purposes, the rents of Ireland might as well he fixed by tossing up a coin."
Mr. O'Brien anticipates that, by the time the period for the third fixing of judicial rents comes round, Irish landlords will be absolutely ruined unless they dispose of their property, for their rents will be whittled down to next to nothing. As Mr. O'Brien said, the landlords know this, and this is the reason for the motion of my noble friend. Do Her Majesty's Government consider that it will be for the benefit of Ireland that the land-owning class should he wiped from the face of the country? So far as I know the feeling of Irish farmers, they do not wish for the expropriation of landlords, though naturally they desire to enjoy the benefits of legalisation passed on their behalf. They know that the labouring class far outnumber the occupying tenants, and expropriation of one class in the interest of the class below
1152
being permitted, they fear that the cry for their own expropriation would not be long deferred. In this lies great danger for the future of Ireland—the rise of a race of small proprietors without capital, who cannot develop the resources of the country, who will not inspire confidence in English capitalists, and who will fall into the hands of the "gombeen" men—the usurers—who will be the real owners of land in Ireland. I rejoice that under the operation of the Ashbourne Acts purchase is making way. Those Acts are of inestimable advantage and relief to owners with heavily mortgaged property—but there are owners not under such difficulties, and who are unwilling to sell because they cannot invest their money at the rate they derive in the form of rent. When the noble Marquess the Prime Minister received the deputation on this subject, he expressed his sympathy and advised the landlords to bring forward their grievances prominently and frequently. That advice they are following. For the Government to ask the House of Commons to vote millions for the redress of the grievances is impossible, but there are ways in which the object can be partly attained. To a certain extent the Tithe Rent-charge Bill would have done something, and I trust we shall hear that an attempt will be made to pass it next session. It might be possible to make advances at a cheap rate of interest to heavily mortgaged landowners, and upon security that would relieve the British taxpayer from any anxiety. It is not for me on this occasion to Suggest Ways and means; it is for the Government to put their sympathy into practical form.
Loan CLONBROCK: My Lords, I am afraid my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will be surprised at what I am going to say. I wish to appeal to the Government not to consider this a hostile motion, but to accept it as an acknowledgment of the reality of our grievance and our claim to compensation in some shape or form, while reserving to themselves the power of dealing with any measure for compensation which we may bring before them. It has been often acknowledged by individual members of the Government that grievous losses have been inflicted, however unintentionally, on Irish landlords by the Land Acts. I say unintentionally, as it is universally admitted that those Acts

1153
have not fulfilled the anticipations of those who introduced them. I will repeat, in support of that statement, the oft-quoted remark of Mr. Gladstone to the effect that he would be greatly disappointed if property did not rise to twenty-five years' purchase. Instead of rising, it has fallen to about seventeen years' purchase, and my noble friend who introduced this motion has given your Lordships the reasons why this has taken place. His statement of the losses which landlords have sustained by the imposition of tenant right and the introduction of fixity of tenure was so full and exhaustive that I should have done little more than glance at it, had not my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, in his answer on behalf of the Government, passed over that portion of my noble friend's speech, and seemed to attribute our losses almost entirely to reduction of rent, and to hold therefore that our claim to compensation was on that ground. My noble and learned friend also matte a comparison between the reduction that had taken place in rent in Ireland and the reduction in rent in England, which I cannot admit to be a fair one. For if a comparison were made not between Ireland and England as a whole, but between Ireland and those parts of England which most resemble it in agricultural conditions, a different conclusion would be arrived at. I have seen such a comparison; I have not the figures by me, but they would bear me out. The loss which the landlords have sustained by the introduction of tenants' right where it never before existed, and of fixity of tenure, was foreseen in some quarters at the time the Act of 1881 was passed. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government stated in your Lordships' House in August, 1881, on the subject of free sale, that:
"The tenants all over Ireland are to be authorised to sell for money that which they never bought, which they never earned. I defy anyone who pays attention to the multiplication table to show that this money is given to the tenant without taking away property from the landlord on whose estate the farm is."
The late Lord Selborne said:
"I must say that the extension of the Ulster custom to the rest of Ireland does appear a manifest violation of the principles of justice, and to be impossible if we mean to respect those principles."
1154
The Marquess of Lansdowne, on the Second Reading of the Land Bill of 1881, said:
"The fact is, my Lords, that this is not an attempt to remove imperfections from the existing law. It is an attempt to quell an agrarian rebellion by the wholesale concession of proprietary rights to the peasantry of Ireland—a concession which has been extorted by violence and agitation. These rights you are asked to create; do not let us be deluded into the belief that we are merely going to recognise and legalise something which exists already."
There could not be a clearer description than that of what has been done by the imposition of tenant right and fixity of tenure over the whole of Ireland. It has been sought to justify this transfer of property on the ground that the tenant has by his improvements acquired, in equity, a property in his farm, and that the landlord is only entitled to its "prairie value." I have often heard a landlord say, "Prairie value! I wish I could get back my land at its prairie value," meaning as virgin soil, before it had been destructively treated by successive tenants. To anybody who knows Ireland it is apparent that there cannot be a greater mistake than to assume that the land in Ireland has been generally improved by the tillage of the tenant. I have taken the trouble to consult some of the most experienced and most competent judges, and they assert that for every one acre that the tenant has improved there are 100 acres which have been deteriorated to an extent far exceeding in amount any outlay in buildings or fences. Many of the tenants are poor, ignorant people who know no better, and lead struggling lives. There are 580,000 holdings in Ireland, and of those nearly a half are under fifteen acres. I would be the last person to blame the poor people who hold these farms, but by persistent bad husbandry they have deteriorated the land, and it was consequently most unjust that at least 25 per cent. should have been carved out of the fee simple of the land, as shown by the reduction of its selling value, and given to the sitting tenant on the ground that he and his predecessors in title had improved it. This is a distinct grievance quite apart from reduction of rent or agricultural depression. The administration of the Act has also not fulfilled the anticipations of its framers. The

1155
report of the Fry Commission bears witness to this. When we find that it states that there is no common understanding of the law or uniformity of practice., that the most general instructions are issued to the sub-commissioners, that no definition is given them of the fair rent they are called upon to fix, when we find about the best thing said about the administration is that the Commissioners are unable to conclude that the machinery has been uniformly worked with injustice to the landlord, it is impossible not to see that the whole of the administration of these Acts has been carried out in such a haphazard and uncertain way that if any righteous decision has been arrived at it has been more by good luck than good management. Since the Report of the Fry Commission has been issued, one of the most distinguished members of that Commission, Mr. Robert Vigers, has made a speech on the subject, in which he says:
"His own experience was that many of the men sent to report on the farms and to fix the rents did not know as much about the value of land in Ireland as he himself did as a mere visitor. They had no experience or proper training; the work was done without any head to direct their proceedings, and they consequently got into many difficulties. His own impression, after talking with the people in some of the districts, was that those men going to report on some of the more lonely parts of Ireland felt that they mast reduce the rent or they would hardly dare to revisit the district. In any case, an old landowner who had never altered his rent, but had kept it at the lowest minimum, was treated in the same off-hand way as was the speculating landowner who had doubled or trebled his rents."
Again, Mr. Vigers, comparing the way in which the business is done now with the manner in which Sir Richard Griffith did it, says that Sir Richard Griffith instructed the men under him in a way that to his mind was extremely practical and clever. Mr. Vigers says:—
"Every man employed had complete directions as to how he was to proceed with his work. Sir Richard Griffith was the one head, and every man who made a valuation could go to him, and with a schedule of his particulars and valuations could have any corretions made or directions given that were necessary. That was very different from the way in which the business was done in connection with the present Land Act. The valuers now knew little or nothing of what they were to do as a general body, but simply made their own notes and their own valuations and handed them in, and, if necessary, supported them in court;
1156
but there was no one to give them any direction, whether in fixing the rent they were to deal with, the buildings, or what deductions they were to make, or whether they were to make any deductions at all from what they thought was the value of the tenant right interest. Some of them did make a deduction for the tenant right interest, but others who had valued the same farm had not made any deduction on that account, but they came to the same conclusion that there should be a deduction of 24 per cent., 25 per cent., or 26 per cent., off the rent. The more one looked into the matter, the more evident it was how very loosely the whole thing was managed."
That is the opinion of one of the most competent men in the United Kingdom to express an opinion upon this subject. Some improvements, have, as stated by my noble and learned friend, been lately introduced, but they are but few in number compared with the recommendations of the Fry Commission. The uncertainty as to what constitutes a fair rent still continues. I should like to read to your Lordships a short statement by Mr. Commissioner Bailey, one of the legal Commissioners in the North of Ireland. Mr. Bailey said:
"What I did state, however, and what I wish to reiterate, is that, as a rule, we do not, merely on our own valuation of the land, raise a rent where the landlord has not so applied; and we would not reduce a rent where the tenant had not made an application, and did not complain of his rent until he was brought into court by the landlord."
Therefore, it appears that Mr. Commissioner Bailey, although he is instructed to fix a fair rent, thinks it right, when the rent is too low, to allow it to remain so and call it a fair rent, simply because the landowner has not applied to have it increased; and in the same way, when the rent is too high, to refuse to alter it because the tenant has not applied to have it reduced. One noble Lord compared the working of the Land Commission to a ship sent to sea without a compass and under very unfavourable circumstances. I would rather compare it to a terrible engine of destruction paring away and destroying the property of a portion of Her Majesty's subjects. They appeal to Her Majesty's Government for protection. The Government say, "The machine is not of our creation, it was wound up and set going long before our time, we can only try and make it grind a little more evenly. We cannot be held responsible for the injury which it inflicts." My Lords, the same continuity in legislation which pre-

1157
vents a Government from rescinding the Acts of their predecessors, should render them responsible for the effects of such legislation. If they were dealing with a foreign Government I do not think they would accept for a moment a plea that what they complained of was the work of a previous administration. They would hold the Government in power responsible, and the country responsible. We are ready to admit that the legislation of which we complain was approved of by this country when it was passed, but, now that the injury that has been inflicted is proved, we hold the United Kingdom responsible and look to the Government for redress. We were told, not long ago, by the noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, that we ought to make our grievances known. It is with the object of making our ease thoroughly known that I appeal to the Government to accept the resolution of my noble friend. There are, no doubt, a certain class of people in England, as probably in every other country, who are prepared to pronounce a dogmatic opinion on every question under heaven, but the generality of Englishmen know nothing of the subject we have been discussing. They know that Her Majesty's Government are fully acquainted with it, and, when they find that we can get nothing more than a few civil words of sympathy, they naturally compare us to the most intolerable nuisance which can afflict any class of society—namely, the man with an imaginary and ill-founded grievance. But, if they saw that our case attracted the attention of the Government, they would look into it in order to see if our complaints were well founded. That is what we want. We want the people of England to criticise and look into our case, feeling confident that if they really understood it they would recognise that we had a real grievance which should be remedied. We have but little power to appeal to the people of England, and we have no political influence in our own country. From what has happened lately it has been shown that we are not allowed any control over local affairs. It has been often thrown in our teeth that we have never been able to attract the people to us; but it must be remembered that, if we are in this isolated position, it is because we have been too faithful to the English connection, because we have desired that the country
1158
we love so well should not sink into a mere Dependency, but should remain closely united to the governing centre of that great Empire which our countrymen have done so much to extend and to consolidate. The fact that we have clung so closely to English associations ought not to be thrown in our teeth as a reproach by any class of Englishmen, even by those who differ with us as to the exact nature of the link which should unite the two countries. We do not claim any favour on the ground of our attachment to England; all we claim is justice, which we hope we shall eventually receive. I would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accept the motion of my noble friend as an acknowledgment of the justice of our case.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, said the noble Lord who moved this motion had come to no practical conclusions. The practical conclusion that noble Lords from Ireland have come to is that they will get nothing at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Only this session the Tithe Rent-charge Bill has been thrown over, notwithstanding all the promises of the Government, and the arrangements made that the Irish Peers should not move an Amendment to the Address, because that Bill was to be introduced this session. In reply to the noble Lord, I will mention a way in which relief or compensation could be granted to landlords without in any way touching the tenant. If the tithe rent-charge was immediately abolished, it would only be a slight instalment of the compensation due for injustice inflicted by the Land Acts. Board of Works loans have been granted to landlords. Outstanding portions of these loans should be ascertained, and made payable by instalments identical with those required from tenants for loans under the Land Purchase Acts. When such concessions are freely conceded to the tenants, we submit we have a good right to ask that State loans advanced to us on the security of our estates should be adjusted on similar terms. The case is strong in respect of Board of Works loans, because a large proportion of these advances was made for the improvement of tenants' holdings, and rents have been reduced without fair credit being given to the landlord in respect of

1159
the expenditure under these loans. State loans on the same terms as to repayment as loans under the Land Purchase Acts could be granted to landlords to enable them to purchase and redeem Crown rents, quit rents, and Church perpetuities, All these the State exact as if rents had not been reduced and Land Acts did not exist. I could bring many more matters, if time permitted, before your Lordships—notably the Land Purchase Acts, which were framed as if the interest of the tenant was the only thing to be seriously considered or consulted. Everything is done to help the tenant to buy; nothing is done to help the landlord to sell. He often cannot face the loss of income and heavy costs entailed upon him, and therefore refuses to sell. We will admit that it is the duty of the Land Commission to make no advances of State funds beyond the amount for which, in their judgment, a holding affords good security; but, to quote the Report of the Fry Commission:
"The practice of the Department has been over-strict in the matter of security, and applications have been thereby discouraged."
Such a course impedes land purchase transactions, and in many cases contemplated sales are abandoned. The Fry Commission has recommended reforms in procedure with regard to the Land Purchase Acts, and we ask that their recommendations may be carried out.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know that I can usefully acid to what has already been said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but it might appear disrespectful to the noble Lords who have spoken since he addressed your Lordships if someone sitting on this Bench were not to say a few words upon the subject before the House. I think my noble and learned friend gave good advice to the Irish landlords when he recommended them to treat this question as practical men, and to concentrate their attention upon measures which might fairly be described as practical measures. I am not at all sure that we much advance matters by researches into the working of Mr. Gladstone's mind when the Land Acts were in the process of incubation, or into the manner in which that wedge, the thin end of which the noble Lord discovered in the Irish
1160
Church Act of 1869, was ultimately driven home with such disastrous results. The question seems to me to be this—What can we, as practical men, do at the present time to mitigate the admitted hardships from which the landlords of Ireland have been made to suffer under the various Acts of Parliament to which attention has been drawn this evening? One noble Lord has told us very frankly that he did not care very much about sympathy unless it was accompanied by money—indicating, presumably, that we should have a raid upon the British Exchequer—and that a sufficient grant should be obtained from that source to make good to the Irish landlords the losses they have sustained. I am afraid that proposal does not come within the category of those practical measures upon which, in my opinion, Irish landlords ought to concentrate their attention. In the first place, I think it would be an entirely new departure in the politics of this country if we were, eighteen years after the passing of an Act of Parliament, to compensate from the public funds the persons who, owing to the mistaken estimates of the framers of that Act, have proved losers by its operation. I doubt if there is any precedent in the history of this country for any action of the kind. But, apart from that, I am unable to imagine upon what basis a measure of compensation of that kind could be framed; because, after all, it is quite obvious that if rents have fallen in Ireland it is due to two causes—partly to the action of the Land Courts, and partly to the natural fall in values which has occurred all over the United Kingdom; and I fail altogether to see how it is possible to disentangle those two factors, and to say that a certain proportion of the diminution of the rent roll of the landowners in Ireland is chargeable to the Act of 1881. Noble Lords from Ireland are, I think, wiser when they take the line which they have laid down in a very clearly-drawn Memorandum, submitted to the Government by the Executive Committee of the Irish Landowners' Convention. In that Memorandum they make certain specific suggestions, and they explain that those suggestions are so framed that they would not deprive Irish tenants of any of the benefits conferred on them by the Land Acts—that was a point upon which Lord Londonderry laid much stress—and in the next place they would not involve the

1161
payment out of the Exchequer of anything in the nature of money compensation. Those seem to me to be wise lines upon which to proceed, and I have read with very great interest the proposals which follow in the Memorandum. I confess that I think the claim of the Irish landlords for the sympathy of the House is due, not simply upon the reduction of their rents, but to the fact that the results of past legislation have been to deprive them of a great many of those incidents of ownership, the presence of which makes the owner of an estate the real proprietor of the land, and the absence of which converts him into something like a mere rent-charger. It is suggested that, for the loss of these incidents of ownership, what is called compensation might be granted to the Irish landlords in three directions—first, by a reform in the procedure, practice, and methods of valuation of the land courts, as recommended by the Fry Commission; secondly, by legislation for the purpose of lightening the burden and facilitating the reduction of land charges, both private and public; and, thirdly, by facilitating land purchase. With regard to the first suggestion, a number of the recommendations of the Fry Commission have already been carried out, and the whole report is receiving the consideration of the Land Commissioners. In discussing these matters we sometimes allow ourselves to lose sight a little of the fact that the Land Commission is, after all, a judicial tribunal appointed under Statute, and that it is not within the province of the Executive Government to dictate to that Commission how it should discharge its duties. We are apt, when dealing with people outside the limits of this country, to wax rather indignant when we find the executive usurping the functions of the judiciary and interfering with the functions of the Courts; and, to be consistent, we should observe ourselves the rules which we are so fond of inculcating for the observance of others. Then, my Lords, with regard to the second recommendation of the Convention, reference has been made in the Debate to the Irish Tithe Rent-charge Bill; and I share in the regrets which have been expressed over the abandonment of that measure. It is said that the present Government are a strong Government, and that it is not at all to their credit that they should have thrown that Bill overboard. But
1162
there is one thing which even the strongest Government cannot command, and that is Parliamentary time, and it is because Parliamentary time is not available that, in addition to other "innocents" this particular ewe lamb has at the last moment to be immolated. I very gladly repeat and enforce what has been said by my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as to the intention of the Government to reintroduce that measure next session; and no pains will be spared to place it on the Statute Book. I do not suppose that any Government, under any circumstances, could un-undertake to give an unconditional pledge that any- measure would become law during a session from which we are removed by six or seven months; but we have said enough to show that it is our intention to introduce the measure and to spare no pains to pass it. The third recommendation was in the direction of land purchase in regard to which there is absolute unanimity amongst all persons who have studied the Irish land question. I rejoice to know that land purchase, which seemed at one time to be flagging a little, is now proceeding with great vigour and rapidity; for it is in that direction, more than any other, to which I look for a solution of the great difficulties that surround the Irish land question. It was suggested by the noble Lord
who spoke last that we should show our goodwill by accepting the motion as it stands on the Paper. That is an invitation which I am afraid we cannot accept, for the motion carries us a little too far; but this we may say, that, with regard to the past, noble Lords from Ireland, who have brought this question more than once before the House, have achieved a good deal by the success with which they have directed attention to blots in the administration of the land laws; and, with regard to the future, we have every hope that the one particular measure upon which noble Lords from Ireland have very naturally set their hearts will be more fortunate next year, and will find its place on the Statute Book.
LORD INCHIQUIN: My Lords, I might almost make another speech in answer to what has been said on behalf of the Government, but I do not propose to do anything of the kind. I merely propose to inform your Lordships that my motion was specially worded with the hope that it would be accepted by Her Majesty's Government as a motion which was not hostile. It is impossible for me to do what the Government wish—namely, to withdraw this motion, as the adoption on my part of such a course would be to stultify my position altogether. If the Government cannot, as the noble Marquess has said, disentangle the hurt done to the Irish landlords by economic causes from the harm done

SMALL HOUSES (ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL.
To be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Earl of Selborne.)
them by land legislation for the purposes of compensation, let them appoint a Royal Commission to do it. For the Government to say that they sympathise with the Irish landlords is not sufficient. Let them give some practical proof of their sympathy. Two years ago, when I moved a similar motion, I withdrew it at the instigation of the Government, because I was assured and believed that the Government seriously intended to consider the question of compensation for the Irish landlords. On the present occasion I feel compelled to go to a Division.
On question, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Grafton, D.

Falkland, V.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Ardilaun, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

O'Neill, L.

Abingdon, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Plunket, L.

Annesley, E.

Clonbrock, L.

Rathmore, L.

Bandon, E.

Congleton, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Dartrey, E.

Farnham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Montalt, E.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drogheda, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Mayo, E. [Teller.]

Headley, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Inchiquin, L. [Teller.]

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Rosse, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Ventry, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Macnaghten, L.

Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Hardwicke, E.

Belper, L.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Kimberley, E.

Churchill, L.[Teller.]

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Morley, E.

Glanusk, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenesk, L.

Marlborough, D.

Powis, E.

James, L.

Selborne, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Ailesbury, M.

Spencer, E.

Langford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton L.

Ripon, M.

Yarborough, E.

Muncaster, L.

Norton, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Addington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Crewe, E.

Ashbourne, L

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, L..

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.