Sitting of 6 March 1899

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.: —
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill.
  Woking Water and Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.: —
  Redditch Gas Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  STOCKPORT DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HORSFORTH WATER BILL.
  (By Order.) Read a second time, and committed.

  TELEGRAPH ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order read for resuming Proceeding on First Reading [15th February].
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the first time."
  *SIR C. CAMERON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise upon a very important point of order, and I submit that under the ruling given on the 13th February 1895, by Mr. Speaker Peel, this Bill comes distinctly within the category of those matters which should be dealt with by public and not by private Bill procedure. That ruling was given in the case of the London Valuation Assessment Bill of 1895, to which an objection was taken upon a point of order by Sir Henry James, who argued that the Bill went far beyond the line which divided private from public Bills. He pointed out the inconvenience of amending public Acts except where the requirements of particular districts necessitated it. He said—
  "If a public Act repeals a public Act we can turn to our digest, but no library contains all these private Acts, and therefore students and practitioners who are not acquainted with the proceedings of the House never know whether there was on record any repeal of a public Act by a private Act. The Court takes no judicial notice of private Acts; they have to be given in evidence, like any other document."
  Upon that objection Mr. Speaker Peel delivered a most elaborate ruling extending over the whole subject. He said—
  "I am far from saying because a private Bill affects public Bills and repeals public Acts that that is always a fatal objection to its being introduced as a private Bill. But we must consider the scope of the public Acts which a private Bill proposes to repeal; and in this instance the Acts proposed to be repealed are of such vast magnitude and cover such a vast area that I think there are objections to the Bill being proceeded with as a private Bill. The Bill covers the whole of the metropolis, and though it does not quite follow from all precedents that a Bill affecting the entire metropolis must necessarily be introduced as a public Bill, still, I think that a review of these precedents will establish the conclusion that Bills affecting the metropolis should, as a rule, be introduced as public rather than as private Bills."
  That was not the sole ground upon which he gave the ruling. He stated that it
  1336
  dealt with the whole metropolitan area, that it repealed certain Acts, and he dealt with the statement that it appointed a new Court of Appeal. He mentioned a number of cases in which Bills dealing with the metropolis had been dealt with by way of private Bills, but he also gave others in which he said these metropolitan matters had been properly dealt with by public Bills. Now, I claim that this ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel's in 1895, subject to the cases that he refers to, govern, or should govern, the practice of the House in these matters. Mr. Speaker Peel goes on to say—
  "If I am asked whether any clauses might be expunged from the present Bill, and the Bill so brought properly within the scope of private Bills, I should say that nothing of the Bill would be left, because the whole Bill is of such vast importance that it is impossible to separate the clauses."
  With regard to those two points my contention is that the Telegraph Act, 1892, deals not merely with the whole of the metropolitan area, but the entire United Kingdom, England, Ireland, and Scotland, including the metropolitan area; and with regard to the expunging clause, if you expunge the clauses so as to amend this Act to bring it within the lines of a private Bill you expunge the entire Act. Therefore, in both those cases I submit that Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling governs this Bill. Mr. Speaker Peel then went on to mention the interests involved. He said—
  "I mention that to show that the interests involved are much more than local, that they cover Imperial taxation as well as local rating and if I am told that the Bill is a local Bill I am bound to reply that it is local only in the sense in which a Bill that applies to Scotland and Ireland may be called a local Bill."
  Exactly the same contention applies here with very much greater force, because the present Bill applies to the whole of England, Ireland, and Scotland. Another of his objections was that a new jurisdiction was established. This Bill establishes a new jurisdiction also, and under these circumstances I must ask your ruling upon the point of order of whether it is competent to proceed with this Bill as a private Bill, and I do so the more particularly because the Act which this Bill proposes to amend is one in which the Postmaster-General is interested.

  1337
  The National Telephone Company only come forward as the licensee of the Postmaster-General, and this bears upon the point of order, that if it is desirable that the powers asked for should be granted then they should be granted to the Postmaster-General. In the first place, I desire to ask whether this Bill can be properly proceeded with as a private matter, having regard to the interests involved, or whether it should not be dealt with by a public Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The matters which the honourable Gentleman has brought before me are well worthy of consideration of the House upon the merits of the Bill on the Second Heading, but I do not think they are such as would justify me in stopping the Bill or taking it upon myself to prevent the House from dealing with it at the proper time. The Bill proposes to exempt a company which is carried on for purposes of profit, under certain conditions and in certain places, from the operation of a particular subsection of a public Act. That is a thing which has been done before now in private Bills without objection being raised, and in other cases objection has been taken. I am not aware of any case where such a Bill has been ruled out of order, and in saying this I am not forgetting the case referred to by the honourable Member. What is proposed by this Bill is a course of action which has been taken by this House in private Bills on other occasions, therefore, I do not feel justified in stopping it on the point of order. As regards the ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, I may point out that that was the case if a Bill having far wider scope and application than the present Bill. That was a Bill which proposed to deal with local taxation directly, and indirectly with Imperial taxation over an area of some 5,000,000 inhabitants, and it was proposed for that purpose to repeal three public Acts which already regulated those matters. It was proposed also to set up an entirely new court (not merely to add a new jurisdiction to an existing court) to administer the new law. That is a very different proposition from that which is contained in this Bill. In ruling that I cannot stop the Bill at this stage, I am far from differing from the view taken by my predecessor. It seems to me that the proper course is for the
  1338
  honourable Gentleman, on the Second Reading of the Bill, to present these objections as objections on the merits, and it will then be for the House to decide whether they think it proper to give a Second Reading to a Bill containing these provisions, or to refuse it on the ground the honourable Member has urged, or on other grounds.
  "SIR C. CAMERON: Might I ask your ruling upon another point of order t It has been intimated to me that it would not be competent for me to move the rejection of the Bill on the First Reading, or at least to have any discussion on the Bill at that stage. There are strong arguments of convenience in favour of that course being adopted, because if it were adopted, where the Bill was thrown out on the First Reading, the numerous bodies who proposed to petition against the Bill would be saved the trouble and expense of sending in their petitions. Upon looking into the Standing Orders I find that the five minutes rule only applies to the Bills introduced before the commencement of public business; and I am not aware of any precedent of any discussion taking place upon the introduction of private Bills. Therefore, as a matter of information for those engaged in private Bill legislation, I should like to have your ruling, Sir, upon that matter.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the law of Parliament stands thus: Up to about 45 years ago there might be a Debate upon the First Reading of a Bill, although I believe the practice has become obsolete; but since the Standing Order was passed with regard to public Bills preventing a discussion upon a First Reading of a public Bill the practice has been to deal with a private Bill on its First Reading in the same way as if it were a public Bill under the Standing Order, and not to have any discussion upon it. I think private Bills stand in the same position now as public Bills, and that there can be no discussion upon the First Reading. The honourable Gentleman can bring forward his objection and discuss the matter on its merits upon the Second

  1339
  Reading. The Question is, That this Bill be now read a first time.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  ST. MARYLEBONE VESTRY ELECTRIC LIGHTING.
  Petition for Bill; referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour; —From Harleston; —London; — Gisburne; — Willes-borough; — Bathersden; — Ferndale; —Beaulieu; — Morecambe; — Thorn-aby-on-Tees; — Swansea; — Gorton; —and Ockley; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Whiteinch, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVANTS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Coventry, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Longton —and, Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Nottingham; — St. Cleer; "— Woodbridge; — Sunderland; — Kennington; — Haggate; — South Manchester; — Gloucester; — Tattingstone; — Coddenham; —Needham Market; — Trimley; — Capel; — Holbrook; — Walton; — Heckmondwike; — York; — Birmingham; —Ancoats — East London; — Chorlton-on-Medloek;—Mile End (two); —Longton (two); — Darlington; — Purley; — Copmanthorpe; — and, Pendleton; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh and Leith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition from Leominster, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REFORTS, ETC.
  ULSTER CANAL (TRANSFER).
  Return [presented 28th February] to be printed. (No. 85.)
  BIRTHS, DEATHS, MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND)
  Copy presented,—of the Forty-fourth Annual Report on the Births, Deaths, and Marriages in Scotland for 1898, and Thirty-fourth Annual Report on Vaccination (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION (COLONIES).
  Copy presented,—of Report on the Emigrants' Information Office for the year ended 31st December 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (CODE 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, with Schedules and Appendices, by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Revised Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors and applicable to the Code of 1899 (by Command) to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORT.
  Copy presented,—of General Report to the Education Department by the Chief Inspector of the North Central Division for the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1897–8).
  Annual Accounts presented,—for 1897–8 of Shipping and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 86.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (RE- PRODUCTIVE UNDERTAKINGS)
  Return presented,—Relative thereto (ordered 4th August 1898; Sir Henry Fowler): to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION (RETURN OF CON- SCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS).
  Return presented, — relative thereto (ordered 9th February; Mr. Bartley); to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH TENANT FARMERS (MONEY ADVANCED, ETC.).
  Return presented, — relative thereto (ordered 10th February; Captain Donelan): to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 87.)
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 498 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) CIRCULARS.
  Return ordered,—" giving text of all Circulars issued by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in connection with the administration of the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  William Moore, esquire, junior, for the County of Antrim (North Antrim Division).
  QUESTIONS.

    LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
    SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any serious attempt is to be made during the present Parliament to carry a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, such as is usually passed in the first Session of each Parliament; whether, by the absence of

    1343
    such an Act, the Land Tax Commissioners, by whom the Income Tax Commissioners are appointed, will gradually be reduced so as to consist of the ex-officio Commissioners, namely, county magistrates only; and whether a Treasury Circular pointed out some time ago that there ought to be some representatives of urban interests on a body which appoints the Income Tax Commissioners?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURT,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the answer to the last is in the negative. In the absence of such an Act as that to which reference is made, it is, no doubt, true that the Land Tax Commissioners would ultimately consist of ex-officio Commissioners only; but the time which has elapsed since the last Act was passed is only six years, or about the life of a Parliament.
    SIR C. DILKE: It is intended to go on with the Bill?
    MR. HANBURY: Yes, certainly.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that inconvenience has arisen in consequence of the Commissioners of Land Tax being summoned to attend meetings of the Commissioners by notice in the official Gazette only; and whether provision will be made in the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, or otherwise, that the Commissioners shall receive personally due notice in writing of the time and place at which meetings are to be held?
    MR. HANBURY: It is for the Clerk to the Commissioners to take such steps as he may consider necessary to secure a sufficient attendance at their meetings, and it is open to the Commissioners themselves to give instructions to their clerk if they have any reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which lie performs his duties. I am not aware that there has been any impediment to the dispatch of public business through negligence on the part of the clerks in this respect; and I do not think that there is any necessity for such legislation as the honourable Member suggests. The fewer changes that are made in this formal Bill the better.

    SIERRA LEONE.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, prior to the imposition of the Sierra Leone hut tax, Bai Bureh protested against it, and warned the British authorities that if persisted in it might provoke a native outbreak; whether, upon the occurrence of the outbreak, Bai Bureh gave a safe conduct to the British subjects within his territory, and escorted them out of the disturbed area; whether he repudiated the murder of Mr. Humphrey, and with his own hands executed the murderer; whether the native atrocities that were committed during the outbreak were in the Mendi territory, and not in Bai Bureh's territory; whether in the past Bai Bureh has been a steady ally of the British, and has rendered us valuable services against slave raiders; and whether, before the expedition against him was organised, Bai Bureh requested a safe conduct to Freetown, in order to plead his cause before Her Majesty's Special Commissioner; and, if so, why his request was ignored, and could he state the cost of the expedition incurred?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I cannot undertake to answer questions respecting the recent insurrection in Sierra Leone until Sir D. Chalmers' official Report has been considered. Meanwhile, however, no decision will be come to as to the ease of Bai Bureh.
    MR. HEDDERWICK: May I ask when the right honourable Gentleman expects to have the Report?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The Special Commissioner has completed his report—there will be no delay in presenting it after the Governor's observations have been received. The Governor, to whom I have sent a copy of the Report, is about to come home on leave, so that there may be some little delay. I do not think I shall be able to present it for about six weeks or two months.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the. Under Secretary of State for War how many guns manned and horsed there were in the Royal Artillery on 1st February in each of the years 1896, 1897, 1898," and 1899 respectively, that is, how the increase authorised by Parliament has been carried out?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM,): In the Royal Horse Artillery there were 116 guns manned and horsed on the 1st February of each of the years mentioned. In the Field Artillery there were 458 guns manned and horsed on the 1st February 1896 and 1897; to these a 6-gun battery was added by the 1st February 1898, and four 4-gun batteries by 1st February 1899, making a total of 480 gun's manned and horsed on the last-mentioned date, or an increase of 22 guns manned and horsed. By the end of this month there will be one more 4-gun battery, manned and horsed.

    SCHOOL BOARD TEACHERS AND THE ROTHERHAM ELECTION.
    MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, during the recent contested election for the Rotherham division of Yorkshire, certain assistant masters in the School Board schools in Actum-cum-Aughton district of that constituency distributed the polling cards and the election literature of the Liberal candidate by handing them to the School Board pupils; if they also permitted placards in support of the Liberal candidate to be affixed to the School Board buildings built at the expense of the ratepayers; and, if he will cause an inquiry to be made; and, take steps to stop proceedings, similar to those complained of, in any future election in any part of the country in favour of any political Party?
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): As to the facts stated in paragraphs one and two, the Committee of
    1346
    Council has, as I informed the honourable Member last week, no information. No complaint has reached the Department; and unless a distribution of election literature took place during school hours the Department have no power to interfere.
    MR. WEBSTER: I will give the right honourable Gentleman the names of the schools—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not entitled to do more than ask a Question.
    MR. WEBSTER: Then I will ask the right honourable Gentleman whether this did not occur in the Actum-cum-Aughton district. I will ask if two assistant masters in this school did not distribute to the children a vast amount of election cards and other literature for the Liberal candidate?
    SIR J. GORST: If the masters gave the literature to the children out of school hours the Committee of Council on Education have no power to interfere. The School Board might interfere, but if Ave did we should be told to mind our own business.
    MR. WEBSTER: I ask whether the literature was not given in school hours, and were not the bills fixed on the School Board building?
    SIR J. GORST: The Committee of Council have no power over the school buildings; the School Board may plaster its premises as it likes. We can only interfere in the conduct of schools in school hours, and in case complaints are made by the parents; otherwise we have no power to interfere.

    PUBLIC WORKS IN THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the grants made by the Congested Districts Board on account of the marine works, etc., as indicated in Application 5, page 18, of the Board's Report, will cover the amount required to complete all works commenced with grants provided

    1347
    under the Highlands and Islands Public Works Act, 1891; if not, will he name the works not provided for and the estimated amount required to complete each work?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the engineer acting for the Congested Districts Board that there is no work "entertained" under the Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891, which is not covered by the grants provided by the Congested Districts Board.

    SCOTCH FISHERMEN'S DWELLINGS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have yet made any arrangements for the erection and formation of fishermen's dwellings and holdings, as provided for under section 4, sub-section (e), of the Congested Districts {Scotland) Act, 1897; and, if so, in what districts?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have resolved to try an experiment in the direction indicated in the Question of the honourable Member, and they expect soon to be in a position to give further information, but it is impossible to do so in the present stage of the negotiations.

    SCOTTISH FISHERIES.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that a conference of several European Powers will shortly assemble for the purpose of discussing questions affecting the fishing industry, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of calling upon the Fishery Board to report as to whether it is desirable in the interests of Scottish fisheries that the three-mile limit should be extended?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: As the Secretary for Scotland is already informed of the views of the Fishery Board on the subject alluded to by the honourable Member and is in constant communication with them he sees no necessity for calling for a special Report at the present time.

    STREAMSTOWN TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
    MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, is it true that telegraphic messages are transmitted from the Streamstown, county Westmeath, Telegraph Office, but not received or delivered; and if the Postmaster-General would establish a proper service, and make provision for a very important district, parts of which are 10 miles distant from a telegraph office?
    MR. HANBURY: Telegrams are transmitted from Streamstown Railway Station, and are received, but not delivered outside the station premises, the railway company not having the necessary facilities. The Postmaster-General will be happy to open a telegraph office at the post office to serve the district in question, if a guarantee on the terms stated to the honourable Member on the 18th July last is forthcoming.

    DISTILLERY WORKMEN'S SPIRIT ALLOWANCES.
    SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Board of Inland Revenue have any power to allow spirits duty free to be supplied by the owners of distilleries to their workmen as a portion of their remuneration?
    MR. HANBURY: It has always been the practice for the Excise to allow owners of distilleries to issue to their workmen a certain allowance of spirits duty-free. This practice is based not on statutory authority but on the general powers of the board. The daily allowance is limited to two drams; and it has been permitted because it furnishes the best means for the prevention of pilfering.

    MILITARY PLUME.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the use of aigrettes in the Army has been abandoned, in accordance with the promise given last Session?
    MR. WYNDHAM: A new plume not made from the feathers of the egret has been approved.

    LOMBARD STREET POST OFFICE.
    SIR. J. LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it is the case that a substantial portion of the Lombard Street Post Office will no longer be available for postal purposes after midsummer next; and, if so, whether arrangements have been made to ensure that postal facilities hitherto existing in Lombard Street shall not be interfered with in consequence of insufficient space?
    MR. HANBURY: The house, No. 10, Lombard Street, now forming part of the Lombard Street Branch Post Office, having been acquired by an insurance company, will not be available for post office purposes after midsummer next, when the present lease expires. Arrangements are under consideration which will, it is hoped, materially diminish the inconvenience arising from the reduction of space.

    SPEY FATALITY.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with reference to the recent fatal accident on the Spey at the Aberlour-Elchies Ferry, he is aware that funds are available to build a bridge over the Spey at this point, and that the only obstacle is the refusal of the proprietor of Elchies to grant a site for the abutment of the bridge on his side of the river; whether he is aware that strong local feeling exists regarding this refusal; and whether, looking to the danger to the public from the present state of things, any steps can be taken to compel the proprietor to grant a site for a reasonable consideration?
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I regret I can add nothing to the answer I gave to the honourable Member for Elgin a few days ago.

    NAVAL STATISTICS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will furnish the name, age, and tonnage of each of the ships referred to in Sec. 11, Subhead L, Navy Supplementary Estimates, 1898–9; were the ships sold by
    1350
    public auction or privately: and, if privately, were tenders invited; and will he state the price obtained for each of the ships sold?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNEY,): Of the ships sold during 1898–9 10 were disposed of by tenders invited by advertisement; the remainder by public auction. In order to avoid wearying the House unnecessarily, I have directed the honourable Member to be furnished with the particulars as to the name, age, and tonnage of the ships in question.

    ROSS-SHIRE MILITIA TRAINING.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state in what month it is now proposed to call up the Ross-shire Militia for annual training?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It is proposed by the General Officer Commanding to commence preliminary drill on 5th July and training on 6th September.

    SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the names of the departments which, following the practice of the Science and Art Department, print on their correspondence paper a notice to the effect that all communications addressed to the Department must be written on foolscap paper?
    MR. HANBURY: A notice to this effect appears on the correspondence paper of the Board of Agriculture, Local Government Board, English and Scotch Education Departments, Public Works Loans Commissioners, and Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

    SCHULL UNION CLERKSHIP.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a face that Mr. Charles M'Carthy was recently appointed, after undergoing an

    1351
    examination, to the position of clerk to the Schull (county Cork) Union, the appointment having been sanctioned by the Local Government Board on 11th February last; and why Mr. Thomas Downes, Returning Officer for the county Cork, has refused to appoint Mr. M'Carthy as his deputy?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The office of clerk of the union was, however, vacant at the time the Election Order was issued, and hence the Returning Officer appointed a person other than Mr. M'Carthy to act as his deputy within the union.

    LURGAN MAILS.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the English and Scotch mails addressed to persons living outside the boundary of the town of Lurgan, but within easy distance of the town, are not delivered to the addresses before the day after their arrival at Lurgan; and whether, considering the serious inconvenience caused thereby, and the fact that, as a rule, these mails reach Lurgan before 9 o'clock every morning, he will make inquiry into the matter with the view of having them delivered on the day of their arrival at Lurgan?
    MR. HANBURY: The places referred to have only one delivery a day. A second post for the sake of the English and Scotch letters would not be warranted, and to keep back the postmen for the arrival of those letters would, it is believed, give rise to much complaint. But if the honourable Member will specify any place near Lurgan where the inhabitants generally desire a later morning delivery to include the English and Scotch letters, the matter shall be inquired into. Any application for a second post would, of course, also receive consideration.

    POST OFFICE TELEPHONE OPERATORS.
    MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if the operators on the Post Office local telephone exchanges are men or women, and what wages are paid to them; what wages are paid to those who operate the trunks; and if the usual increase of wages, and the holidays, pensions, sick-pay, medical attendance, and other emoluments are allowed to them on the scale customary to those employed in the Post Office?
    MR. HANBURY: With few exceptions, the operators on the Post Office local telephone exchanges are women. They, as well as the operators on the trunk lines, are at present unestablished, and have no fixed scales of pay, but proposals are now before the Treasury for settling their position and wages. In the meanwhile they are paid wages of varying amounts, according to their length of service, and are allowed holidays, sick-pay, and medical attendance, but, being at present unestablished, they are not entitled to pensions. All operators taken over from the National Telephone Company have been granted an increase of 4s. per week.

    IRISH MEDICINE TENDER FORMS.
    MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph published in the Dublin "Freeman's Journal" of the 2nd instant, under the heading Local Government Board Medicine Tender Forms; whether he is aware that the paragraph contains a copy of a resolution adopted unanimously by a board of guardians protesting most emphatically against the use of these forms as prejudicial to the purchase of certain medicines in Ireland; whether these forms quote from the price lists of English firms and in certain cases contain the fancy trade mark of English firms; and whether, in the encouragement of Irish industries, these forms will be discontinued, and boards of guardians and district councils

    1353
    be allowed to purchase with Irish money these drugs, medicines, and instruments from Irish firms in Ireland?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. In the Local Government Board's prescribed list of medicines, 11 out of the total of 416 articles given therein are quoted from the price list of an English firm (Messrs. Burroughs and Welcome), the strength of the preparation being stated in each case. These few articles have been added to 11 to 403 preparations of the British Pharmacopoeia included in the list, as being articles of well-established reputation. There is no foundation for the complaint contained in the resolution that the inclusion of the few preparations referred to in the Board's authorised list will be prejudicial to Irish manufacturers, and the Local Government Board have reason to believe that any list which excluded these 11 preparations of Messrs. Burroughs and Welcome would be considered incomplete by the medical profession. These articles have received the approval of the Loyal College of Physicians in Ireland. No objection has been received from the Irish drug trade respecting the Local Government Board's prescribed list of medicines.

    TUNIS CONVENTION.
    COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, having regard to the consultation of the Government with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce prior to the conclusion of the Tunis Convention, ho will undertake to consult the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacture of Sheffield prior to the settlement of any fresh commercial arrangement with Germany, having in view the importance of the subject to the trade and labour of the district?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODKICK,): In the negotiations with Tunis, special tariff' treatment in regard to cotton was contemplated and obtained, and the Manchester Chamber was therefore consulted
    1354
    on this point. No specific tariff stipulations are contemplated in the negotiations with Germany and Belgium, and though Lord Salisbury will be glad to consider any representations made to him ho will not necessarily require any expert advice.
    COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when the Treaty is going to be approved?
    [No Reply.]

    VOLUNTEERS.
    COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that reports are current in the public press of an intention on the part of the War Office to make extra demands of a serious kind upon the time of the Volunteers, which might have an injurious effect upon the strength of the force, both as to resignations and recruiting: and if, having regard to the increased attendance of late voluntarily given to drills and the annual course of musketry, he will say whether these rumours have any such foundation in fact to be a deterrent to those thinking of joining?
    Mr. WYNDHAM: An Order in Council will shortly be laid before Parliament to amend the conditions of efficiency as regards Musketry of Rifle Volunteers. The travelling allowances will be revised with the object of compensating the corps for any additional expense entailed by the new regulations. The new conditions will come into force on 1st November. The conditions have been made very elastic, so as to impose the least possible tax upon the time of Volunteers.
    COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: There will be no change in the present Volunteer year?
    MR. WYNDHAM: It will commence on the 1st November.

    DUBLIN PAWNBROKERS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that some of the pawnbrokers of Dublin are in the habit of sending unredeemed goods out of the city to be sold, instead of sending them to the divisional sale rooms provided by law, where they should be sold by public auction under the Control of the City Marshal and the City Sword-bearer; whether he is aware that the sending of these goods for sale out of the city is done to evade serving-notices required by law for the protection of the public, and avoiding the payment of certain fees to the City Marshal and Sword-bearer to enable them to provide, as they are bound to do by law, proper sale rooms for the sale of such goods within the city; whether the practice also exists of some pawnbrokers selling on their premises unredeemed goods without any notice being given to the owners of such goods or to the City Marshal or Sword-bearer; and whether, in the public interest, he proposes to take steps to stop these illegal practices?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Dublin police are not aware that unredeemed goods are sent by pawnbrokers out of the city to be sold. Such a course, if adopted, would be illegal and a contravention of the provisions of the Pawnbrokers Act. No complaint has been made to the police that pawned goods are sold without notice being given by pawnbrokers in accordance with the requirements of the Act, nor are the police aware that such goods are sold on the premises of pawnbrokers. If, however, the honourable Member is in possession of any definite information on the subject and will communicate it to mo I will be happy to have further inquiry made in the matter.

    MILITARY PENSIONS FOR PAUPER LUNATICS.
    MR. GOULDING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by the existing arrangement of sending military pensions in respect of pauper inmates of
    1356
    lunatic asylums direct to the asylums, the Secretary of State for War will revert to the former practice of paying the pensions to the guardians of the respective unions to which the pensioners are chargeable?
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): The arrangement referred to never came into force. It was found that the payment direct to asylums would involve hardship to the families of lunatic soldiers, and the practice of paying the pensions to the guardians was continued, no payments having been paid to the asylums.

    INNISKEEN RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, can he state 'the extent of the damage caused by the derailing of a cattle train some days ago at Innis-keen, on the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, when, as reported in the press, several dealers were seriously hurt, and a large number of cattle killed and many shockingly injured; were many of the cattle, in all degrees of mutilation, turned into a field and allowed to lie there in agony for many hours, as the railway management would not undertake the liability of directing their slaughter; and, if so, will a prosecution be ordered; and, has the cause of the accident been ascertained; if so, will he state it to the House?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The Board of Trade have ordered an inquire into the causes of this accident.

    NEW HEBRIDES.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to an interview between Sir George Turner and a deputation of members of the Foreign Missions Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, on which occasion Sir George Turner is reported in the Melbourne

    1357
    "Argus," of 21st December 1898, to have stated that—
    "At the last meeting of the Federal Council a resolution had been carried declaring that fresh efforts should be made to induce the French Government to prohibit French subjects from selling liquor or firearms to natives of the New Hebrides, and that if such action were not taken in a reasonable time the restriction on British traders should be removed. In view of the facts submitted to him, he would ask the Federal Council at their next meeting to rescind the latter portion of the resolution;"
    whether the Secretary of State has, as stated in the Melbourne "Evening Herald," of 6th December 1898, expressed himself as favourable to securing for British traders to the group equivalent rights with those of the French traders with respect to the sale of arms and alcohol to the natives; whether the Federal Council has rescinded the latter part of the resolution referred to above; whether there is any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to remove the restriction upon British traders, or in any way to permit or encourage the sale of liquor or firearms to these natives; whether any representations have been made to the French Government in consequence of the resolution of the Federal Council; and, if so, with what result; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider whether any steps can now be taken to establish among civilised and colonising nations international agreement and policy on the basis of prohibiting the sale of liquor and firearms to the people of the New Hebrides and other such native races?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is certainly not. I have never made any statement of the kind referred to. The answer to the third Question is that we have no information. The answer to the fourth Question is in the negative. In answer to the fifth Question, I have to say that repeated representations have been made, but without result; and in answer to the last, that Her Majesty's Government would gladly see, in the interests of the natives, such an international arrangement, but the difficulties in the way have hitherto proved insuperable.

    BROADFORD (CLARE) PETTY SESSIONS.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Petty Sessions at Broadford, county Clare, had lately to be adjourned in consequence of the non-attendance of a second magistrate, and that several of the local magistrates do not reside in the district, and inconvenience is caused thereby; and, if he will communicate with the Lord Chancellor in reference to this matter?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware that the facts are as stated, but I am making inquiry, and, if the result should justify such a course, I will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

    PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE IRISH GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the right honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland whether it is contrary to regulations for clerks of petty sessions and postmasters to take an active part and to speak at public meetings in favour of candidates for election as county councillors?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Clerks of petty sessions in Ireland are prohibited from taking any part in parliamentary, municipal, or poor law elections, except to record their votes, and it would be contrary to the regulations issued with the approval of the Lord Lieutenant for these officials to act in the manner indicated in the Question. I am informed by the Postmaster-General that similar regulations exist in his Department with reference to postmasters.

    MR. FRANCIS GARVEY, OF MURRISK, COUNTY MAYO.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Francis Garvey, of Murrisk, county Mayo, agent of the

    1359
    Congested Districts Board, is employed in connection with, the improvement of the breed of farm stock and poultry in a district in which his own tenants dwell; whether he is aware that Mr. Garvey was dismissed from the Royal Navy, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour, for stealing the money of a brother Naval officer, and, being subsequenty employed as Petty Sessions clerk at Louisburgh, county Mayo, had to be called on to resign in consequence of defalcation in his accounts; whether he is aware that on Mr. Garvey's claim for compensation for alleged burning of a dwelling-house, Sergeant Murphy swore he believed the arson to have been committed in the interests of the landlord; under these circumstances, will he call on the Congested Districts Board to dismiss Mr. Garvey; and, will steps be taken by the police authorities before the claim for compensation comes before the Grand Jury to make inquiries into the ground for Sergeant Murphy's belief that that arson was committed by someone in Garvey's interest?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question refers, among other things, to a matter which will come before the Judge at the Assizes, which open on the 18th instant. I would ask the honourable Member to be good enough to postpone it until after the case has been decided. I may state, however, that the constabulary will attend the Assizes for the purpose of giving information to the Grand Jury in connection with Mr. Garvey's claim for compensation.

    CREW SPACE ON BOARD SHIP.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in August 1894, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade issued instructions to their principal officers, pointing out to them that 72 cubic feet of space for each
    1360
    seaman on board ship was insufficient accommodation, and that the space might with advantage be increased to 120 cubic feet, as recommended by the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour as issued during 1894; and whether he proposes at an early date to introduce a Measure giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Labour?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the instructions referred to in the Question. They are not quite to the effect stated by the honourable Member, but a copy of them was included in Parliamentary paper C. 7,540 of 1894. I have reason to believe that many (if not the majority of) shipowners voluntarily provide even more space than the 120 cubic feet per man recommended by the Royal Commission. In these circumstances I am not prepared at the present time to propose fresh legislation on the subject.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, as section 125, sub-section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that the master of every ship arriving in any port in the United Kingdom shall exhibit to the officer of Customs, or to such person as the Board of Trade may authorise in that behalf, a statement containing a list and description of all lascars or natives of India who are, or have been, on board, he will supply a copy of such lists, as exhibited by the masters of the P. and O. steamships "Australia," "Sumatra," "Arcadia," and "Caledonia," on their last arrival in the port of London?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The lists referred to in the Question were, I understand, handed in to the Customs in the usual way. If the Customs raise no objection, I shall be happy to supply the honourable Member with copies.
    MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in June 1895 the Marine Department of the Board of Trail e issued instructions to their surveyors, directing them to take the necessary steps to enforce the disallowance of deductions from tonnage made for crew spaces when ever, under any circumstances, it came to the knowledge of such surveyors that crew spaces, including that provided for lascars, did not comply strictly with the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; whether, before issuing such instructions, the solicitors to the Board of Trade had been consulted as to whether the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act were applicable to lascars in like manner with other seamen, regardless of the port of engagement, whilst they were employed on British registered vessels; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the circular containing such instructions?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: As I have already stated in reply to similar Questions, I am quite aware of the instructions to Board of Trade surveyors to which the honourable Member refers. They were issued, as he says, in June 1895, and are still in force. Since then, as I have repeatedly stated to the House, legal points of considerable intricacy have arisen with regard to which the opinion of the Law Officers will be obtained. I shall be happy to show the honourable Member a copy of the instructions.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman when we may expect to have the report of the Law Officers of the Crown on this Question?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I can hardly say. But there ought to be no unnecessary delay. The honourable Gentleman must understand that until we have an opinion from the Law Officers contrary to the practice we have hitherto observed we shall continue to adopt it.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I point out to the right honourable Gentleman — ("Order, order!")— Then may I ask him if it is not pos-
    1362
    sible for the Law Officers of the Crown to get all the information they require in the Library?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: It is impossible for me to answer such a Question.

    WAGES DISPUTES IN THE SHIPPING TRADE.
    MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware under what circumstances a confidential Minute, warning Board of Trade officers against intervening in wages disputes between shipowners and seamen, was recently communicated to certain shipping papers; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into so serious a breach of confidence on the part either of some official or some member of a local marine board?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The Minute referred to by the honourable Member was issued on the ordinary form and a copy sent to each superintendent. On this form is printed a note that the papers are to be regarded as confidential, and not exhibited to the public unless specially authorised. This, of course, does not mean that the superintendents are not to communicate them to the local marine boards, who necessarily are made acquainted with all such Minutes issued to superintendents. I regret the publication of the notice, which must have been made either by some official or member of the local marine board. I do not think the matter requires any formal inquiry.

    LASCARS ON P. AND O. SHIPS.
    MR, HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether a Bill was submitted to the Indian Government in 1895, having for its object the increase of accommodation on board ship of seamen employed on the coast of India to 72 cubic feet of space per person, and whether this proposal was aban-

    1363
    doned in consequence of the opposition of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Shipping Company; and whether a copy of this Bill, with the petition submitted against it by the Peninsular and Oriental Company, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No Bill on this subject was submitted in 1893; Bills were put forward in 1892 and 1896, but neither of them contained any proposal for an increase of the cubic space allowed to each lascar seaman under the Indian law. The Question had previously been carefully considered by the Government of India, who had placed the subject before a select Committee for consideration; but the select Committee decided against making the change in the Bill which was then contemplated.

    ST. JAMES'S SCHOOL. NORTHAMPTON.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the last balance-sheet and school le port for St. James's School, Northampton, just issued, in which it appears that the new Aid Grant under 'he Act of 1897 amounted to £104, and converted an adverse balance on the previous year of £285 into a balance in hand of £56; whether the debt of £285 thus paid off had been incurred in whole or part before the passing of the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and the paying of this debt has been in contravention of Circular 410, of 5th January 1898; whether during the year for which the balance-sheet is given there has been a profit made of £341, and what are the purposes to which this profit has been or is to be applied; whether he is aware that the school is understaffed, in the second standard one assistant teacher has to teach 87 children, while in the infants' school, though the numbers have increased, the staff has been diminished, and nearly all the classes have had numbers largely in excess of the number of which the teachers are qualified; and, whether he will insist on the managers bringing up the staff
    1364
    and equipment of the school to the proper standard, in pursuance of the recommendation of the inspector that the staff should at once be brought up to the standard required by Article 73 of the Code?
    SIB J. GORST: The Aid Grants for two years were paid within the limits of the school year referred to. The second, amounting to £217 7s. 2d., was received by the managers about a fortnight before the close of the school year, and had, of course, not been expended. It is assigned to the maintenance of an improved staff and increased salaries, and to the provision of new desks and apparatus. There has been no infringement of Circular 410. The number 87 is the number on the books, and not the number in attendance; but the managers have been very properly warned that the class is too large for one assistant teacher. The girls' and infants' departments are understaffed. In the case of the former, a reduction in Annual Grant has thus been incurred: in the case of the latter, a reduction will be incurred if the under-staffing continues.
    MR. CHANNING: But am I not right in supposing that the accounts now quoted are for the years 1897–98, and that the sum has been paid out of the Aid Grant for 1896–7. Does that not constitute an infringement of Circular 410?
    SIR J. GORST: I am informed that the honourable Member's information is incorrect.

    SORTING CLERKS IN THE POST OFFICE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that telegraphists are allowed a double increment for possessing a technical knowledge, the Department will see its way to grant a similar increase of pay to sorting clerks who possess a thorough knowledge of counter and sorting duties, and are competent to perform statistical and general correspondence work in postmaster's offices?
    MR. HANBURY: NO, Sir.

    WRITERS IN THE ROYAL NAVY.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the vacancies for chief and other writers at present existing in the clerical staff of ships of the Royal Navy: whether he is aware that representations have been made as to the necessity of filling up existing vacancies in view of the fact that about one-third of the writers now in the service are detailed for duties in the home depots; and whether steps will be taken in this direction?
    MR. MACARTNEY: Six vacancies exist for chief and other writers in the clerical staff of Her Majesty's ships, which will be filled up as opportunities for passage occur. The requirements of the service up to the 31st March are complete, and representations made from time to time as to the number of writers required receive due consideration.

    LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
    MR. BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in regard to the London Government Bill, he can supply a reprint of the essential portions of the numerous applied enactments referred to in the body of the Bill, as well as the specified clauses of certain Acts referred to in Schedules I. and II.; and whether he can supply a map showing the scheduled and unscheduled areas, with their extent, populations, and rateable values?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOFR,): Experience shows that it is more convenient to Members to have in their hands copies of the Acts instead of sections from the Acts. I will take care to place in the Vote Office copies of all the Acts to which reference is made in the Bill and, if it be found necessary, a statement will be prepared giving the reference to the various sections of these Acts. I will arrange for a map to be placed in the Tea Room giving as far as possible the details asked for.

    ANTRIM COUNTY GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
    COLONEL McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the county Antrim the urban and district councils of Antrim, with 810 voters, are to have six members, while the electoral division of Ballyclare, with 925 voters, is to be represented at the district council by two councillors; and whether he will direct the attention of the Local Government Board to the matter, so that the anomaly may be amended?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think this Question must be incorrectly printed. I do not quite understand it m its present form. Perhaps my honourable and gallant Friend will repeat it to-morrow?

    ARMENIAN ORPHANAGES.
    MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to give any information with regard to the orders stated to have been issued by the Porte instructing certain provincial governors to close some of the orphanages founded and maintained partly or wholly by British and American funds, and established with purely philanthropic motives for the benefit of the Armenian population; whether the Governors of Kharput, Diarbekir, and Mosul are among those to whom the orders have been sent; and whether any steps have been taken to procure the withdrawal of the orders?
    MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople reports that the orphanages at Pallu and Chin Rush have been closed, and that the orphans in the similar establishment at Diarbekir have been sent out to private houses, where they are supported by the missionary funds. It is uncertain whether the orphanage at Zeitun is still open. It is not stated to what governors orders on the subject have been sent. His Excellency has made earnest representations to the Turkish Government to dissuade them from persisting in this course, and has warned them of the misery and bad effect which would be caused by such arbitrary and unjustifiable proceedings.

    CHINA AND ITALY.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make an exception to the rule requiring 24 hours' notice of Questions, and permit me, in view of the pressing importance of the subject to inquire whether the Chinese Government has refused to accede to the demands of the Italian Government for a sphere of influence with a lease of Sammun Bay as a naval base, and that the Tsung-li-Yamen has received a note from the British Minister at Pekin supporting the demands of Italy; and whether the Lequin dues of the Province of Che-Kiang (in which Sammun is situate) have been pledged by the Chinese Government as security for the repayment of the loan for 16 millions sterling."
    MR. BRODRICK: The Question only reached me a few moments ago. I must ask for notice to be given.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I will put it down for Thursday.

    COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it likely that the Army Estimates will be taken to-night?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:: Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will, at the same time, answer as to the Navy Estimates. I think it was left somewhat in doubt as to what course would be taken with regard to them.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: With regard to the Navy Estimates, the statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty will be made on Thursday next, and as soon after the statement as may be I shall move the adjournment of the Debate, following the analogy of last year, in order that honourable Gentlemen may have an opportunity of studying the Estimates in the light of the speech made by the First Lord. We shall then proceed with the Supplementary Estimates.
    MR. WEIR: Will the Navy Supplementary Estimates be taken on Thursday
    1368
    after the First Lord has made his statement?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope to take both the Naval and Colonial Estimates on Thursday after the Debate on the statement of the First Lord had been adjourned. I cannot at present state absolutely whether the Naval Supplementary Estimates will come before the Colonial Supplementary Estimates or vice versa. With regard to the Army Estimates, I hope to be able to take them to-night, and I think it will be desirable to do so. I was reproached by the right honourable Gentlemen opposite at the beginning of the Session with regard to the management of Supply, and was told I ought to press on the Votes, We have spent two nights over the Army Estimates on Vote A and Vote 1, and have not yet got Vote 1, although we have invariably got these two Votes in two days in previous years, even when we have had important discussions. I think it desirable to get on with these Estimates, and if the Government succeed in obtaining the first three Orders of the Day I shall proceed with the Army Estimates.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Does the right honourable Gentleman intend to proceed with the Navy Estimates even if they are not produced, or only produced on the morning of the day on which they are so taken?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We think it is important that the statement of the First Lord and the Naval Estimates should be considered together. The House will not be asked to come to any decision upon them, and it is for that purpose that I shall move the adjournment of the Debate after the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not contrary to precedent and the ordinary procedure to go on with the discussion of Estimates which have not been produced, in face of the resolution passed many years ago, and invariably followed, to the effect that the Naval and Military Estimates shall be produced and laid upon the table within 10 days

    1369
    of the setting up of Committee of Supply.
    MR. SPEAKER: I should not like to say whether the Estimates have always been laid on the Table within 10 days after the setting up of Supply. In some years I rather think that has not been the case, but I cannot say offhand.
    MR. MACARTNEY: The Navy Estimates were presented according to rule within the specified time. They were presented in dummy.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The rule is alluded to in Sir Erskine May's work.
    MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Resolution of 1821 still states the regular course.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, but it is not intended that the Estimates shall only be laid in dummy.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: If the Army Estimates are not reached at a reasonable hour, say before 11 o'clock, I suppose they will not be taken, as we have got something lively to say?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: According to my experience there is no more lively time than that which the honourable Gentleman indicates. I cannot imagine a better time or one in which there is a better chance of an audience.
    SIR. H. FOWLER: When will the Civil Service Estimates be presented in full? We are getting then in instalments.
    MR. HANBURY: I think on Wednesday.

    CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
    *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The Bill which I ask leave to introduce is in the main identical with that introduced but not proceeded with last year. It is designed to cure certain technical defects in a number of promissory notes obtained by loan societies in Ireland from persons who
    1370
    have borrowed money from them, by reason of which defects these notes have been decided to be incapable of being enforced. Under the charitable Loans (Ireland) Act of 1843, persons were enabled to form themselves into loan societies, to raise money by the issue of debentures, and to lend he money so raised to persons of a defined class resident within certain districts and under conditions specified rules were framed to regulate the working of the Act. These rules were not adhered to, and a very loose practice in many cases grew up. Interest and fines in excess of the sums authorised by the Statute were, in many cases, exacted. Loans were made to borrowers who were themselves sureties for other borrowers, and again borrowers became sureties for their fellows, and cash loans were made to persons resident outside of the jurisdiction, while the balance of previous loans had been discharged. Considerable privileges were given to loan societies who adhered to these rules. Their promissory notes bore no stamp. Their treasurers could sue in the Petty Session Court before justices at a trifling cost. These privileges would be lost if the defects were not cured. Again, if the debts be not made recoverable the debenture holders will lose all the money they have invested. In their interest, as well as that of the borrowers, it is absolutely necessary that the notes should be capable of being enforced in the cheap and expeditious mode provided by the Statute. But provisions are introduced to guard the borrower against being compelled to pay anything more than is equitably due. Credit will be given him against that sum for all moneys he may have paid in excess of what is legal for interest or fines. The court can make a decree payable by instalments during a period not exceeding three years, and compound interest is not to be charged. From the absence of nil proper materials it is necessary that the account of the amount due which must be taken should not extend back beyond a period of six years from the date of the note. Honourable Members will see that the debt of the borrower is limited to what s equitably due, and the mode of recovery provided for is as little burdensome as it well can be, while, as far as possible,

    1371
    the interest of the debenture holders is protected.
    MR. DILLON: This is a Bill which deals with a subject of very great complication, and which affects most seriously the interests of many individuals, both borrowers and lenders. The Bill of last year excited the most widespread and intense interest in the districts of Ireland which have been affected by these loan funds. I would impress upon the Attorney-General for Ireland that it is essential that the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill should be taken at a time when fair and reasonable discussion can be had upon it. I do not intend to go into the merits of the Bill at present, but I would impress on the Government at this, the opening stage of the controversy, that this is a most peculiar case, because the loan funds were instituted under a Statute, and all their operations were conducted under rules made under that Statute, and under the direct superintendence of the Local Government Board. What was the effect of that? A number of poor people put the whole of the savings of a lifetime in these loan funds, holding that the Government superintendence was an absolute security for their funds; and, on the other side, people who borrowed were led to believe that as that was done under Government rules and superintendence there was an absolute security against fraud. I shall content myself with reading one passage from the Report of the Committee which sat on the Bill last year in order to strengthen the position I take up. The position I take up is this: that if it is found that justice cannot be done in this matter to borrowers and lenders alike without loss of money, that loss should fall not on the borrowers or lenders who borrowed and lent under the sanction of Government control, but should fall on those who are found responsible for gross mismanagement. Here is the passage in the Report—
    "Whatever may have been the case in the early days of the Loan Fund system, at the present time, in the majority of societies the management, so far from being under the control of representative local Committees, has passed into the hands of men who are merely moneylenders, and who have taken advantage of the Charitable Loan Fund Act to open private money offices. They have, in
    1372
    fact, ingrafted on the Charitable Loan Fund system many of the worst features of 'gombeenism,' and, relying on the facilities in regard to recovery of debts afforded by the Loan Fund Act of 1843, have issued loans with a recklessness that would soon have reduced a private moneylender to insolvency. Loans Have been issued indiscriminately and without regard either to the character of the applicant or his ability to repay the advances, the only consideration being the solvency of the sureties."
    The entire blame for that scandalous condition of things rests with the Government inspectors and their subordinates, who ought to have put a stop to it long ago. I press on the Government that this important Measure, affecting the very existence of large numbers of poor people, must be discussed in all its stages, and the Government ought to accept the principle that the loss which had been incurred should fall on those responsible for the mismanagement.
    MR. ATKINSONthen introduced the Bill, which was read a first time.

    HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF, JOINT COM- MITTEE.
    Question proposed—
    "That Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. James William Lowther, and Mr. Wharton be nominated Members of the Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords on the Permanent Staff of both Houses of Parliament; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; that three be a quorum."—(Sir It William Walrond.)
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I oppose the appointment of this Committee, and on various grounds, geographical—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! A Resolution has been passed that a Committee on the Permanent Staff of the Lords and Commons be appointed in conjunction with a Committee of the House of Lords. The only question now is the nomination of the members of the Committee. The honourable Member can object to any name on the list. The question is that Sir Charles Dilke be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff Joint Committee.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In order to put myself completely in order l oppose the nomination of my right honourable Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, although, at the same time, I do not think there is any person in the whole House who would be more competent. The reason why I oppose the nomination is the there is no Irish Member proposed to be appointed on the Committee. The right honourable Gentleman seems to imagine that Ireland is non-existent, and that Irish Members are non-existent. On a question of this nature Irish Members should be represented on the Committee, and I am simply amazed that no Irish Member is to be on it. I would be very glad if the right honourable Gentleman would give some explanation.
    SIR W. WALROND: I am not responsible for the nominations.
    SIR C. DILKE (, Forest of Dean): So far as I am concerned I would be very glad to give way in favour of some other honourable Member.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    Question put, and agreed to.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Question is that Mr. John Ellis be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff joint Committee.
    MR. DILLON: Can only one Member speak on each nomination? What I should like to draw attention to is the extraordinary principle which appears to have been adopted in the nomination of this most important Committee. It is a matter in which the Irish Members have taken a very important part, and I venture to say that but for the attitude of the Irish Members the Committee would not have been appointed. What strikes me as most extraordinary in the present instance is that actually on this Committee there is no Irish Member, no Scotch Member, and no Welsh Member. It is the case of the predominant partner with a vengence. If it had not been for the Scotch, the Welsh, and the Irish Members there would have been no such Committee appointed. The Debates on which the Committee took origin were maintained almost wholly by the Irish, and Scotch Members, and I say it is a very strange
    1374
    proceeding that this Committee should be nominated, and that no representative of either Wales, Scotland, or Ireland should be upon it. I venture to suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever is responsible for the nominations, that he should allow the matter to stand over in order to see if a more reasonable arrangement might not be come to. None of us have any personal objection to the Gentlemen who are nominated on the Committee. They appear to be admirably chosen, but there is no reason why the Committee should not be enlarged. It is a strange thing that so great a departure should have been made from the usual custom of the House.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is there to be no explanation
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Question proposed—
    "That Mr. Hanbury be a Member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff Joint Committee."—(Mr. Pirie.)
    *MR. PIRIE: I do not at all desire to take away any credit which honourable Friends from Ireland may claim as to the origin of the appointment of this Committee, but I would remind the House that Scotland is entitled to some credit for the appointment of this Committee. At the risk of being accused, perhaps, of pertinacity, I addressed at least four Questions last Session to the First Lord of the Treasury before I obtained the appointment of this Committee. This questioning began in May and was continued till July, but the Committee was not actually appointed till the month of August, at the very close of the Session, and so a whole year was lost. I therefore confidently maintain that Scottish representation had a great deal to say in the appointment of this Committee. This fact at the same time only brings out the more strongly the absolute one-sidedness of the composition of the Committee as now moved. I think that all Nationalities should be represented on the Committee which deals with such an important affair as this. I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the Debate, in order that the Government may possibly see

    1375
    their way to remedy this state of matters.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate cannot be made, but I may propose to the House an adjournment if I think proper. I think that under the circumstances of the case, and as there seems to be some misunderstanding, causing opposition to the nomination of the Committee, it would be better if the Question were put, that the Debate be now adjourned.
    SIR W. WALROND: The House has just nominated two honourable Members from the other side of the House. The remaining three come from this (the Government) side of the House. In these circumstances, I adhere to the names that I have put down.
    MR. DILLON: We are surely entitled to some more explanation than we have got.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question is, that the Debate be now adjourned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    The Debate stood adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHBR (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WATS and MEANS in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum not exceeding £2,000,000 for making further provision for improvements in the system of telephonic communication, and to enable local authorities to raise or apply money for telephonic purposes."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURT,): The Resolution which I have to move is in two parts, and adapts itself to the
  1376
  two clauses of the short Bill which is to be founded upon it. The first portion of the Resolution is to enable the post Office to extend its means of telephonic communication by the extension of exchanges. I think the Committee will agree with me that the very first question which we have to ask ourselves is this: Whether the Post Office is perfectly free to undertake this task—I say free, not merely technically, but morally free—free not only in law, but in equity, in honour, and in good faith free. If it be so free, there is a public property of the taxpayers which we have to protect, a property which ought to be developed, in order to bring the telephonic communication of this country up to the level of what it is in other countries. At the present moment we in England are_ very much behind in this respect. In Norway and Sweden I find there is one telephonic line for every 145 of the population; in Switzerland, one for every 170; in Denmark, one for every 210; in Germany, one for every 450; and in the United Kingdom only one for every 636 of the population. Well, that, at any rate, is a sufficient indication of how far behind we in the United Kingdom are in respect to telephonic communication. Now, the Committee last year was perfectly unanimous against the claim put forward by the National Telephone Company. What was that claim It was a claim that they had the right to go everywhere all over the United Kingdom, but they also claimed the right to refuse to go anywhere. They claimed, in fact, to have rights without any corresponding duties. They claimed that they could go into these areas, and that, they being there, there should be no competition whatever with them, and that, even if the local authorities refused to give them way-leaves, that was not their fault, but the fault of the municipalities, and that they were still entitled to be there without competition. The Government, naturally, has been, and is, most anxious to be perfectly fair to the National Telephone Company. It would be mere folly not to recognise fully—and most unjust not to recognise fully—the work which the National Telephone Company has done. It has done a great deal in the country to develop telephonic com-

  1377
  munication. A great part of the work has been done by this Company; but while we want to be fair to it, our fairness must rest rather upon established facts than upon any preposterous pretensions, such as the Company has put forth. I believe in that respect the Company has been its own worst enemy. We want to base our treatment of the Company on established facts. What are these established facts? In the first place, the Company is working under the old licence of 1884, which was a licence granted in the very height of public competition, and almost directly after Mr. Fawcett changed the Government policy and decided that he would grant licence everywhere and to everybody that applied for them. The Company's is the only existing licence at the present moment which is not a purely local licence, and that licence enables the Company practically to set up areas everywhere. In addition to that, the Company has got all the old privileges attaching to the old licence—that is to say, it has now become a monopoly. In spite of that fact, it has got all the privileges which are denied even to the smallest local monopoly of gas and water. It has the right to refuse services; there is no limit to its maximum; and it is entitled to give preferences, and it does use that power. Let me quote the clause which stands in this old licence of 1884. It is a very stringent clause. It provided that—
  "Nothing in these presents contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the Postmaster-General from time to time to establish, extend, maintain, and work any system or systems of telegraphic communication (whether of a like nature to the aforesaid business of the company or otherwise) in such manner as he shall in his discretion think fit, neither shall anything herein contained prejudice or affect the right of the Postmaster-General from time to time to enter into agreements for, or to grant licences relative to the working and user of telegraphs (whether of a like nature to those worked and used by the company or otherwise), or the transmission of telegrams in any part of the United Kingdom with or to any company, person, or persons whomsoever upon such terms as he shall in his discretion think fit. And nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorise the company to exercise any of the powers or authorities conferred on or acquired by the Postmaster-General by or under the Telegraphs Acts or any of them."
  Well, that being so, what has happened since this licence was granted in 1884? One thing, of course, has happened; the
  1378
  Company has bought up all the other existing companies. It has done its best to defeat the policy of competition. But is that any reason why competition should cease forthwith. It does not in any way have the effect of preventing the Postmaster-General from exercising his full right to grant fresh or new licences. But something else has happened. A new agreement was drawn up in 1896—only two years ago—a very moderate agreement. And that new agreement retains the old clause of the licence of 1884. And that clause has the same meaning in the agreement of 1896 as it had in the licence of 1884, and that clause and that meaning have been carried on by a series of steps from 1884 to the present day. It was alluded to in the Treasury Minute of 1892; it was referred to in the Fergusson draft of 1892; it was again repeated in the Morley draft of 1894, and was inserted in the Norfolk agreement of 1896. These negotiations took four years, and they were based entirely on the Treasury Minute, which declared the new policy of the Government. And what is that Treasury Minute There are reservations contained in it in the strongest terms—so strong, that when articles appeared in "The Times" newspaper declaring the position of the Company, the strange compliment was paid to this Treasury Minute of leaving out the one important clause in connection with this question reserving the right of competition. What is that clause It reads—
  "As to fresh licence, no further licence for the whole country will be granted; and, ever, for a licence to establish an exchange in a particular town no application will be entertained unless a formal resolution in its favour has been passed by the Corporation, or other municipal authority, and evidence given that there is sufficient capital subscribed to carry out the undertaking In this way, competition will not be excluded, but a check will be imposed on the formation of companies whose sole object is to force the existing licencees to buy them up. But, although this is the policy which commends itself to Her Majesty s Government, it must be distinctly understood that, should licences hereafter be granted on ether principles, no company now or hereafter to be licensed will have any ground to complain of breach of contract or want of good faith on the part of the Postmaster-General."
  Well, I think that makes the point quite clear, so far as the agreement goes. It

  1379
  reserves in the strongest terms the right of competition, and leaves no ground to complain of any breach of contract or want of good faith on the part of the Postmaster-General. But we were told constantly before the Committee that there was some understanding, some undertaking at the back of this public agreement. All I can say is that, when the agreement of 1896 was signed, neither the present Postmaster-General, nor anyone at the Treasury, knew of any such undertaking or any such understanding. We had before us on that Committee two ex-Chancellors or the Exchequer, and two ex-Postmasters-General, and they all denied that they had given any such assurance or entered into any such undertaking or understanding. And it was also disproved in writing. Confidential letters of great importance were produced on the last day of the Committee sittings, which showed that private negotiations had been going on, and that the National Telephone Company had tried to get this understanding, but that the Post Office had very properly refused to give any such undertaking. In addition to that, we have, of course, what really clinches the matter—the statement of Mr. Forbes himself before the Committee. I am now reading from the Keport—
  "Before the same Committee Mr. Forbes himself was examined, as follows, as to this evidence:—Q. 46,430: Mr. Lamb, whom we examined, or who was a witness on behalf of the Post Office, said (think I can almost quote his own words) that the Post Office was certainly not in law, on the strictest interpretation or the agreement, in any way debarred from granting competing licences, and that it was under no obligation, even in honour, not to grant competing licences? A.: believe they are absolutely free. Q. 4,644: You agree with him that there is not even an honourable engagement on the part of the Post Office not to grant competing licences? A.: The Post Office are absolutely free. I will go a little farther, and say that in all the negotiations (which were prolonged) there never was the slightest suggestion, directly or indirectly, of any such cession on the part of the Post Office of a promise or pledge to lock up their own discretion."'
  Well, looking at it apart from the evidence I have read, ask would it not be perfectly monstrous that, in a public agreement of this kind, which is the only written agreement which the public could see, there should be at the back of
  1380
  it on the part of Ministers or of any Department, any undertaking to the effect that the agreement did not mean the whole of what it said I Bill Mr. Forbes himself, very properly no doubt, abandoned altogether any idea of any such an understanding of this kind when the whole purport was made plain to him. It is only fair to say with regard to Mr. Forbes that his voice is always the voice of a very simple person indeed, almost like the simple shepherd in Arcady; but the hands are the hands of a very able chairman of a Company in the City. And so, before us, he took a totally different stand. He said, with some fairness—
  "I am not bound by a mere written agreement, such as binds ordinary men of business; the moral law alone is the thing for me."
  And from that point of view he enlarged with a certain suave satisfaction upon the great moral obligation of the assumed partnership between him and the Post Office, and the mutual delights which follow from a system of brotherly co-operation. Of course, one objection to a picture of that kind is this, that while our agreement is perfectly full, concise and clear, the moral law, when it depends on too simple-minded an interpreter, is apt to vary with the individual requirements of the interpreter, and sometimes with the varying conscience of the individual himself. That undoubtedly has been the case here. Take the case, for instance, of co-operation. Cooperation is a very pretty word, and no doubt it was mentioned in the Treasury Minute, that is to say, we were to put them in connection, as a rule, with our trunk lines, and no doubt there was a great similarity of interests between the two. But it never went to the extent of indicating that we were never in any circumstances to compete with them. Mr. Forbes's interpretation of co-operation, however, was that we were never to compete with him; we were to co-operate with him in all his exchanges. But when the Post Office has an exchange of its own, the National Telephone Company is to compete with it tooth and nail; and is to refuse to put itself in connection with its partner, with whom elsewhere it is anxious to be on such

  1381
  friendly terms. A further case was raised, and it was this—
  "Oh, but, after all, the main point is that we abandoned the trunk lines."
  That plea is put forward as if this again was an instance of self-sacrificing, brotherly affection, as if nothing was received in return, as if it was a purely unrequited gift. But what are the facts of the case? In the first place at the present moment the trunk system and the messages sent along it represent only 3 per cent, of the whole. And at the present moment the messages sent along the local lines are 97 per cent, of the whole. We bought and paid for these trunk lines and we gave an ample price for them. After several years of use we not only bought them at the original cost price, but gave 10 per cent, in addition, which represents, I think, a very adequate recompense to the Company. With regard to the lines so taken over; they were alter all much the least important of the existing trunk lines, because they were mainly tie shorter trunk lines, where competition was possible and least expensive to lay, and the Government might have licensed another company to start trunk lines against them. Since we have taken over the trunk lines it has become a very different matter. We have had to lay long and expensive lines and, of course, as the House knows, the cost of these lines has been very considerable. But there is another thing. It is not as if the National Telephone Company had lost the use or the benefit of the trunk lines, for ever since these have been taken over by the State the use of the trunk lines has practically been monopolised by the subscribers of the National Telephone Company themselves. But in addition to that we gave them further advantages; we undertook that no more general licences extending over the whole country should be issued, and as a matter of fact, no more such licences have been issued to companies. The trunk system has been largely extended, and we have given them facilities for opening exchanges that did not exist before. We established a submarine cable between this country and Ireland, which threw the whole of Ireland open to the Company, and we gave them very important way-leaves under our agreement of 1896. These are very tangible
  1382
  advantages, which anyone would find it, even with a refined and superfine moral philosophy, difficult entirely to explain away. I hope I have shown to the satisfaction of the Committee that we are free both legally and morally to compete. But are we free to refuse to compete? About that, I admit, I am not so sure. There are two questions that have to be answered. We have to ask ourselves in the first place, "Is the service efficient?" and in the second place, "Is the service sufficient?" To both of these questions the Committee last year unanimously gave a negative reply. Now, on the question of efficiency—on what after all does me efficiency of a service like this mainly depend? It mainly depends, of course, on way-leaves, and way-leaves, undoubtedly, this Company has not got, and will not be able to get in the future to the extent it wishes. And why has it not got them I It has applied to Parliament time after time, but Parliament is not going to over-ride the local authorities, to impose everywhere and in every locality in the country a company on these local authorities without their permission. And so, backed up by Parliament, the municipalities are refusing to grant these way-leaves, and if they are not granted, you cannot have an efficient service. The Post Office sees the municipalities refusing these way-leaves, and naturally hesitates to use its own power to take them. If it did, the House of Commons would be the first to protest against it. What is the position of *he Company in regard to existing wires s it; has got 143,000 miles, of wire, and out of these 143,000 miles of wire, no less than 120,000 miles, on the admission of the manager of the Company himself, are on sufferance, and terminable at very short notice—at the utmost, in 12 months. Is it tolerable that the great telephonic system, so important to the trade of the country, should exist any longer on sufferance? What do these way-leaves mean? They are of three kinds. In the first place, there is the laying of the wires between the various exchanges of the Company in the same area. These are absolutely secured to them—I don't say they are important—by the written agreement with the Post Office. But there are two other kinds which are of much greater importance. There is the wire which connects the subscriber with

  1383
  the exchange. That means, of course, that as the number of subscribers increases, the Company is constantly taking up the streets, and it is against that that the municipalities protest very naturally. And if a company is not allowed to take up the streets for the purpose of connecting its exchanges with its subscribers, as far as any advantages given to the subscribers is concerned, the system falls to the ground. Then there is this further difficulty. What is called the single-wire system prevails in places like Glasgow, and is largely used over the rest of the United Kingdom. But it is impossible that the single-wire system should be an effective or efficient system. The Treasury Minute prescribed that no company hereafter licensed should have anything but the double-wire or the metallic-circuit system. It is absolutely essential to the efficiency of telephonic communication. But in order to lay the double circuit they would have to take up the streets again, and the municipalities refuse to grant any such permission. The result is that in Glasgow and other large boroughs where the single-wire system is in use, the service is an inefficient one. But then you may have a much more important consideration, and that is this: that the Post Office is under no obligation whatever to put them into communication with its trunk wires between the Post Office and the exchanges. The agreement of 1896 distinctly states that the Post Office is under no obligation whatever to do anything of the kind, that the company must provide its own way-leaves between post offices and exchanges: and those way-leaves are being refused by the municipalities. I am bound to say it is reasonable in a case of that kind that the Post Office, although under no obligation, should meet the wishes of the company, and it is as a matter of fact, using its powers to connect the company's exchanges with its own trunk wires. I pass from the question of the efficiency of the service to that of the sufficiency of the service. And here, again, I do not think any blame can be laid on the municipalities. It is entirely due to the licence originally granted to the company itself. Under that licence the company has got most unusual powers—powers never granted even to small localities or municipalities. In the first place the company can pick
  1384
  and choose the localities it will serve. It may, for instance, choose one locality and refuse to serve another locality. Naturally, of course—I don't blame it for that; it is what everybody would do under similar circumstances—it chooses the more profitable areas and leaves, the less profitable areas for the Government to undertake. But more serious, I think, than this choice of localities is the fact that even in the same locality it has the right while it gives telephonic communication to one man to refuse it to his neighbour. That is our principal objection; that is a power which ought not to be in the hands of any private company whatever, of discriminating between two tradesmen engaged in the same trade, and in keen competition. Similarly it has the right to levy different rates from different localities, and even from different persons within the same locality. Then, again, we have the further fact disclosed by Mr. Forbes, that the company has no intention whatever of extending its system after 1904. If that is to be the case, and their licence expires in 1911, it is absolutely necessary that some other competitors should come into the field to supply the void between 1904 and 1911. There is another important fact connected with this want of sufficiency of the service, and that arises out of some very important evidence given by Mr. Gane himself. I was almost astonished that he should have given such evidence. This evidence was given in connection with the present system. Let me describe to the House what the present system of subscription to the National Telephone system is. I will illustrate it by the parallel case of telegraphs. If the Post Office were to say that nobody should send a telegraphic message who did not subscribe £10 or £15 a year, and that nobody should receive a message unless he also subscribed £10 or £15 a year, and were to further say that, having paid that subscription, they might send as many messages as they liked—that is the system which the National Telephone Company is applying at the present moment—I say it is an absurd system, and it has had the effect of limiting the advantages of telephonic communication to rich subscribers. Mr. Gane himself was the very first to admit very frankly that it is an

  1385
  absurd system. I will read his own words—
  "There is no doubt whatever, as far as my judgment goes, that not only this country, but nearly all other countries, commenced this telephonic service on wrong principles. The essential principle is, in my opinion, the payment per message; that is, according to user; but how to get back again to that is the difficulty. … I say most frankly to the Committee that, in my humble judgment, the whole principle on which these charges have been founded is a wrong principle."
  Indeed, Mr. Gane says that the National Telephone Company was anxious to go back to the proper system, which is not the subscription system, but the throwing the telephone open to the public on the toll system—that is to say, you pay for each message you send, and any person may send a message. The company tried this system in Sheffield, and what was the result, according to Mr. (Dane's own evidence! He held a public meeting in Sheffield, and he stated to the people that he was anxious to do away with the subscription system, and go back to the tolls. But he was mobbed by the rich subscribers, and he told us that at one time he thought he had very little chance of leaving Sheffield alive. That being the case, this service is naturally limited to a small class of rich subscribers. It is not right that a means of communication of this kind, so essential to the trade of the country, should be limited to its subscribers. What, then have we to do We have to introduce competitors who will, in the first place, be assured of their way-leaves, and, in the second place, will be perfectly free to introduce a system which will popularise telephonic communication. It is for this reason, therefore, that we are bringing in this Bill. What do we propose to do tinder this Bill? This Resolution proposes to ask for two millions of money to develop telephonic communication on the part of the Post Office. The first place to which our operations will extend will be London itself. Of course we shall have over a large amount of money for the work in the smaller municipalities. I shall probably be asked if two millions is enough. I do not say that it is enough, or that that is the final sum we shall spend, but it will enable us to carry on for a considerable time. I have been
  1386
  considerably abused for a statement I made in this House that for two and a half millions we might be able to replace the whole of the whole of the National Telephone Company. But that statement was confirmed by Mr. Gane himself before the Committee. A large portion of the company's lines consists of private wires. Now, with private wires we have nothing to do, as they are outside the monopoly of the Postmaster-General, and there is nothing to prevent the National Telephone Company, or individuals constructing private wires. Private wires, therefore, have to be left aside. We have to deal entirely with public wires. And of these Mr. Gane in his evidence said there were only 96,000. I was astonished to hear there were so few. Mr. Gane told us that the cost to the company of these wires had been on an average £40 per wire. It was also admitted that there was something like a million and a quarter of capital on which dividends were not being paid. It was admitted by Mr. Forbes that the capital was watered. Well, 96,000 wires multiplied by 40 gives a little under four millions—£3,800,000. If you deduct from that £1,250 000 of watered capital, on which Mr. Forbes admits dividends have not been paid, it leaves us a little over £2,500,000—the very figure that I gave to the House last year. When, however, Mr. Gane gives us, his figure of £40 per wire I am bound to say that that seems a very large sum indeed. £40 is the price for which wires can be constructed in London, which is the most expensive place in the world for constructing telephonic communication. But in Glasgow actual tenders have been received at an average considerably under £19 per wire. I say if you take an average of £30 per wire throughout the whole country you are taking an average very much in excess of what is necessary for telephonic communication. If you multiply 96,000 by 30 you get a very different result indeed. So far, then, from being wide of the mark in my estimate of two and a half millions, it should on this calculation be con-considerably over two millions. Now, I may be asked why London has been picked out from among the other large towns. It has been chosen for two reasons. In the first place, the area of the London exchange is something enor-

  1387
  mous. The boundary line of the London exchange area is 634 square miles, with a population of 6,000,000. The public wires number 19,000, representing more than one-fifth of the whole of the wires of the country. In that large area the Post Office is determined' to compete at once. It may be said, "Why are you not entrusting these powers to the London County Council or the other local bodies?" Well, in the first place, the area is enormously larger than anything controlled by the London County Council, and even if it had been a more limited area the London County Council would have much preferred that the Post Office should undertake the work. But the plain reason why, in London above all other places, the Post Office is to take the work itself, arises out of the question of way-leaves. The London County Council is not a road authority, and it would not be able to exercise way-leaves, and it would, therefore, have been almost impossible for the London County Council to work the telephonic system over that large area. Then it may be asked: "Is the Post Office fit to undertake a work of this kind?" Well, you know the way in which the Post Office has hitherto done its work. The Post Office has got the trunk lines, and I do not think anybody will deny that the trunk wire system in London is, perhaps, the best in Europe. The evidence was to that effect. The Post Office does its work thoroughly even under present conditions, and shows a considerable profit. I do not deny that the Post Office has hardly had a fair chance. There has been a tradition that it ought not to oppose the National Telephone Company, and that has, no doubt, had its effects. But the Post Office has been hampered much more by certain Treasury regulations framed in the year 1884, which seem to me perfectly ridiculous. Though we started the Post Office and told it to work a telephonic system in the metropolitan area, we tied its hands behind its back, so to speak, and made it impossible for any effective system to be carried on—hampered as it was by these Treasury regulations. But these Treasury regulations have been withdrawn, and I hope that in the future, with its own exchanges, it will do its work as any business firm would do it, and that the competition will be a real and genuine competition. I also
  1388
  ought to say that we do not propose to work on the system of subscriptions only —which is the present system—but we propose to adopt the system prevalent in Switzerland, by which you pay a very small subscription—I believe the subscription for London will be about £3 a year—and after that you pay a small fee for every message that is sent, as you do for every telegram sent. We mean to popularise the system and throw it open to the whole country—to rich and poor alike. And I am bound to say that when we have got the double currents, it will not only tend to popularise the system, it will prevent any unfair competition with the National Telephone Company. I believe there is work for both the Post Office and the company in London, and, indeed, in all exchange areas. I believe we shall not draw away to any great extent the pre sent subscribers to the National Telephone Company, but we shall draw our clientele from a totally different class of subscribers, and that the two systems will work satisfactorily side by side. In addition to that, we are going to establish a system by which the Post Office will arrange, by means of express letters and otherwise, to work more harmoniously with the telephonic system than hitherto. That is a portion of the agreement of 1886, which has not yet been carried out. The result of enabling a telephonic message to be delivered by express messenger and the toll system we are about to inaugurate, will be that anybody, whether a subscriber or not, will be able to use the telephonic system. That will be of advantage to the public, and will go a long way to ease off the competition of the National Telephone Company. So much for what we are going to do in regard to the Post Office system. I now come to deal with the question of municipalities. What we propose to do is to enable certain large municipalities—we have fixed the population limit at 50.000, which corresponds roughly with the county boroughs—to start a municipal telephonic system of their own, and, at the same time, we hope that they will be able to start at once. We are not going to nut them to the trouble and cost of a Provisional Order. All that is necessary is by a clause of the Bill to enable them, if they receive a licence from the Postmaster-General, to work a telephonic system

  1389
  themselves at the cost of the borough rates. It may be said, Why do you not extend the system further, to the smaller municipalities? There are two reasons for that. In the first place, of course, we shall have a large amount of money over, even after London has been dealt with; and I am sorry to say that so many large areas have been granted by the Post Office that, granted the fact that it is absolutely necessary that the municipalities should work over the whole of the areas, it would be impossible for any but large municipalities to work over the whole of the large areas which have been conceded to the National Telephone Company. That, therefore, goes a long way to make it difficult for the small municipalities to engage in this work themselves. I ought to have added that we not only enable the municipalities to work within the area of their own jurisdiction, but we enable them to work outside that jurisdiction if they can make private arrangements with the local authorities for way-leaves. Well, again—because I want to be absolutely fair to the Company—I ask, Is this fair to the National Telephone Company? They have raised, I know, special objections to the granting of licences to municipalities. They have said, "We can compete against a company, and, of course, can buy up a company, but we do not like to compete against—we can hardly compete on fair terms against—a municipality." Well, again I say there has been no understanding whatever that licenses should not be granted to municipalities. These confidential letters, to which I have referred, do disclose the fact that the National Telephone Company had a very hard battle with the Postmaster-General of the day. They did everything they possibly could, by every scheme they could devise, to prevent the Postmaster-General granting any such licences. They endeavoured, to the very best of their ability, to extract such a promise from him, but he absolutely and finally refused to give any undertaking of the sort whatever. In fact, he said it would be grossly unjust to give it, and as I said just now, no such undertaking was ever given; it all. Still. I do recognise the fact that competition with a municipality may be a very serious competition for the National Telephone
  1390
  Company; I will take two cases. There is the case of the way-leaves. It is perfectly true that a municipality will be able to grant itself way-leaves which are refused to the National Telephone Company. Of course, it will be equally able to grant way-leaves to a rival company and still refuse them to the National Telephone Company. But what we do propose—and, of course, arrangements of this kind will be put in each licence—is that if the National Telephone Company will be reasonable, and if, in the interests of the public service, it will connect its system with that of the municipality, then it ought to have exactly the same way-leaves as the municipality. Then, again, with regard to the purchase of the plant at the end of the period at 1911. We quite admit that we shall get no municipality to undertake this work, unless it has some promise that, under certain conditions, its plant will be purchased, and we perfectly admit that it would not be fair to give that concession to the municipality and refuse it to the National Telephone Company, even though at the present moment we are under no obligation whatever to buy one single pennyworth of plant from the National Telephone Company in 1911. But we admit that it will not be quite fair to be under an under-taking to buy the plant of a municipality and not purchase that of the National Telephone Company. Therefore, we shall be perfectly willing, in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, when there are these two systems in competition in any respect, to give a pledge to purchase the property of both; that is to say, all that is good and useful, giving, of course, a preference to the municipality, because it will be the last in the field. I think that is a perfectly legitimate and fair arrangement as between the two. Well, one other point I should like to mention, and it is this. Again I ask with regard to the municipalities what I asked in regard to the Post Office, Are they fit to undertake this work? Undoubtedly we have the Report of the Treasury Commissioner from Glasgow reporting against their fitness in two respects. He said that, in the first place, he would have refused the grant of a licence to the Corporation of Glasgow, because, he said, the area was not

  1391
  sufficient; and, unfortunately, at that inquiry the Glasgow Corporation only asked for a licence for their own area. Of course, it would have been absurd to grant a license to them only within the area of their jurisdiction, and not enable them to work in the larger area around them. That difficulty of the Treasury Commissioner has been got over by allowing them to work, as the National Telephone Company does, outside their own areas, of course, as the result of private agreement with the local authorities. Then the Commissioner said that the telephone was not of common advantage, and, therefore, it ought not to be constructed at the cost of the rates. But nobody would maintain that the telephone system, as it is worked in this country, is for the common benefit. It is limited almost entirely to a particular class of rich subscribers. Under the system which we intend to introduce, it will be popularised, and we shall require the municipality to bring their wires into our own Post Office exchanges, and we shall require the system to be thrown open to everybody within that municipality, so that question of common benefit is got over. Well, of course, there is one other question we shall have to consider at the present stage, and that is with regard to the limitations to be imposed upon these local authorities. We shall, of course, reserve our right to purchase at the then value of the plant, and we must insist, in the interests of the general public, that there is the most absolute right of free inter-communication between all these rival systems all over the country. That, I think is an absolutely necessary and reasonable condition to impose; and coupled with that will also be the limitation that they are not to impose terminals against one another and against the Post Office itself. I hope the Committee will agree that by this arrangement, which I have described at, perhaps, too great length, we have done our best to do two things; we have done our best to extend and popularise a system of communication in which this country is behind-hand at the present moment, but which I think is vital to the trade and commerce of this country; and at the
  1392
  same time I hope that even the National Telephone Company itself will recognise that we have done our best in this competition, which must come, to ease it off, and establish it on the fairest possible practical terms, so far as the company is itself concerned. There is only one other result that I should like to mention, which I hope will follow from the system we propose to establish, and it is this. Hitherto what I believe might be a great trade in this country has gone abroad. All the principal appliances for the telephonic communication have to be purchased in Sweden, in Norway, and, I believe, in Holland. I hope that if we have competitors in the field, if we have a large extension of our telephonic system of communication, if we have these three services working side by side, we shall get such competition that a trade for making these telephonic implements, wires, and the rest of it will be established in this country, and we shall not any longer have to make these purchases abroad. If we can do that, then I think some very useful results may probably follow from this small but, I hope, very useful Bill.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I think that as the right honourable Gentleman has throughout his speech, in almost every sentence, referred to the National Telephone Company, the House will not think it improper that, being a director of that company, I should rise at once, and offer some remarks upon what has fallen from the right honourable Gentleman; and perhaps the House will also: allow me to say that I do possess a great knowledge of this question, because I was the Postmaster-General to whom he referred just now, who made the agreement with the National Telephone Company in 1891—an agreement which certainly did not lack strictness. I entirely agree with the right honourable Gentleman in what he said about the absolute discretion reserved to the Post Office—that the Government of the day was most careful to maintain, and it had had no idea of doing anything else. The right honourable Gentleman took some time in main-

  1393
  taining the absolute right of the Post Office to compete with the National Telephone Company. I think he must have had some misgivings in his mind whether his scheme was so absolutely fair as he asserted, or he would not have excused himself so profusely. I never should have thought of questioning for a moment the absolute right of the Postmaster-General to compete with the National Telephone Company in every town in the country where the National Telephone Company had an exchange, or his absolute right to license any other company, and wherever the companies failed to do their duty to undertake this work himself or to license a municipality to do it. But, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman has indicated that telephony has made imperfect progress in this country, and has not gone as far as might be expected. Well, Sir, there is no doubt of that. It has not gone as far as its best friends could have wished, and certainly not as far as the National Telephone could have wished, because they have made constant and active endeavours to push the system all over the country, and I think I may say that wherever 12 or a score of persons can be got to become subscribers, there an exchange is immediately open. Still, it has not done so badly, if you consider at this moment that, with nil the powers of the State behind the Post Office, there were only 75,000,000 telegraph messages sent in the year, while there were 450,000,000 telephone communications—450,000,000, as compared with 75,000,000, which does not look as if nothing had been done—and if you consider that for every 12 words in a telegram the sender has to pay sixpence, whereas in a telephone communication two persons are placed in connection and speak on an average about 100 words at a cost of about ½d. I am now obliged to stand, to a considerable extent, on my defence. The right honourable Gentleman has treated the National Telephone Company as a criminal to some extent, as an enemy of the public, and especially of the Post Office. From the time that the agreement was obtained in 1892, and especially since it was completed in 1896, until the right honourable Gentleman himself took office, the Post Office and the National Telephone Company had been in the most complete harmony; they had been co-operating together,
  1394
  in the words of the Minute, and there had been no sort of difference between them. The National Telephone Company sometimes thought that the Post Office was hard upon them, but no allegation was made on the part of the Post Office that the National Telephone Company was not doing its duty. And, in fact, before the Committee of 1895, the scientific advisers of the Postmaster-General told the Committee that the company was doing its work extremely well, that the system was the very best that could be introduced, and that they were pushing their business as far as they could. Well, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman says that the company has this evil feature in it, that it holds a monopoly, but it has not been, like gas and other companies, limited by restrictions placed upon it, and it has unlimited power to charge what it likes. Sir, I do not quite understand how the right honourable Gentleman could make such a statement as that. What is the reason why the company is not restricted in its charges? It is because it has no rights, no powers. Gas and water companies and others have compulsory powers; they can place their undertakings where they like by using the powers given under their Acts, just as the railway companies can, and where there are such powers, naturally there are corresponding restrictions. The National Telephone Company has absolutely no right to put a wire across any public road or property or anywhere else, except with the leave, in the one case of the local authority, and in the other of the individual whose house is crossed. Well, of course, there is a very great distinction between the two. But the check upon an abuse of their powers by the company, where there are no statutory restrictions, is that the Postmaster-General retains in his own hands the power to give licences in competition wherever, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1892, the company is not doing its duty. Now, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman quoted the terms of the licence of 1884, and also the Treasury Minute respecting1 the full right of competition by the Postmaster-General, in proof of the fairness of what the Post Office are now proposing. I am sorry to spend so much time, but let me point out, as I am entitled, I think, to do, what were

  1395
  the terms upon which this licence was obtained. Now, in the first place, the right honourable Gentleman rather ridiculed the idea of the brotherly cooperation. Well, Sir, the blessed word co-operation was not coined by us, but it is in the forefront of the Treasury Minute of 1892, which laid down the principle upon which the Government were going to make agreements with the telephone companies—
  "The proposals of the Postmaster-General will enable the telephone companies and the Post Office to co-operate in services to the public."
  It is distinctly to be a co-operative service. Any honourable Member who chooses to refer to the Treasury Minute will see that it is a true description of it to say that it was the intention of the Government of the day, and the Government which succe8eded it, that the Government should assume the trunk wires for the protection of the telegraphic revenue and the control of the whole service, while the companies were to operate in the areas. Well, Sir, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, pointed out very plainly that it was in friendly co-operation that it was intended to act, though the Government should retain the power of competing or giving licences for competition in certain circumstances. The right honourable Gentleman, on 29th March 1892, said—
  "It had been suggested that the local authorities themselves might be willing to undertake the telephone business, and he saw nothing to contradict the Government's policy in such a proposal. If there was a town in which a telephonic system had not been established and in which the local authority wished to undertake the system, there was no reason against such a course."
  Then later on he says—
  "The licensees had been warned that the Government retained the power of issuing licences. He thought that it would be an evasion of the spirit of the licence if during the continuance of the licence they took the whole of the telephonic arrangements into their hands to the detriment of those who on the faith of the licences had been extending the system up to the present moment."
  Therefore I say, without any fear of contradiction, that the intention of the
  1396
  Government was to co-operate with the companies in the trunk wires, and to give the companies freedom in these areas, holding over them the power of the Government at any time to introduce competition if the companies were not doing their duty. Then the right honourable Gentleman said that the company had fought the Post Office tooth and nail. Did he mean to imply that the company tried to get subscribers from the Post Office exchanges by under-cutting Post Office rates? That is really not the case. I will beg the right honourable Gentleman's attention for one moment. What did he mean by saying that the National Telephone Company pressed into competition, tooth and nail, with the Post Office? I say they did no such thing. I say that the Post Office for the most part withdrew their competition, and the company did nothing more than push their business in the areas respecting which they were licensed.
  MR. HANBURY: What I meant was, that the Post Office had several exchanges—at Newcastle, Cardiff, and 20 other places. The National Telephone Company came in afterwards and fought those to whom we had given licences tooth and nail.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Cardiff was one of the areas sanctioned to the National Telephone Company. Why did they sanction that area if the company was not to go and supply every house: n the town if it could with telephones? And how can the Post Office complain of the company operating effectively in this area when they expressly licensed that area to them?
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office does not complain at all. All we say is that that was not co-operation.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: There was no idea that the company was not cooperating. The right honourable Gentleman has mentioned the solitary case of Cardiff. There were similar exchanges in Newcastle, and, I suppose 20 other places. Does he say there was not cooperation at Newcastle?
  MR. HANBURY: I meant in every exchange of the Post Office.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Every exchange! And the Post Office made no objections! They never intended the company not to do go, and they to a great extent benefited by its development. The right honourable Gentleman says there were ridiculous recommendations.
  MR.HANBURY: Hear, hear!
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I never heard a Secretary to the Treasury talk of the regulations of his own department as ridiculous before; but I suppose that in the right honourable Gentleman's opinion everyone who came before him was prejudiced and narrow-minded. I think we have a right to complain that the company have been put into competition with the Post Office, and virtually excluded from the areas in which they had established themselves. The Post Office, with the long purse of the State at their back, could, if they pleased, have put the company into a corner in several parts of the country, but they never attempted to do so, because cooperation of the company with the Post Office was the intention of the agreement, and was fulfilled up to the time the right honourable Gentleman came into office. Well, then, the right honourable Gentleman asks, "Is the service efficient?" Now it is a curious thing that he has never referred in any way, so far as I know, to a judicial inquiry held two years ago in Glasgow in consequence of the desire of the Corporation of Glasgow to have a telephonic system of their own. A very experienced and skilful judicial adviser, a Sheriff, was appointed to conduct this inquiry; able counsel were employed on both sides, and the first question put to the Commissioner was whether the service was efficient and sufficient? The right honourable Gentleman never referred to that. The Commissioner said the service was not bad.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg pardon, he said it was not efficient.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: He said it was not as good as it should be, and the main reason why it was not as good as it should be in Glasgow was because the municipality would not give facilities to the company which
  1398
  most other towns had done. The main reason why the service was not efficient in Glasgow was because the Corporation refused to the company facilities which were necessary to make the service efficient. It was found that many allegations that were made against it were not established. The right honourable Gentleman says, "Is it tolerable that a great system should exist on sufferance?" Well, the company can only work on the system that Parliament allowed. Parliament refused to give us compulsory powers. Put it is rather hard that the company should be blamed because their system only exists on sufferance, when that is the only term upon which they are able to work. The right honourable Gentleman really ought to ascertain the facts a little better before he addresses the House. Last year the right honourable Gentleman told the House that the whole of the plant of the company could be bought for about £2,000,000 or £2,500,000.
  MR. HANBURY: I said it could be replaced for that.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Well, I took that first because it was not a fair description. Then he said that the single-wire system was still largely used over the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact it is now only used to about 25 per cent., and it is being replaced as fast as possible. He talked about watering the stock again to-night. Very well, now let me tell the House the facts of the case, and talk about watering the stock afterwards. There was no idea of purchasing any company at a fancy price: all that the National Telephone Company did was to purchase other undertakings at their market price, and that alone. But the actual expenditure of capital in the undertaking—that is to say, the actual construction cost—really amounted to £5,000,000 sterling. Now, it is not, of course, to be denied that some of the money has been spent twice over, because in every undertaking I suppose there are mistakes made. The National Telephone Company set up a single wire system all over the country. Then they had to put the wires under ground, and, no doubt, the capital expenditure was much greater than it would be for another company which started with the whole knowledge

  1399
  possessed by the old company, and it cannot be a reproach to the old company that it had spent capital in that way. Take any large railway company. The London and North Western Railway Company, for instance, has had to rebuild its stations and do its work twice over because the original constructions were not sufficient. Let me illustrate watering. I recollect quite well that when the London and North Western bought up the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway it guaranteed 9 per cent. I suppose that means that everybody who holds one of the original Carlisle Railway Company's shares at the present time could sell it at £300. The fact, however, remains that of £6,264,000 capital, over £5,000,000 has been spent in construction, and the annual gross revenue is equal to the amount of the "watered capital." The right honourable Gentleman has spoken as if £40 per instrument is a large capital expenditure, but that is the cost the company has found necessary from experience, and I do not believe that it can be done for less. No doubt the restrictive regulations imposed by Government to protect the public revenue tended to cripple the Telephone Company, and one object of the agreement I helped to carry through was to remove the restrictions, whilst safeguarding the public revenue. It is not the case that the company has been alone slow, and that the Post Office has done everything possible to extend the trunk wires. Would the Committee be surprised to hear that there are many places to which the Post Office has refused to make trunk wires, except on the guarantee of interest by the National Telephone Company? The right honourable Gentleman has said that the company claim to pick and choose where they should lay their lines. This I deny. As a matter of fact, wherever even 12 subscribers could be obtained, the company opened an exchange. Up to the time when they were so violently threatened the company was going ahead as fast as it could. I would further point out that the only reason why there have been different rates is that in some places the working cost is much greater than in others. The right honourable Gentleman has referred to Mr. Forbes' statement that after 1904 the company could not lay out any more capital. But Mr. Forbes added that the company could not
  1400
  after that date lay out more capital without the approval of the Post Office, because otherwise it would not be possible to get it back. There is not, I think, anything unfair in that. As to the propriety of charging a low subscription, with a sliding scale of payment according to the number of messages sent, the company was considering that before it was proposed to the Committee, but it was not carried out for fear of provoking violent displeasure in commercial communities, which are very jealous of any change. Indeed, one Chamber of Commerce has expressed a strong objection to such a scheme. The right honourable Gentleman is quite wrong in asserting that the present tariff of the company limits the use of the telephone to the richer classes. In London alone there are no fewer than 300 public call offices, at which anyone can send a message on payment of threepence, or can telephone a message and have it delivered by express messenger to a non-subscriber for an extra threepence. In fact, the general public have just as much access to the telephone as they have to the telegraph. I was glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman's statement with regard to a plan by which municipalities are to compete with the company. It would have been an injustice, too gross for any responsible Government to propose that a municipality should have a licence, and be able to take up their streets for wires, and yet refuse the National Telephone Company a similar power.
  MR. HANBURY: We only give these way-leaves to the company where they consider the public interests can work hand in hand with the municipal system.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Does that mean that the few subscribers on a municipal system are to be put in connection with every subscriber of the National Telephone Company, not only in the same area, but all over the country?
  MR. HANBURY: The right honourable Gentleman must see that, even supposing the municipal system is not in co-operation with the National Company's system, its subscribers have the right to ask for the trunk wires.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Most properly; but does the right honourable

  1401
  Gentleman mean that the municipal subscriber is to have the right of connecting, without any payment, with any subscriber of the National Telephone Company all over the Kingdom?
  MR. HANBURY: The National Telephone Company will undoubtedly be able to charge terminals. The municipalities will not be allowed to charge terminals, but undoubtedly that right cannot be taken from the company.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must express a doubt as to the perfect fairness of this proposal. The right honourable Gentleman has said that the Post Office will in 1911 purchase such of the properties of the National Telephone Company as are useful to the Post Office. I never for a moment imagined the Post Office would do anything else. I do not know who invented the idea of the company compelling a fancy price.
  MR. HANBURY: May I explain to the right honourable Gentleman that at the present moment there is no obligation whatever for the Post Office in 1911 to buy one single pennyworth of plant?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Does the right honourable Gentleman suppose that I do not know that as well as he? That is exactly what I was saying. I never thought at any time that the Post Office would in 1911 take from the National Telephone Company anything but what suited them, and at its real value. The National Telephone Company have done nothing which should make them be treated as criminals and enemies of the public. Nothing is so much disliked as a monopoly. The force of circumstances has brought the whole system of the country into the hands of one company. It is only natural, when there are competing systems, and resulting confusion, that one should swallow up the other. That fact has been recognised by the predecessors of the right honourable Gentleman. They found it more convenient to have all the systems in one hand, but as long as they hold in terrorem over that company the power to give a new licence, it is absolutely impossible that the monopoly can be abused. I can assure the Committee that all the National Telephone Company desires is to have fair play and free competition. Cer-
  1402
  tainly, if the company is not strong enough at this time of day to compete on fair terms, it is very badly managed; but it is not fair to tie a man's hands behind his back. The company is now actually told that the Postmaster-General will not bring the company's subscribers into the Post Office in any area in which the Post Office competes. Moreover, although it was stated in the House at the time by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that the grant of way-leaves for a nominal rent was part of the agreement of 1892, we are now told that the Postmaster-General will not grant way-leaves to the company in any area where he is competing.
  MR. HANBURY: I explained to the Committee that the only way-leaves that the Post Office ever contemplated giving, the only way-leaves which they were bound to give by the agreement, were the only way-leave which they were change in the same area.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: One of the chief conditions made in return for the surrender of the trunk wires was that way-leaves should be freely granted at a nominal rent, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time actually made an apology for charging anything at all. This is grossly unfair competition, and I am surprised that any Government should be a party to it. I never thought in 1892 that such an interpretation would be put upon the agreement. I should be ashamed to belong to any company against which any just charges of unfair dealing could be brought; but the National Telephone Company, which has the greatest ability at its command, has endeavoured to make the telephonic system of this country as good as possible, and I am only sorry that a Minister should treat it with the hostility which the right honourable Gentleman has shown.
  *SIR C. CAMERON: As one who has taken a great interest in telephone matters and moved a Resolution in this House a good many years ago on the subject of the expropriation of the company, and as an active Member of Mr. Morley's Telephone Committee, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words on this question. In the first place, I have to con-

  1403
  gratulate the right honourable Gentleman upon the bold, comprehensive, practical, and statesmanlike statement that he has unfolded to the House. It is by far the most statesmanlike exposition on the question that has been made ince the invention of telephones. I have heard Lord John Manners, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Raikes, and various other Postmasters-General on the subject, but I must say that the right honourable Gentleman has manifested a grasp of the question which surpasses anything which I have ever heard or seen in any of his predecessors. Now, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir James Fergusson) has shown a great deal of one admirable quality, and that quality is audacity. Audacity, audacity, toujours I'audace! The right honourable Gentleman depicts the company, of which he is a distinguished member, as a public benefactor, which had done so much to develop the telephone. Why, Sir, that company, from its initiation, has done nothing but try and prevent other companies from lowering their charges. A Friend behind me (Mr. Provand) got up a cheap telephone company in Manchester. But everything was done to stop that company, and finally it was bought up, though I do not know whether it was to his advantage or not. Again, there was the case of Dundee, where an independent £5 Telephone Company was established by a local company. That was got hold of by the National Company, and the price raised to suit its ideas. Take a more recent case. When the right honourable Gentleman was Postmaster-General he signed an agreement the day before he left office. But what was that agreement? Was it an agreement with the National Telephone Company? No; it was an agreement with two companies, giving no monopoly, but establishing competition. It was an agreement not only with the National Telephone Company, but with a company called the New Telephone Company, presided over by the Duke of Marlborough. The New Telephone Company was called into existence to meet the demand for an improved telephone service, especially in London, and pledged itself to let the public have the service very much cheaper than the National Telephone Company, and some 7,000 telephone users pledged themselves to subscribe to its system. But the
  1404
  moment the agreement was signed, under which equal privileges were granted to the competing companies, the National Telephone Company "squared" the New Telephone Company, left the subscribers in the lurch, and purchased the whole control of the new company. I do not blame the National Telephone Company for having adopted a policy of this kind. They wanted to make money, and they made money. The right honourable Gentleman has told us that the gross income of the National Telephone Company is five millions a year.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not say that. It is the actual cost of construction.
  *SIR C. CAMERON: I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say that that was the gross income, but that point is immaterial. The company has managed to fairly recoup itself, and if it finds itself in an unpopular position, if it finds itself brought face to face with the representatives of the people and obliged to submit to strict justice dealt out to it with a strong hand with the present public demand, it has itself to thank for having been a little too greedy. The right honourable Gentleman told us that if any man in the street were to go into the public call office and to telephone to another man on the Telephone Exchange, he would be in an equal position with a subscriber. Here you have to telephone to have it written down, and the other man has to telephone his message again, which has again to be written down and sent off, so that there is all this delay and much more delay than there would be by telegraphing, and at twice the cost.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: How can you telephone to a man who is not a subscriber unless there is a charge for delivery?
  *SIR C. CAMERON: Of course, I am perfectly aware of that, but I do not imagine that the Post Office will charge him 6d. for a single message and 6d. for the reply, or the man would do just as well by telegraphing. Now the right honourable Gentleman talked about terminal charges. I would warn the company, when this Bill is passed, not

  1405
  to be too greedy, as they have been in the past. What will the result be? When Edinburgh and Glasgow have exchanges of their own they will not set up terminal charges against each other; and if the National Telephone Company tries to make terminal charges extortionate it will find itself underbidden, and will lose its business. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee further. I congratulate the right honourable Gentleman again upon the most admirable scheme which he has propounded, and the boldness with which he has dealt with this question, and I think I may assure him, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, that if he proposes to expend public money, even to the extent of millions, in a manner so beneficent, so useful, and which promises to be so profitable, he will have the warmest support—and certainly not the opposition—of honourable Gentlemen on this side of the House.
  *MR. BOSCAWEN: Like the honourable Member who has just sat down, I desire to congratulate my right honourable Friend upon his statement, and upon the scheme which he has propounded this afternoon, which I feel sure will be very gratifying to all those who have held that the country has suffered very much from the unregulated monopoly of the National Telephone Company. We are all glad to find that the recommendations of the Committee, made last Session, have been adopted almost en bloc, and I hope that, partly through the Post Office and partly by municipal competition, we shall be able to get rid of that monopoly which has been such an incubus on the country for the last few years. We have heard to-night a very interesting defence of the National Telephone Company by my right honourable Friend behind me, but in that defence he has really given us all we ask for, because, although lie tells us in the case of Glasgow that the service given by the National Telephone Company was very good, he added that it is not good enough, and I am quite prepared to admit that not only in Glasgow, but in other places, the National Telephone service is very good, but it is not good enough. It is because we want something better than what the National Telephone Company
  1406
  consider "very good" that we are supporting the Secretary to the Treasury in his proposals.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I said it was very good considering, because it was only a single wire.
  *MR. BOSCAWEN: Yes, that is so, but my point to-night is that, although it may be very good, yet it is not good enough. I simply want to put to my right honourable Friend, with reference to the National Telephone Company, this one question: How is it that whereas in almost everything else—in telegraphs, in railways, and in the general application of scientific machinery—this country is ahead of almost every other country, yet in telephone matters we are behind almost all? How is it that in Norway and Sweden one in 147 of the inhabitants are on the telephone, whereas in England there is only one in 636? Surely, the fact that we are so far behind other countries is abundant proof of the fact that the service provided by this company, though it may be very good, is not good enough for the people of this country. Now, I can say, in a very few words, what is the reason why the telephones are behind in this country. It is because, owing to this monopoly, the price charged is prohibitive to all except the richer classes. The right honourable Gentleman tries to make a point against that by saying, "Oh, that is not so, because in London there are 300 public call offices, where anybody can come and send a message for threepence." Well, what are 300 call offices in an enormous city like London? But, as a matter of fact, the number given in evidence before the Committee was not 300, but 237, and you have in London in the telephonic area six millions of people to 237 public call offices. Now in Stockholm, with only a quarter of a million people, there are no less than 700 public call offices; so I think that under the system adopted at Stockholm you get something a good deal better than what is afforded by the "very good" of the National Telephone Company in London. Then my right honourable Friend disposes of what was said by the Secretary to the Treasury by saying that the figures which he gave last year as to the

  1407
  amount which will be necessary to replace the plant of the National Telephone Company were wrong, and he says that the statement about the watered stock is inaccurate. But that was not the statement of an opponent of the company, but of Mr. Forbes himself, for he told the Committee of 1895 that at the date when the rival companies had been absorbed by the National Telephone Company—
  "The total amount of money spent in the actual construction of the thing was £1,813,000; but the amalgamation value and purchase value was £3,105,000. The difference (what some people are pleased to call the water value) was £1,292,000."
  Therefore, Mr. Forbes himself, the chairman of the National Telephone Company, admitted that £1,292,000 did not go into the construction of the thing at all, and, therefore, I contend that my right honourable Friend is absolutely right when he deducts that amount before he arrives at the actual cost of the construction of the Telephone Company. There are two other points I should like to refer to in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman. He seems to think that there is some idea in the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury, or of those who, like myself, acted with him upon the Committee, that we are not dealing fairly with the company. Now I should be the last man in the world to ask this House to deal unfairly with any company; but, as a matter of fact, we claim that we are dealing absolutely fairly with this company, and I take it that the only reason why my right honourable Friend thought it necessary to explain this point in detail was because Mr. Forbes, before the Committee last Session, set up a most ridiculous plea that there was some sort of moral undertaking that we were not to compete with the company, a plea which he never attempted to take up when he gave his evidence, and a plea which is disposed of by all the parties who were parties to the agreement with the National Telephone Company. Mr. Forbes chose—most unwisely, I think—to pretend that there was some moral ground, some point of honour, by which we were not at liberty, consistently, to compete with the company; but it was necessary that we should brush that away and make that point clear to the public. Then there was another point.
  1408
  My right honourable Friend seemed to think that we had brought a very unfair charge in our Report against the company by saying that one of their strong points which they relied upon is that they can pick and choose their subscribers. Now we hold that in the public service there should be no picking and choosing of subscribers.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: I did not say so> and I said nothing of the kind.
  *MR BOSCAWEN: But if the company has the power to refuse new subscribers, which it has, it is perfectly clear that they have the power to pick and choose and refuse as much as they like; and we contend, and we contended before the Committee, that a public service like this should be open to everybody, and that there should be no power whatever on the part of anybody conducting such a service to pick and choose, or to refuse anybody who is anxious to come on and make use of the telephone. Well, now, there is one other point of my right honourable Friend—he says that we have conjured up a fancy idea that in 1911 the Post Office will be forced to buy up the undertaking of the National Telephone Company at a fancy price. I must say that I do not think that there is any idea of them buying out the undertaking, the only question is of their buying out the plant; but the Post Office are bound to consider this—that unless they take some steps in the meantime, they will inevitably be put in a very difficult position. In 1911 either one of two things must happen—that the Post Office must buy the plant of the National Telephone Company at a price to agreed on between the company and the Post Office, and that will probably be a very high price; or else the whole telephone system of the country must come to a dead stop, which is a state of affairs which nobody can contemplate for a moment. Unless precautions are taken now, in the years which elapse between now and 1911, and unless the Post Office begin to set up their own system, the price of the Telephone Company will be forced up to a very much greater figure than it is really worth in 1911.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: What grounds have you for saying that?
  *MR. BOSCAWEN: My grounds are simply these: the Post Office cannot re-

  1409
  new the licence in 1911, and they cannot put a stop to telephony at that date. They will have to come to you and buy your plant, and the National Telephone Company will be their masters, and they will have a very strong say as to what the price of the plant is to be. In the interests of prudence the Post Office would be very wise indeed to take some precautions in the meantime, and either set up a plant of their own or else enable municipalities to set up a competitive service wherever they are willing to do so. My right honourable Friend reminds me that the plant might be bought by the Post Office under the Arbitration Clause in 1904, when arbitration may take place between the parties; but I happen to know that one party, the National Telephone Company, have a very inflamed idea of the value of their plant. I venture to think that there would be a very enormous waste of public money if the Post Office bought the plant in 1904 at a price which would be much higher than it is really worth. Well, I think that at the Committee—which performed very arduous duties—it was proved up to the hilt that, first of all, the present telephone service is absolutely inadequate; secondly, that competition is immediately wanted; and thirdly, that the only two possible forms of competition were, firstly, by the Post Office, and secondly, by municipalities. Now as to these two forms of competition, both of them are proposed by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. As far as the Post Office goes, I think every member of the Committee realised the force of the words which were inserted in the Report to the effect that though they might have confidence in the Post Office in this question of telephones in the future, they had no confidence in the manner in which the competition of the Post Office had been conducted in the past, which had been ineffectual. Nor would people have confidence that the Post Office would do any better in the future than in the past unless they set up an entirely new telephone department, as is intended, to compete with the National Telephone Company, under which the Post Office would start an effective service and not repeat its old practice, which consisted in never attempting to get new subscribers and
  1410
  granting to its rivals every possible concession and advantage. Then as to municipalities, I personally think that if the Post Office can avail itself of the assistance of those municipalities which are willing and able to undertake to provide telephone services, as they have provided gas, and water, and the electric light, and so on, I think that will help the Post Office to bridge over the interval between now and 1911 very effectively indeed. But you cannot expect municipalities to undertake to provide a service of this kind, considering the very short period which their licences would have to run, unless they got a really effective guarantee from the Post Office that what is valuable of their plant will be taken over by the Post Office when their licences expire; and, therefore, until we see the words of the Bill it will be impossible to see what the Government propose in this respect. I think what the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said to-day on this point will give a great deal of satisfaction, for he stated that it is intended to take over this plant wherever it is useful and wherever it can be turned to good account by the Post Office service later on. There is one point, however, which I wish to criticise in the scheme of my right honourable Friend. He said that the municipalities or local authorities to whom this power would be extended, and who are to enjoy the right to carry on these services, will be limited to towns of over 50,000 inhabitants—in fact, to county boroughs. Well, I confess that I cannot see any reason for drawing that minimum. I think that there is every reason for allowing any local authority, provided that it shows certain guarantees that it is willing to do this service, and able to do it—I think under such circumstances any local authority ought to be allowed to do it. I would point out that in making this limit my right honourable Friend is departing from the recommendation of the Select Committee itself. The Select Committee recommend this—
  "We further consider that when in an existing area in which there is an exchange the local authority demands a competing service, the Post Office ought either to start an efficient telephone system itself, or grant a licence to the local authority to do so."

  1411
  In that case there is no question whatever of any limit to the number of inhabitants. In the next paragraph, which speaks of areas where they have got no exchange it states that—
  "In such cases the Post Office should either start a service of its own or should grant licences to the local authorities to do so, subject to proper regulations."
  Therefore, it is clear that the Select Committee intended that any local authority that showed that there was a reasonable demand for a service, and gave a reasonable guarantee, should have the right to establish one. I must point out also that there are extra reasons for this. My right honourable Friend has told us that 97 per cent, of the messages sent on the telephone are local messages, and that they ended in the same area in which they originated. If that is so, surely it is a very strong reason in favour of a local service being granted to every local authority which applied for it. I think that everybody on the Committee will agree that there is no doubt about it that what the company most feared was not so much Post Office competition as municipal competition. I am sure there are many places, perhaps just under 50,000 inhabitants, which would feel that they can compete far better against the company by themselves than they could through the Post Office. I may mention that Sir Spencer Walpole, the late Chief Secretary of the Post Office, admitted in his evidence before the Select Committee of 1898 this. He said—
  "I do not think that a Government Department is likely to prove a very active competitor. A Government Department, from its very nature, will not so actively compete as a private competitor who has a pecuniary interest in the matter. I do not think that great public departments move with rapidity and efficiency in competition."
  Well, Sir, I am not arguing in the least against Post Office competition, because I recognise, in the end, that the telephone system must come to the Post Office. But I do say that in the meantime, if you want competition started effectually, the more opportunities you give to local authorities the better, and I should very much regret if the Government adhere to their intention of limiting these powers to places of 50,000 inhabitants. That is the only
  1412
  point in which I am in disagreement with my right honourable Friend. I thank the Government for having taken this matter up in the way they have done, and I earnestly believe and hope that in the course of the present year we shall see the end once and for all of the monopoly of the National Telephone Company.
  *MR. PROVAND: I think I ought to congratulate the Government upon the admirable Bill which has just been introduced. It is a matter of general knowledge that our present service of telephones is very inadequate, and it is notorious that if we compare it with the systems of other countries we are very much behind them. Why, even Switzerland, Sweden, and Norway, and a number of other foreign countries have a much better and cheaper telephone service than we have. Although these countries do not collectively transact as much commercial business as we do, yet their telephone service is infinitely better than ours is. A cheap, effective, and adequate telephone service is as necessary to the commercial community as a railway or steamboat service, and commerce is as much handicapped by inadequate telephone service as by inadequate railway service. In the United States and Canada, where materials cost a great deal more, and even where labour in some American cities cost twice as much as in this country, they have cheap telephone service where they have no monopoly. It is in some towns as low as 15 dollars a year, and I believe we shall have it for 15 dollars a year here within two or three years if the Government encourage the muncipalities to go ahead and compete as rapidly as they possibly can. Now, the right honourable Gentleman spoke of creating a Post Office telephone exchange in London. Well, unless he is going to make a fresh departure altogether in Post Office competition, it will be a very disappointing exchange, because the past history of the Post Office competition with the National Telephone Company has been a melancholy failure. As a matter of fact, in towns where the Post Office and the National Telephone Company were in competition, the Company have shut up the Post Office exchanges. This has hap-

  1413
  pened in Hull, Leicester, Derby, and other places. The Company has also taken away many of the subscribers to the Post Office exchanges even in such places as Newcastle, where the Exchange is still open. The determination of the Government to give municipal licences is a genuine, large, and substantial concession, but I agree with the last speaker in desiring that the Government shall not limit the licences to municipalities which have more than 50,000 inhabitants. I think there are only seven or eight towns in Scotland which have more than 50,000 inhabitants, and I am sure there will be two or three times that number of towns desirous of applying to the Government for municipal telephone licences—indeed, I expect to see Scotland entirely municipalised so far as the telephone service is concerned in the course of a few years. I hope the restriction which limits the Bill to places of over 50,000 inhabitants will be withdrawn, and that the power will be granted to any local authority which can comply with the conditions. If the Treasury will do that I am sure that we shall have Scotland better telephoned than any country in the world in a very short period. Now, we had the right honourable Gentleman opposite on his defence with regard to the National Telephone Company, and he spoke of Glasgow. Well, I have not one word to say against the National Telephone Company in regard to the defence which the right honourable Gentleman makes. Their duty was to make all the money they could, and they have done so from the very first day when the company was organised, in 1882, down to the present moment. If they ever lost an opportunity of making all they possibly could they have succeeded in keeping it a most profound secret, for nobody ever heard of it. But what the right honourable Gentleman has said about Glasgow requires a little explanation. He blames us there for not having a better service, and gives, as his reason, that the municipality would not give the telephone company the right to lay the wires under the streets. Why, the worst thing about the Glasgow service is that it is a single wire instead of a double wire. The municipality of Glasgow have never interfered with the company as regards their wires. They might
  1414
  reconstruct their whole system if they liked to-morrow, but they have never put up double wires, which no one objects to their doing. The Glasgow service is the worst in this country for a large city. We all understand what the National Telephone Company want, for we all know that their idea of co-operation with the Post Office in the future, as it has been in the past, is that they desire the Post Office to act as the agent of the company. The Post Office has done nothing for the public service since 1892, but everything they could for the National Telephone Company. No licences were given and competition was suppressed. What the Company desire is to have their monopoly, which they have now, maintained down to the year 1911, and then to sell it at a monopoly price to the Government. I am sorry the right honourable Gentleman said that they could not force the Government to buy it in 1911. Why, the Government would be unable to help itself. Whether they purchased the telephones by private contract, or whether they bought them under the clause of the licence—the clause which I may call the arbitration clause—and they must purchase under one of these two conditions—I have no doubt that if they allow the monopoly to continue until 1911 before they purchase, they will lose quite 20 millions sterling by so doing. Buying the telegraphs was not anything like so bad as would be allowing the company to have a monopoly until 1911, and then buying them out. But the courage of the Government has caused them to take this matter in hand, and we shall have, I hope, in consequence, in a few years, the full advantage of a good telephone service. Now let me show what the difference will be to the city of Glasgow, because a single fact is sometimes very much more striking than a considerable amount of argument. At the present time we are charged from £10 to £25 for service, and the municipal telephonic exchange will supply the same service for about £5. That is to say, we shall pay just about half the amount of the lowest price service we now receive, and about one-fifth of the highest price. The advantages to Glasgow, therefore, obviously, will be enormous, and I do not see why the advantages to other cities should not be equally

  1415
  as great. The right honourable Gentleman has told us that they are going to make the rate in London £3, but he does not say how many "calls" he will give us for £3.
  MR. HANBURY: No "calls." You will pay your subscription of £3, and pay for your "calls" afterwards.
  *MR. PROVAND: In that case the £3 will be merely entry money. Are subscribers to get no "calls" except by paying for them?
  MR. HANBURY: No; it gives you no "calls" at all.
  *MR. PROVAND: Then I hope we shall have some particulars in the Bill, when it is circulated, as to the "call" rates. There are also one or two questions I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman. I should like to ask him whether he will give us with the Bill a copy of the licence which it is proposed to give the municipalities—a draft copy; and if there will be any terms in the Bill with regard to telephone manufactories. He alluded to them before he sat down. He suggested that at the present time there was hardly any part of this quesion more important than that. The largest manufactory in the world—I am speaking of foreign manufactories—has recently, by an agreement made with the National Telephone Company, agreed that it will not sell to any licencee of the Post Office. Therefore, when any municipality gets its licence it will not be able to buy its instruments from that firm—I speak of the foreign house—and, therefore, I do think that some condition ought to he made, in order to enable the municipalities to do so. The last question I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman is, When shall we have the Bill before us? Will it be within the next few days?
  MR. HANBURY: The Bill will be circulated directly we get the First Reading.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: As I was one of those who took a part in the introduction of the telephone to this country, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words upon the subject now before the House. I may say at once that I am not a director of the National Telephone Company, but I have watched the proceedings of the
  1416
  company very carefully, and I must say that the comparatively slow progress in the use of the telephone in this country cannot, I think, be charged to the company. I believe it is due, in the first place, to the difficulties made by the municipalities, and, in the second place, to the heavy payments that the company have had to make to the Post Office. I do not complain of the officials of the Post Office, because I suppose they were bound to insist on these payments, but it is obvious that the Company is heavily handicapped by them. It is paying £100,000 a year to the Post Office, and if this was not the case, of course the charges could be reduced considerably. Those are the main reasons that have kept the telephones back in this country, and they also account for the fact that the charges are somewhat higher here than they are abroad. Of course, when we come to a place like London, the charge must be higher than in smaller cities, because, as the honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester pointed out, it is much easier and cheaper to work a small system than a large one, which receives so many more "calls." Honourable Gentlemen who have spoken on the subject this evening have given the House the impression that the fortunate people who have taken the telephone up are making very large profits. It is not necessary for me to point out to those who know anything about this subject, because they know it perfectly well, that this patent has been one of the most successful, and it is only fair that those who have embarked their capital in it should have a fair return for the money which they have invested. I believe the original investors are only receiving 7 per cent, for their money, and where you have to deal with a highly successful patent that is a very moderate return, after all. And when you consider that nine patents out of ten come to nothing, and return no profit, it is obvious that no one would take up any new inventions unless there were some patents which came out well and gave a fair return for the money they invested. That is a reason why we should ask the Government to deal fairly and even liberally with patents of this kind; though I cannot say that the Government have done so in this case. I have listened with great attention to what

  1417
  the Secretary to the Treasury proposed, and I am bound to confess that, in my judgment, there is a great deal of force in what my honourable Friend the Member for Manchester said upon that subject; but I do not want to go into that part of the question, because it is rather intricate, and although the right, honourable Gentleman's explanation was extremely lucid, it is better to wait till we see the Bill. I confess that I very much doubt whether we shall find, in the long run, that the acquisition and the working of the telephones by the Post Office instead of by the company will yield the profit that is anticipated, or will cause the telephones to be more efficiently worked. What is our experience of the telegraph and the telephone? The telegraph is worked by the Post Office, and before it was taken over we heard a good deal as to the inefficiency of the companies which were managing it; it was taken over, and now we find that the expenses of managing it far exceed the expenses of its management by the company, and that the use of telephones which are managed by a company has far outstripped the use of telegraphs which are in the hands of the State. If we are behind in telephones, we are still more behind in telegraphs, and yet you are going to take the business out of the hands of the company which has been more successful and place it in the hands of the State which has been less successful. The Secretary to the Treasury admits that there are places where the postal telegraph and the telephone company have come into, I will not say conflict, but certainly into competition, and in all these cases the company has driven the Post Office out of the field. We have heard some observations from honourable Gentlemen as to profits, and it appears to be a general impression that the Post Office is going to make very great profits by taking over this business. I remember perfectly well that the same was said when the Post Office took over the telegraphs; but if honourable Gentlemen take the trouble to look up the telegraph returns they will see that, so far from having made any profit, the loss on the telegraphs has been £8,000.000, and is increasing. Last year the loss was £600,000, and I shall be very much surprised if 10 years hence the Post Office
  1418
  authorities, instead of having made the profit which they anticipate, do not find that the balance is largely on the other side of the account. The Government are now encouraging municipalities to go into another class of enterprise, and it was only the other day that they announced the appointment of a Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons to inquire into what were to be the limits of municipal enterprises, and what businesses were to be undertaken by municipalities; and at this very present moment, when the Chambers of Commerce throughout the country are complaining of the tendency upon the part of municipalities to take up and engage in private enterprises, the Government are giving them under these proposals encouragement to embark in an entirely new line of business. Even towns with 50,000 inhabitants are to be encouraged to set up telephonic operations. If they have skilled advice this will be very expensive, and if not they will make mistakes and lose money. The system will be much more expensive than if the telephones were managed by a great institution like the National Telephone Company. If municipalities are really to undertake all the different matters which it is now suggested that they should take up, the work of the local authorities will be enormously increased, and their indebtedness will not only equal the National Debt, but very far exceed it. Honourable Members who advocate these proposals say that the Telephone Company has not been conducting its business properly, yet it has a Board of very able men, and I greatly doubt whether the municipalities will conduct it as well. I am very much afraid in the long run that the tendency of these proposals will be to check telephonic communication still further, and to increase still further the local indebtedness. If I understand the proposals rightly, they are very hard on the shareholders, and will tend to deter any others from endeavouring to develop any new invention. I hope, however, that the Government will deal fairly with the Telephone Company. I regret that they should encourage municipalities to undertake the responsibility of carrying on a new branch of industry which I am afraid will, far from resulting in the large profits that are anticipated, add to the amount of municipal

  1419
  indebtedness, and to the ever-growing burden of our rates.
  MR. OLUROYD: I will not follow the honourable Gentleman into the discussion which he initiated as to the capacity of the municipalities to compete in the working of a matter like this connected with the operation of the telephones. But I think the honourable Baronet has overlooked, or forgotten, the fact that in connection with the working of telephones, whoever undertakes it will find it necessary to have access to the roads under which the lines are laid, and in dealing with the streets they are interfering with a matter which deeply concerns the municipal authorities, and one upon which they spend a consider able proportion of their income. Now, the right honourable Gentleman, in the very lucid and material statement which he made to the House just now of the intentions of the Government, intimated that the licences to municipalities were to be limited to boroughs of 50,000 in habitants or thereabouts. He was not very precise as to what boroughs he in tended to refer to—
  MR. HANBURY: Oh, yes. I mentioned county boroughs.
  MR. OLDROYD: However, he mentioned that the licences were to be limited to boroughs of 50,000 inhabitants. Now, I should very much like to join with my honourable Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, who called the right honourable Gentleman's attention to this point, and asked him to reconsider his suggestion. In the West Riding of Yorkshire, as is pretty well known, municipal government has been extremely popular for a very great number of years, and the right honourable Gentleman will find, if he inquires into the matter, that even in the same telephone area there are cases where there are several municipalities, each of which has fewer inhabitants than the 50,000 limit laid down by the right honourable Gentleman. Those boroughs are very often grouped together—in fact, in the case of the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House, we have a case in which there are no less than three boroughs absolutely contiguous to one another, all in the same
  1420
  telephone area, in which it will be found that in each of the boroughs the inhabitants are considerably under the number named by the right honourable Gentleman. I desire very much to illustrate this fact, because it is undoubtedly of the very greatest importance that they should have telephonic communication one with another. It happens that in the case of these three boroughs to which I allude they are engaged pretty much in the same trade, and the amount of communication which takes place between them is absolutely enormous. In fact, the communication between them practically constitutes the whole employment and occupation of the district. Therefore, the right honourable Gentleman will see at once that telephonic communication between those places is of the very first importance, and I hope, under the circumstances, he will reconsider this point, and, at all events, will arrange, if possible, that licences shall be granted, if not to individual boroughs of this character, at all events to a combination of them. That principle is carried out with regard to water supply, and with reference to sewage disposal, and also isolation hospitals, and it is a plan which has been found in the past to work with great advantage to the boroughs concerned. I trust, therefore, without extracting an explicit promise from the right honourable Gentleman, that he will give us some assurance that he will reconsider this matter, and if, in his opinion, there will be an advantage to boroughs of this character by adopting the suggestion that I make, he will consider each case and give them the privilege of conducting this enterprise on their own behalf.
  MR. BARTLEY: In the few remarks which I offer to the House upon this question I should like to speak more especially with regard to London and the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a small part of which does feel very keenly that there ought to be some change in the management of the telephonic system of communication m the metropolis. There is no doubt whatever that London is very far behind, not only what it desires, but what is required. At the present time many of the inhabitants in our district are unable to use the telephone because of the expense,

  1421
  and they feel the want of it very keenly indeed; and although I feel the force of the contention of my honourable Friend, it does seem to me that the Post Office is going to make an undoubted and proper step towards an improvement of the telephonic system in the metropolis, so as to meet the requirements of the smaller people. I have the honour to represent a district which is not rich, and one in which the telephone is not used very much, but there are a great many complaints as to it, and unless some change is made in the system it will not meet the requirements of the smaller people. The scale of payment which is in force now is not by any means a fair one; it is too cheap to those who use the telephone all day, and it is far too dear to those who only use it once or twice, or possibly only a few times during the day. The same amount is charged to those who scarcely use it at all as is made to those who use it in the extravagant manner to which I have alluded. Those who use it, say, 200 times a day, and use it constantly, get it almost for nothing; that is what it comes to; and a change in the system is absolutely necessary. The right honourable Gentleman has alluded to some privileges which are given to certain subscribers to the telephone, and the honourable Baronet behind resented the statement; but we must face the matter as it stands, and it has come to my knowledge that there are cases in which a preference is given which works very unfairly. One of the practices is this, that unless you give for some time most unreasonable facilities for posts on the top of your house, for instance, the company will not supply a telephone at all. What we want in London is a system by which one must accommodate another as much as possible, and by which everybody who wishes it can have an instrument applied as rapidly as possible. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester said the only reason why the Post Office had not competed before was because the company was doing its work in a proper manner, and they could not do it better. The evidence given before the Select Committee by Mr. Preece with regard
  1422
  to Plymouth gave a different version. With reference to Plymouth he said—
  "Well, take Plymouth: in fact, f referred to Plymouth in my evidence before the 1895 Committee. We went to Plymouth—that is, the Post Office—not as a speculation, but in obedience to the requisition and at the request of a certain number of people in Plymouth, and we established an exchange of the most approved system; but having got our exchange to work, we excited the envy, the jealousy, or the malice, or I do not know what, of the Telephone Company; and they thought If the Post Office can establish an exchange in Plymouth, we may just as well do the same. Ho they went down there, and the first thing, or the earliest thing, they did was to go to every one of our subscribers and offer them telephones for nothing during the continuance of our five years' agreement, and they were supported there by extremely active and energetic people, especially one connected with the Press, by free service, and by other things. Oar exchange during the five years did not increase—theirs did; and at the expiry of the five years' agreement we lost our subscribers."
  Now that is not what I consider to be fair competition in any way. It is certainly not reasonable that the Telephone Company should go down to Plymouth, and actually beat out the Post Office in this manner and give telephones for nothing; and when unfair competition is talked of by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Manchester it is only fair that I should give this instance of what came out in the Committee. Now, having referred to the localities, the Committee reported that the Post Office should have a right to establish telephonic exchanges where required. Now, I agree most heartily with the right honourable Baronet the Member for the London University in thinking that it is most undesirable to extend the limits of working and trading of the municipalities, and that they should be restricted as much as possible; but there are cases in which they must do the work if it is to be done at all; and considering that the telephonic system can only be conducted by means of underground wires, and considering the fact that the telephone is becoming, or rather has become, a necessity for business people, it seems to me that you cannot allow a private company to interfere with the streets and roads of any particular locality; and that being; so, the only way in which this work can be done is to give it over into the hands of the municipalities.

  1423
  I, for one, agree most heartily with the recommendations of the Committee. I should, however, be very sorry to see the company suffer any unreasonable or unfair hardship, because I think we owe it a great debt for its work in extending the telephone system. It has got a most able manager, who has done a great deal for telephonic communication, and we ought to treat it fairly and properly. But there are fair ways also of treating the public, and the time has now come to establish a real system of telephonic communication in London and the Provinces, and I sincerely trust that the result of this Measure will be to put it within the means of the trading classes of this country, especially the small traders, in whom we ought to be all specially interested, to avail themselves of the advantage of the telephonic system.
  *MR. HEDDERWICK: I do not intend to speak on this Resolution at present, but I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman a question. I gather from his statement that municipalities with a population of 50,000 will be allowed to supply themselves if they so choose, but I want to know, if the right honourable Gentleman will be kind enough to tell me, what will be the position of municipalities with a population of less than 50,000. Are they to be swept into the Bill, and if so, will the Post Office have authority to open streets without the consent of or application to the municipal authorities? To be frank with the right honourable Gentleman, if the Bill is to confer that power, then I am afraid that I, for one, and others also, however reluctantly, will have to oppose that proposal.
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office everywhere has the right to take up streets subject to the veto of the local authority, which veto is subject to appeal to a county court judge or other judge.
  *MR. HEDDERWICK: Will that continue?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, that remains.
  *MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: As two of my colleagues in the representation of Glasgow have spoken in favour of my right honourable Friend in reference to this subject, I am, therefore, all the
  1424
  more anxious to offer a few remarks, because I am thoroughly opposed to the opinions they have expressed, and I am strongly of the view that this new departure on behalf of the Government is a mistake, like all previous attempts they have made to deal with the question of telephones in this country. I agree as to the boldness of the proposal, but I think it will in all probability result in disastrous failure. It will, perhaps, be in the recollection of some Members of the Committee, when I call to mind the Debate which took place last year previous to the appointment of the Select Committee that I took a line then which, I think, was not taken by any other speaker in the Debate—namely, that the only cure for the trouble which had grown up around this great question was the immediate purchase by the Government of the interests of the Telephone Company, and the carrying on of the whole telephonic system of the country by the Post Office, and by no other means. Since then I have seen no reason to alter' that opinion. On the contrary, both the evidence taken before the Committee more particularly, and the opinions which have been expressed in the Press and throughout the country by local authorities, have led me to hold that view even more strongly now than I held it at the time to which I refer. Why, Sir, it is no exaggeration to say that the agitation which led up to the Debate in this House and the appointment of the Select Committee was not so much an agitation on behalf of municipalities anxious to participate in this business as an agitation against the Government for the neglect shown by it in the past, and for the incapacity it has displayed throughout in connection with its efforts in this matter. Even the Glasgow Corporation was of opinion, and is still of opinion, that what is wanted is not so much municipal licences and competition, but an efficient Government service—meaning by that, the inclusion under the Post Office of the whole telephonic system. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter which has not, as far as my recollection serves me, been referred to by any previous speaker; and if any member of the Select Committee is present, perhaps he will give us information on the point. I wish to ask why in its report this Committee went out of its way, if I may

  1425
  so speak, to report upon a branch of the subject not included in its reference: and why, on the other hand, it has neglected to give the House any information in the report upon an exceedingly important aspect of the question which was dealt with by the expert witnesses produced by the Government, and which was within the scope of the Enquiry? The reference to the Committee was undoubtedly limited to the question whether or not municipal and local authorities should be permitted to establish telephonic exchanges. There is not a word in the reference regarding any question of the Government undertaking competition, but the Committee in its wisdom included that matter in its report. It is quite true that in the proposals which have been made on behalf of the Government, the opinions of the Committee are being given effect to, and the Government can rest its policy on those. But my point is that a very much more important matter has been entirely omitted from that report, and it bears specially on the point which I desire to make. Some clear and unmistakable evidence was given before that Committee by expert witnesses on behalf of the Government. What are the facts? The evidence to which I wish to refer especially was that given by Mr. Lamb and Mr. Preece, who are both eminent experts. Mr. Lamb stated that in his opinion the telephone system was Post Office business, that it was against the public interest that there should be a competitive system of telephonic exchanges, and that the policy of the Department had been to take over the whole system; but he went on to explain that the Government had overruled the Department, and so on. He also said that if competition were engaged in it would result in very great waste, and finally, as a practical working consideration, he was in favour of a national system. As one illustration of waste, he gave the Committee a very good example; he mentioned a case in Newcastle, where the Government had a subscriber paying a rent of £500 a year. The National Telephone Company succeeded in getting him away from the Government, and the Government plant became useless. Later on the Government succeeded in persuading that subscriber that they could serve him better, and he
  1426
  came back. There was a case where there were three different installations for the convenience of one customer, and two-thirds of the money must have been wasted. That was the evidence of Mr. Lamb. The evidence of Mr. Preece was practically to the same effect. He said that the telephone service should be under one control—that is to say, that the State should boldly take up the matter and absorb all the telephone companies of the country. There was other evidence of experts from the Department also to the same effect. Now, with all deference, I submit that the Committee, which went out of its way to bring in questions of Post Office competition not included in its reference, should at least have given Members of this House, in a paragraph in its report, some inkling of the fact that leading experts called by the Government had given the evidence to which I have referred. I have said that nothing which has occurred since last year's Debate has altered my opinion. I should only, however, weary the Committee in giving them further expressions of opinion. I have here very numerous extracts from the public Press and from opinions of public bodies, and, without going into them in detail, I may say that Resolutions have been passed by the Council of the Associated Stock Exchanges and numerous other associated bodies. The same opinion is also given in the Press of the country, beginning with "The Times," and going through the whole provincial Press, that the only cure for the trouble and difficulty which now exists is that the Government should purchase the entire system. There is an idea that purchase would involve the expenditure of an extravagant sum. I do not think it need involve anything of the kind. In the first place, why should not arbitration suffice? We ought to be able to find men who, as arbitrators, would put a fair value on the Company's assets, taking into account all the considerations discussed to-day. All the expert evidence goes to show that competition in localities, by different systems ends in confusion and not in economy. What happens is that a subscriber is under the necessity of subscribing to both systems, and the difficulties are such that confusion and waste must inevitably follow. I for one consider it a very unfortunate thing that

  1427
  the Government should have decided to deal with this matter in this form. We shall have other opportunities of discussing the question in this House, and I will not detain the Committee at greater length, but it certainly seems to me that the Government have been exceedingly rash in their proposals. One result alone will be that the Government, with the money of the country, will be beating down the revenue from royalties, which now amount to about £100,000 a year. I have no doubt the Company will suffer. I am not concerned to defend it, it can defend itself; but it seems to me perfectly certain that, after engaging the country in futile competition with a well-organised system, you will, it may be, succeed in buying the Company's property for a less sum than at present, but you will have spent in the meantime in public money far more than the difference. You will have confusion in the telephonic system, and you will not effect your object, which is, I believe, to give an efficient system, and extend that system throughout the country. One point I should like to make before I sit down. It is with regard to the manner in which my right honourable Friend proposes to carry out his scheme—he proposes to deal with London first. In the Committee it was pointed out that what was wanted was an extension of the telephone system to rural districts, which cannot afford to pay high prices, and it seems to me that London is the very last place in which to begin. I know that there are few who take the view which I have expressed, but, having expressed it before, I desire to put it before the Committee at this stage of the discussion again, for the reason which I stated at the beginning of my speech.
  *MR. COLVILLE: The honourable Member speaks of the confusion and waste which would arise under the competitive system, but, so far from confusion and waste having arisen in Stockholm the reverse has been abundantly proved to be the case. The rates have greatly fallen, and the system is admitted on all hands to be as nearly as possible perfect. He has also told us that Glasgow has expressed itself in favour of a national system conducted by the Post Office, but he overlooks the fact that the Corporation of Glasgow ap-
  1428
  pointed two1 of its most responsible members to urge on the Select Committee the desirability of granting municipal licences for telephones. I daresay, however, he may have been referring to> the opinion that the Chamber of Commerce at Glasgow had expressed by a majority of its members that there should be a Post Office telephonic supply. That must not be taken as representing the general opinion of the community in Glasgow. The only question, raised that really seems to me unsettled is whether it is possible to set up a municipal system which can be brought within the reach of the great masses of the community. It is admitted on all hands that the present rates in this country do not compare with Continental rates, and that our high rates make it impossible for the poorer classes of the community to avail themselves of what is becoming in many places an absolute necessity. Therefore, the need for municipal competition has been growing. Surely the House has not been accustomed to hear such speeches as that which the right honourable Baronet delivered to the Committee in favour of the Telephone Company. I cannot conceive that the electors of North-East Manchester would agree with the arguments which he adduced in support of maintaining this monopoly which has for years failed to satisfy the requirements of the public, despite repeated advantages granted by different Postmasters-General for reasons best known to themselves. His contention is that this monopoly should be maintained, notwithstanding the fact that in the course of a few years the Government would have to buy out, at its own price, the plant of the Company, or set up, as is now proposed, a competitive system in London, and other municipalities. I cannot congratulate the right honourable Gentleman too heartily on the way in which he has taken the case up, after the unanimous report of the Committee last year. In the Provinces, as well as in London, there is a very strong body of opinion in support of the action of the Government, in this matter.
  *MR. C. McARTHUR: It is the opinion of the community of Liverpool that it is desirable that tthe present monopoly should be

  1429
  put an end to; but it is considered that the only satisfactory solution of the question lies in the acquisition of the entire telephonic system of the country by the State. This is generally admitted to be inevitable in a few years. In 1911 the licences granted to the National Telephone Company -will cease, and it has been already pointed out in the course of the Debate that it would be impossible to defer the settlement of the question to that year, because, if that were done, the plant and staff of the National Telephone Company would have to be taken over at its own valuation unless the business of the country, so far as it might depend upon the telephone service, were to be dislocated. If it is desirable that some settlement should be made before, it seems desirable that it should be made as soon as possible, in order that the difficulties incidental to the present situation should be put an end to. There are two ways of doing this—one by competition, and the other by absorption. The right honourable Gentleman, in his scheme, has proposed the method of competition. He has indicated that a Bill will be brought forward for the purpose of enabling, not only the Post Office, but also certain municipalities, to compete with the National Telephone Company. So far as the Post Office is concerned, we have; ill along thought that this is the proper Department to entrust this work to, and we shall be very glad to see it occupy the held. I was also very glad to hear the proposal of the right honourable Gentleman to popularise this system. I think that will satisfy a great want, but, on the other hand, I did not hear with equal satisfaction his proposal to endow municipalities all over the country with a population of 50,000 and upwards with power to establish telephonic systems of their own. I quite agree that would tend to cause great confusion. At the present time there is a want of harmony between the National Telephone Company and the Post Office. That is not likely to be obviated when the Post Office enters into active competition with the company. It also seems to me that there is great danger of these municipal districts overlapping each other, and also of smaller districts between the municipal districts being neglected. The feeling entertained in Liverpool with regard to the National Telephone
  1430
  Company is this—it is recognised that it has done good work in the past to the best of its ability, but it is felt, however, that no additional powers should be granted to it that would have the effect of confirming its position and making it more expensive to buy it out. On the other hand, it is felt that the company ought not to be treated in a niggardly or oppressive manner, and that the best thing to be done under the circumstances would be to endeavour as soon as practicable to purchase it for a reasonable amount, to be ascertained by arbitration. Experience shows that four conditions are absolutely necessary for the proper working of the telephone system of the country: Firstly, centralisation of management raid administration; secondly, uniformity in system and method; thirdly, complete command of public facilities; and fourthly, complete intercommunication between subscribers. Those advantages cannot be obtained, as far as I can sec, by any municipal system, or by any competing system, such as was suggested by the right honourable Gentleman in his statement, and if his proposal is adopted I hope it will be regarded as only temporary until it is possible for the State to acquire the entire telephonic system of the country on favourable terms.
  MR. WEIR: It is not very often that I have occasion to congratulate the Front Bench, but I am pleased to-night to be able to express my thanks to the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury on the able way in which he has dealt with this matter, and for having agreed to deal with London first. The telephone system in London is, in my opinion, disgracefully mismanaged. I know of a case in which a gentleman who removed from one house to another was three weeks in his new abode before, he could get his telephone transferred. Some time ago the same gentleman was two months without any telephonic communication because some of the wires had got out of order, and because it did not suit the convenience of the National Telephone Company to put them right. If the system were in the hands of the municipality, or, better still, in the hands of the Post Office, I do not think there would be delays of this

  1431
  character. Hitherto the National Telephone Company have been in the habit of giving honourable Members of this House telephonic communication at their residences for£2 per month. When I, myself, asked for it, I was informed that the company had ceased to make this arrangement, and that a contract must now be entered into for five years at £10 to £12 per annum. The company has been evidently trimming their sails in anticipation of something coming. I am glad to see that the something has come through the medium of the Secretary to the Treasury, who, I believe, will have sufficient determination of character to push the matter forward, and not allow one of the worst monopolies in London to get the better of him.
  MR. CALDWELL: As the mover of the Motion which led to the Telephone Committee being appointed, I rise to express my thorough satisfaction at the manner in which the subject has been dealt with by honourable Members of that Committee, and also with the manner in which it has been brought before this House by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.
  *SIB J.FERGUSSON: Before the Question is put, I should like to suggest to the Government that an interval of at least two weeks should be allowed before the Second Reading is put down, so that the Bill in its details may be thoroughly considered.
  MR. CAWLEY: I am glad that the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has laid a sensible and workable scheme before the Committee. Honourable Members opposite have said that there would be some confusion under the new proposal, but a new system will develop an entirely new clientele. The cheaper you can get the telephone the more subscribers you will have, and the better it will be for the country at large. It is positively absurd to say that telephonic communication will be checked by being made cheaper. The telephone system has hitherto been a monopoly, and the public resent monopoly. Municipalities, in many cases, have, refused to have their streets taken up for the laying of telegraph wires simply because they resent the monopoly. It is confidently felt that
  1432
  telephonic communication can be secured for subscriptions of £5 or £6, instead of £8 or £10, as is now charged; and the public resent having to pay this high sum when, with competition, they could get it much cheaper. I do not think the cooperation of the Post. Office with the National Telephone Company has been of the slightest service. In fact, as far as. I can see, the co-operation between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company has been the continuance of monopoly to the National Telephone Company. The Post Office is merely helping the National Telephone Company to maintain a monopoly which has been against the general interest of the public. Another honourable Member opposite said he was afraid municipalities would not be able to maintain the telephone system properly. All the large municipalities manage their gas, water, and electric light supplies, and it does seem absurd, at this time of day, to say that they could not establish a telephone exchange. I have nothing more to say, except that I am very glad to think the right honourable Gentleman has been able to bring some sort of solution to this difficult question. I was a Member of the Committee, and I confess that I did not myself quite see the solution of it. The right honourable Gentleman, how-ever, has brought forward a scheme which, I am sure, will prove a workable one.
  MR. STUART: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but having taken a great interest in the work of the Committee, of which I am a Member, I wish to mention one point which I have not heard emphasised, at any late during the present Debate. I remember no Committee which met together on more varied points of view, who have paid more unremitting attention to their work, and who departed with a more unanimous decision. There was absolute unanimity in the Report of that Committee, and if you look at the names of those who formed the Telephone Committee, and consider the interests they represented, I think you will find that its Report makes a firm bed-rock upon which the Secretary to the Treasury can erect his superstructure. At this stage of the Bill it is rather a mistake to endeavour to deal with it as if the Bill was before the House, and I

  1433
  will reserve my criticism and views upon the details of the Bill. All I will say now is that the right honourable Gentleman has honestly endeavoured to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. But, Sir, there was one thing which, though not in the recommendations of the Committee, was in the mind of every Member of the Committee—namely, that while vigorous Post Office action was necessary, it was felt that the Post Office, if it intervened, could only effectively intervene, if I may say so, "with the gloves on," and take the matter up from a thoroughly business point of view with the determination to go into the matter as business people would. I think the right honourable Gentleman will bear me out in saying that that was present to the mind of many of us. We felt that the Post Office in the past had largely failed because of the Treasury regulations by which it was beset, and it is to the Treasury, as well as the Post Office, that we have to look for the success of any scheme brought forward. As the right honourable Gentleman is himself connected both with the Treasury and the Post Office, let us hope that that is at any rate a good omen that a thorough business competition, with the necessity for which I feel sure the right honourable Gentleman himself is thoroughly impressed, will be carried on.
  Question put.
  Resolution agreed to without a Division.
  House resumed.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. W. Long).
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. LONG,): Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I am glad that it will not be necessary for me, at this very inconvenient hour, to occupy the House very long, nor will it be necessary for me, I hope, to indulge in any very extensive arguments in advance of the general principle of the Bill, because all who have
  1434
  studied the law affecting the sale of food and drugs have agreed that some Amendments are required, and to a very large extent there is an agreement as to the form those Amendments should take. Perhaps it would be convenient if I remind honourable Gentlemen of the history of this question. More than 15 years ago the people interested in the trade expressed a general desire that there should be some alteration in the law, but even before that time honourable Members in this House, and outside, had advocated reforms. It was not until 1892 that a deputation waited on the honourable Member for Ilkeston, and pressed upon him the necessity for some alterations. This was followed by a large deputation of Members of Parliament who waited upon Mr. Shaw Lefevre, at that time President of the Local Government Board, and, finally, owing to the pressure brought to bear by those deputations, and to numerous suggestions that were made, the Committee was appointed, over which the honourable Member for Ilkeston presided. He presided over that Committee so long as the Government of which he was a Member remained in office, and after the last general election the honourable Member withdrew from the chair, and his place was taken by the honourable Member for South Tyrone. The Committee sat for three years, and heard 63 witnesses. They reported in 1896, and it is upon the Report which they presented, and upon the evidence which was taken before that Committee, that the legislation now proposed by the Government is founded. I think I shall be able to show, by one or two quotations from the Report, that the Committee found in the main that it was not so much an amendment of the law that was required as an improvement in administration. To put it roughly, they found that when administration was vigorously conducted, diminution in fraud and adulteration followed. Upon the question of adulteration the Committee, in their Report, said—
  "While the evidence shows that the law in relation to food adulteration needs amendment in some important points, it is satisfactory to your Committee to have ground for stating that where the Acts have been well administered they hare been most beneficial hi diminishing adulteration. Forms of adulteration prior to the passing of the Act of 1875, such as the introduction of alum in bread, and the colouring of confectionery with poisonous material, have almost disappeared."

  1435
  In a subsequent passage the Committee said—
  "According to the evidence, very considerable differences exist throughout the country as to the efficiency with which local authorities exercise the powers conferred on them by the Acts. It has been stated that in the year 1893 there were 50 towns in England, with populations ranging from 60,000 to 135,000, where not a single sample of butter was submitted for analysis at the instance of the local authority."
  They go on further to refer to the fact that in some districts the duty devolving upon local authorities to appoint public analysts has not been performed, and, consequently, the administration of these laws has fallen altogether into disuse in those districts. Evidence to the same effect is to be found in the figures annually presented to the Local Government Board. These figures show that in proportion as the number of samples examined increase the percentage of adulteration decreases. Thus, in London in 1887–88, the number of samples examined was 753, the number of adulteraions 142, the percentage being 19. In 1896–97 the number of samples examined had risen to 2,038, the number of adulterations was 205, the percentage having fallen from 19 to 10. The experience is the same in Birmingham, Manchester, and other places. In Manchester and Salford the figures in 1887–88 were:—Number of samples examined 24, number adulterated 13, percentage 54; in 1896–97, number of samples examined 389, number adulterated 41, percentage 11. I need not trouble the House with further figures, because they all point in the same direction. Since I, in my capacity as President of the Local Government Board, took up this question, and became responsible for the Bill which I am now asking the House to read a second time. I have received a great many memorials from various bodies. I have found that in some quarters there exists a misapprehension as to the real force that is behind the present agitation. It has been erroneously thought that the demands for the Bill came exclusively from the agricultural districts, that this was, in fact, an attempt on the part of the agricultural community to secure some protection for their own industry against competition which they thought to be unreasonable and unfair. I can assure the
  1436
  House that that is not the case, because for every one demand for legislation which has been made to me by an agricultural community there have been half a dozen demands made by bodies who have nothing to do with agriculture. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce came to me by deputation, and pressed upon me in the strongest possible terms their conviction that nothing but the most drastic legislation would meet the case. Certainly the Manchester Chamber of Commerce cannot be called an agricultural body. The Association of Liver pool Grocers, who cannot either be called' an agricultural organisation, hold similar views, and pressed them upon me with equal force; and the Butter Association of the Metropolis, which represents a large trade, has expressed the opinion that strong legislation is absolutely necessary. I think this is sufficient, without other evidence which I could give to the House if required, to show that on the Report of this Committee, on the evidence given by the Local Government Board Returns, and on the strength of the pressure put upon us by bodies which cannot be called agricultural, requesting drastic legislation, we are justified in asking the House to deal with this question, which has displayed considerable points of difficulty, but which, I believe, we are now in a position to settle in a satisfactory manner. I cannot suppose, how ever, that it will meet the demands of those on either side who hold more extreme views. There are some who hold that very severe measures should be adopted. On the other hand, there are some who hold that there ought to be no interference, and who say that, on the whole, the consumer is pretty well able to look after himself. We have divided our Bill into two parts, the first part dealing with specially agricultural products, and the second part dealing with the general law of food and drugs, but, before dealing with the two branches of the Measure, I desire to say it has been stated that the protection which is asked for against fraud is unreasonable and unjust. I do not think the people engaged in this trade in our country can be blamed for the demand which they have made, because a very cursory examination of the laws of other countries will show that those countries have gone great lengths in the legislation they have passed in order to

  1437
  protect their industries. I hold in my hand a Return of the various legislation existing in different parts of the country, and I find that extremely drastic legislation has been resorted to in the case of the manufacture of margarine, and that practices which are allowable here are prohibited in many Continental countries. The Government, however, are at one with the Committee in a great portion, at all events, of their finding—that you can do what you want, and put an end to fraud, without legislation of so stringent a character as that which other countries have thought it necessary to adopt. I imagine that as regards this question we shall all agree upon two simple propositions. One is that we ought not to interfere by legislation with a legitimate industry which produces a wholesome and valuable article of food in great demand, especially among the poorer classes of the country, and which they are entitled to have and buy freely and openly so long as it is sold in a straightforward manner. I imagine we shall also agree to the further proposition that the law of the land, as it is now to be found on the Statute Book, must be obeyed and carried out, and that, if it is possible to secure it, trade must be conducted on honest and honourable principles. Taking these two propositions as conditions which must be antecedent to any legislation, I think it will be well for this House to give a little time and attention to this subject. It will not be difficult to alter the law by tightening it up in two or three directions, and by conferring on the Government Department some power it does not now possess to do all that is required, without having resort to those more drastic measures which other nations have thought it necessary to adopt. What we propose in our Bill is to take samples at the port of embarkation of certain articles of dairy produce, such as butter, cheese and milk. We have already some evidence in our Department of the advantages to be gained from this system of taking-samples. In 1896–07 963 samples were taken, of which 46 were found to be adulterated and 42 doubtful. In 1897–8 1,271 samples were taken, 25 were adulterated and 11 doubtful, while from April to October, 1898 612 samples were taken, and of these only two were adulterated and none doubtful. These figures
  1438
  show that a satisfactory result has followed from the policy which we have pursued up to the present time, through the Customs, with the consent of the Treasury, and there is every reason to believe that if this policy be regularised and carried out in the future, equally good results in an even larger degree will follow. It was proposed in a Measure introduced on a previous occasion to detain at the port the condemned articles if they were found to be adulterated, and to communicate with the people to whom they were consigned. That has proved, however, an altogether insufficient means of dealing with the difficulty. I will only give the House one single case in proof of this statement. There was a firm which imported some of the articles of which samples were taken for analysis, and on three separate occasions those samples were found to be adulterated. The firm was warned on each occasion, but the warning had no effect whatever. Finally, the retail dealer was summoned, and ho escaped on the plea that he bought the goods as pure butter on a warranty from the very firm which had been cautioned three times by ourselves. That is only one of the many instances that could be advanced, but it is just the sort of case for which these stronger measures are necessary; we want to deal with people caught in what is, undoubtedly, fraudulent trading; to make them liable to have proceedings taken against them, and, in the case of a third conviction, to ensure that the penalty is heavy enough to check their practices.
  MR. KILBRIDE: What became of the butter in this case?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I imagine that it was all eaten. While the sample is being taken and analysed, the stuff is being dealt with, and that is one of the difficulties with which we have to contend, for the adulterated produce is thus sold. Now, we ask that we should have power to proceed against the people who are responsible for the introduction of the adulterated article. With regard to the home trade, we propose that the power of carrying out the Act shall rest with the local authority, as it does it present, but, in addition to that, how-

  1439
  ever, we propose that the Department with which I am connected shall have the powers, if I may so put it, to guide the local authorities, and urge them to carry out energetically the powers which they possess. We do not stop there. We also ask Parliament to give us power to take steps ourselves, to see whether the work is being done, and if we find that it is neglected, to do it ourselves, charging the local authorities, of course, with the costs that are incurred. In that respect, I believe, we are asking for a very valuable power. It has worked well in other matters in which my Department is concerned, and I do not hesitate to say that we have found many instances in which local authorities, at first reluctant, for various reasons with which I need not trouble the House, to put in force the powers which they possess, and to take advantage of Acts of Parliament which enable them to do good work for their localities, have changed their policy after having been visited by a Government Inspector who has discussed the matter with them and with their officers, and have proved willing to take steps which they were not willing to take before, because, possibly, they did not realise the advantages to be derived from them. I believe that if the Department is given the power we ask for in this Bill we shall be able to secure the uniform administration of these Acts all over the country. And this is, after all, even more desirable than any change in the law. At present you have one local authority which does its work well, and hard by you have another which does nothing at all. You may succeed in driving fraud out of one district, but you only drive it into the adjoining one, and therefore the man who is unable to deal fraudulently in the one place finds an open field for his labours close by. We want to ensure that the administration, of the Act shall be universal, and that it shall be equally vigorous in all parts. I believe that result will be gained if we secure the power which we now ask Parliament to give us.
  *MR. LOUGH: Is there any power to detain the produce?
  *THH PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No, certainly not. That would obviously be useless, be-
  1440
  cause while the sample was being analysed, and before it could be pronounced to be either pure or adulterated, the produce might go bad.
  *MR. LOUGH: Then you do not correct the evil.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Instead of keeping the article until it has gone bad while the analysis is being made, and having, in consequence, to pay for it if it is found to be pure, we propose to make personally responsible the person who sells it, and if he sells what is wrong, and is detected in so doing, then Parliament is asked to give us the power to see that he is punished. That is better than the detention of the goods, which would involve considerable risk of wasting them should they be found to be all right upon analysis. While we ask for powers to improve the administration, we also ask for some slight alteration in the law affecting some of these articles, and it is when I come to deal with this question that I find myself in the greater difficulty, because so many of those who are interested in it are anxious that our legislation should be of a more severe character. What we propose is, that there should be a limitation of the amount of what is called butter in margarine.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Why?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I will tell the House why in a moment. We have fixed the limitation at 10 per cent. I need hardly tell the House that I have no particular fancy for 10 per cent.; it might be either 8 per cent, or 12 per cent., so far as I am concerned, but the main reason why we have taken 10 per cent. is this. On the best evidence I could get, either from analysts conversant with these things, or from the manufacturers of the articles. I am convinced that the very best margarine one can get may have in it anything from 2½ to 5 or 6 per cent, of butter fat. I have, therefore, taken a figure of which it cannot be said that it will put an end to, or interfere with, the manufacture of the very best margarine. Professor Thorpe, the Government Chemist, has expressed himself very strongly

  1441
  upon this point, and I believe that the experience of those who know how margarine is made goes also to confirm the view which we take, namely, that a percentage of this kind, while it will limit, as we believe, and render far more difficult the sale of one article in the name of another, will, at the same time, in no way interfere with the proper manufacture and production of an important article of food. Now I have had to deal with the evidence of a number of people who are connected with this trade, and who say that there is a considerable sale of an article in which there is a great deal more than 10 per cent, of butter fat. There is an article which, I am told, is known as "mixture." I confess that, until I had looked into this interesting question of margarine, and butter substitutes, I was not in the least aware of what a "mixture" was. I had always believed it to be various kinds of butter, put together in order to make the good sell off the bad, and that an article was thus produced which some people were willing to buy. But, instead of that, it appears what is called a "mixture" is margarine which contains a much larger amount of butter fat than would be possible if it were sold at the ordinary price of margarine. I am assured that there is a very considerable demand in certain districts for this article, and the evidence I have been able to get hold of convinces me that there would be very little demand for "mixture" or for margarine which contains more than 10 per cent, of butter fat if it were not for the fact that it is sold as "mixture," and not as margarine. The majority of people who buy it buy it as "mixture," and not as margarine, and, therefore, are willing to give a slightly better price for it. I have here a letter written to the "Grocer" newspaper, in which a firm of wholesale grocers say they have branches all over the kingdom at which with two or three exceptions, they sell margarine. They say they cater for the working classes, and have never yet been able to make any headway with "mixtures" when sold as margarine. 0ur inexperience is that about 90 per cent, of the margarine sold is that charged to the public at from 3½d. to 6d. per pound, whereas "mixtures" are sold at pure butter prices, 10d. to 13d. per pound. Evidence was given before the
  1442
  Committee in the same direction. Mr. Lovell said he did not think that mixtures of margarine and butter were sold as such. Mr. Hudson expressed the same opinion with regard to parts of Scotland where he traded, and a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which came to express their views to me, stated their belief that 75 per cent, of the mixtures imported or manufactured in this country-were sold as pure butter. If that is the case, and if it be true, in the first place, that the majority of this stuff, which is either made in this country or is brought from abroad, is sold for that which it is not—is sold for butter—and if it be true that you can produce the very best article at a moderate price so as to meet all the demands of those classes w ho like to have this butter substitute on their tables, I do not think that anybody can object to our action as being unfair or unreasonable in limiting the amount of butter to be found in margarine to 10 per cent. It enables a good article still to be produced, while, at the same time, it places a check upon fraud, and limits all unfair and unjust competition. Now, Sir, I am aware that many people' believe that no steps of this kind will be effective unless you altogether prohibit the colouring of margarine to resemble butter, and the admixture of butter with margarine. I can only say that I have looked very closely into this subject myself, and I am satisfied that if it were wise to prohibit the colouring of margarine when you allow the practice in the case of other articles, it would be fatal to the margarine industry, because the article would be presented to the purchaser in a colour which would make it appear altogether undesirable. If you desire to destroy the industry altogether, you are entitled to demand that colouring shall be prohibited; but there are those of us who think that margarine might still, be supplied as an article of food. From my experience, and from the evidence which I have been able to collect, I gather that margarine without colouring would not be attractive to the people to whom it is sold.
  MR. LAMBERT: What is the result of the colouring?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Well, without colouring, and in its natural condition, it would not commend itself to the judgment of the public. We are asked to prohibit the colouring of margarine so as to resemble butter. I believe that to be a misdescription. I do not think that margarine is coloured to resemble butter. It is coloured for precisely the same reason as butter: to make it look attractive, and to induce people to buy and to consume it. So are milk and cheese. The result is the same: they are coloured in order to make them attractive, and to induce people to purchase them. I confess I am as strong as anybody in my desire that this fraudulent dealing, of which too much undoubtedly exists in this country, should be stopped. I cannot for the life of me, however, understand why the colouring of margarine, a wholesome and popular article of food, should be prohibited, when the colouring of butter, cheese, or milk is to be allowed. I will go further. I do not believe that this House would be responsible for so great an injustice. I believe the House will admit that if colouring is allowed in respect to one article of food, it should be equally allowed in respect to another; and from what little I know of the dairy industry, I question very much whether it would be altogether in the interests of the farmer that the colouring of margarine should be prohibited, supposing that the prohibition is to be extended to his own produce. I do not believe you can justify the demand for prohibiting the colouring of one article alone, when it is admitted that the colouring produces no bad effect, and is in no way deleterious, but is simply applied for the purpose of making it more attractive to the people who consume large quantities of it. No doubt it becomes more like butter because it is coloured as butter. But we believe we can prevent this unfair competition without resorting to a plan which we do not think to be fair. We are also asked to prohibit altogether the mixing of butter with margarine. Here, again, nobody wants, I believe, to interfere with a legitimate trade. No one wants to prevent the manufacturer of margarine turning out the best article he can. If we can stop fraud without either interfering with the quality of the
  1444
  article, or prohibiting colouring, then we are entitled to ask the House not to listen to an extreme proposal of that kind. I know that, amongst many agriculturists, these views are held with considerable force, and that many people believe in them, but I can only say that, having given the subject the most careful examination, I have satisfied myself that prohibition of colouring and admixture are not necessary. I also believe that if we tried to prohibit colouring in regard to one thing, we should be driven further along the road, and be compelled to do things injurious to the dairy industry. I only want to say one or two words with regard to that part of the Bill which deals with the general law relating to food and drugs. Some 11 or 12 recommendations have been made at various times by the representatives of grocers and others, and were also recommended by the Committee to which I have already referred. We have dealt with seven of these. One is rendered unnecessary, owing to a subsequent change in the law. There are only two which we have to deal with in this Bill. There is a small misapprehension with regard to Clause 17; it is thought that we mean to give invoices the same legal force as a warranty already possesses. But it is not intended to do this. We hold that it would not be wise to give an invoice the same value as is given to a warranty. Invoices are filled in, I believe, in large numbers without the caution which is necessary in regard to warranties, and we believe that the right to produce an invoice as a warranty would strengthen the power of defeating the law against fraud. Neither are we prepared to recommend that the assistant shall be made punishable for offences under the Act, nor that there shall be certain additions to the qualifications of analysts. On the whole, while there is nothing novel or heroic in the Bill, I believe that it embodies a practicable proposal, and that it will enable my Department, in co-operation with the local authorities, to deal with fraud which exists to a larger extent than many imagine, while it will not interfere with a legitimate industry, or curtail the supply of an essential and popular article of food which we think the people are entitled to have so long as it is sold under its own name, and under the law as it at present exists.

  1445
  We think that we can secure that the law shall be obeyed, and that justice shall be done by this Bill when its rough edges have been polished off. I hope this House will read the Bill a second time. If in Committee it is not materially altered, it will enable us to do all which the Select Committee thought desirable, and all that the majority of reasonable-people in this country desire.
  On the return of MR. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  *MR. LOUGH: In rising to move the rejection of this Bill I desire to say that I do not disagree with anything whatever the right honourable Gentleman said in introducing it. He said, truly enough, that the chief fault to be found with the proposals of the Government was that these were not drastic enough, that they do not go far enough to check all adulteration. That is my opinion about them. I do not think that there is anyone in this House who believes that this Bill will check adulteration. My name is on the back of a Bill drawn by the honourable Member for Devon-port, dealing with this subject, and if that Bill has a fault it is because of its drastic character. It deals solely with the subject of the adulteration of food, and it includes all kinds of food. I am absolutely in favour of applying the strictest measures you can wisely apply to what is certainly a very great defect in our present system. The fault I find with the Bill introduced by the right honourable Gentleman is that it is not an adulteration Bill at all. It is a Bill, as I think I shall be able to show, which interferes with existing arrangements of local self-government in the country; it is a Bill to interfere with the free importation of food, and which affects some of the greatest interests in the country. It is a Bill to raise prices and to protect the agricultural interest. It is a purely protective Bill, conceived in a bad spirit of protection, and that is the reason I ask this House to reject it. The Bill is very curiously constructed. It is divided into two
  1446
  parts, as the right honourable Gentleman said. The first and longest part of the Bill deals with a number of provisions which I will describe to the House, because they were not described by the right honourable Gentleman who introduced the Bill. There are eleven clauses in the first part of the Bill, which contain some exceedingly curious provisions, and to which I shall invite the attention of the House of Commons. The right honourable Gentleman has not explained why the Board of Agriculture has come into this matter at all. It is the duty of the local authorities to enforce the Food and Drugs Act, and the local authorities are under the Local Government Board. I believe the representative of the Local Government Board is in the House. Can that right honourable Gentleman explain why this matter is not kept still in the charge of the Local Government Board, and why has the Board of Agriculture taken it up? The Board of Agriculture runs all through these eleven clauses which form the first part of the Bill. Under the Bill the Board of Agriculture has power to interfere with the Commissioners of Customs at the ports of entry throughout the Kingdom. The Commissioners of Customs are only to act by the direction of and in consultation with the Board. Why should not these duties be left to the Commissioners of Customs alone, under the supervision of the Treasury? Why should the Board of Agriculture interfere thus at the ports of entry? The Board of Agriculture appears again to claim the right to stop carriers on the public roads and to examine anything in their carts. The Board of Agriculture claims the right to appoint officers to enforce these drastic provisions in their own interest, and, although not directed against adulteration—in every part of the Kingdom, and to charge the cost of these officers to the local government of the locality. I say that is a very far-reaching proposal. And, finally, the Board of Agriculture claims the right, under the Bill, to enter into every business place or shop of any person who may be described as a wholesale dealer, and to see that he keeps a register of all sales of those articles mentioned in the Act, and if he does, and that register is not posted up, the most drastic powers can be put in operation against

  1447
  that unfortunate person. These are only specimens of the far-reaching proposals embodied in this Bill. And we ought to ask what is the reason that so much is demanded in this Bill. After all, there is no concealment in the Bill, although there was great concealment in the speech of the right honourable Gentleman who introduced it. If you look at the second clause you see the object of all this. In that second clause the idea of checking adulteration is given up altogether, and we read these words—
  "The Board of Agriculture may, in relation to any matter appearing to the Board to affect the general interests of the agriculture of the United Kingdom."
  —that is the key to the whole situation. It is anything that affects the interests of the agriculture of the United Kingdom. It is no, longer the interests of the whole population against adulteration. It is the interests of a particular class in the United Kingdom against all the rest of the people—a broad claim of right under that clause I have quoted, to do any of these things I have described, if the Board of Agriculture considers it to be in the interests of the agriculture of the United Kingdom. I claim that the idea of adulteration of food is completely abandoned in that clause, and that the right honourable Gentleman is trying to advance the interests of a single class at the expense of all the rest of the Community.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  *MR. LOUGH: I admit a large and important class. It is almost as large as other classes I could mention, in this country and in Ireland. I would rid myself of the charge of any want of sympathy with the agricultural class, for I do not think anyone could understand the Irish situation without feeling deep sympathy with the agricultural interest. But the Bill tries to secure those interests in the wrong way. It wants to exclude foreign food and to exclude competition.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: 'No, no.
  *MR. LOUGH: Yes, the tendency is in that way. I say that every obstacle which is presented by the Board of Agriculture, this right of examination by the Board of Agriculture of business
  1448
  premises, this right to stop carriers' carts, this right to call on every man who is a wholesale dealer to keep an account of every transaction he makes —all this is against freedom of trade, and is in the interest of a particular class of the community at the expense of all the rest of the community. I say this is a wrong way to promote the interests of agriculture. There is only one way of promoting the interests of agriculture, and that is that the agriculturists should learn that they have got to meet the competition of the agriculturists of other countries. What is the object of the right honourable Gentleman in this Bill? He wants to force the people of this country to eat the bad butter that is made at home instead of the good butter that is made in Normandy.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  *MR. LOUGH: Honourable Members may cry "Oh!" but I will answer every question that is properly put to me. This is a Bill to provide that every difficulty is put in the way of importing butter from abroad. If the Board of Agriculture suspects that anything is wrong it can take samples.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Quite right.
  *MR. LOUGH: The Board of Agriculture throws a stigma on the products', and an honourable Member says "Quite right." I don't think he means that it is quite right for the Board of Agriculture to do this. My contention is that an independent authority ought to do it. I have not the slightest objection to the Commissioner of Customs, who is an independent authority, stopping anything he pleases in the shape of food imported into the country. But I want that stoppage to be in the interests of the whole population and not, as under this Bill, in favour of a particular class. The particular branch of commerce I am interested in is tea, and the examination by the Board of Customs of the importations of tea has been of the greatest service, and has put a stop to the importation of unsound tea. I object to the representatives of one particular interest having the right to go to the port of entry and torment anybody who imports food into this country. I do not object to the provision that examination should be made

  1449
  at the port of entry, but to the Board of Agriculture making it. The other provision to which I strongly object is that which compels everybody who is called a wholesale dealer to keep a register, and to keep that register posted up regularly. The words of the Bill are, "if he wilfully makes any entry which is false, or fraudulently omits to make any entry.'' Why, there are in many parts of this land wholesale dealers who can neither read nor write.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
  *MR. LOUGH: Certainly there are plenty of wholesale butchers who can neither read nor write.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Manufacturers are compelled to keep a register.
  *MR. LOUGH: The honourable Member should not have interrupted me. I have not said that the manufacturers do not keep a register. But we have gone as far as possible in that sort of legislation. We have, already, this clause against manufacturers. But when these wholesale dealers—who might only sell 201bs. Of stuff worth five shillings—do not enter on a register their sales, under this Star Chamber clause in this Bill, they expose them selves to very serious penalties. There is a great deal about margarine and margarine cheese in this Bill. What is wrong with margarine? A right honourable Gentleman who sits on the front Bench opposite told me a few days ago that he had visited a margarine factory, and that nothing could be more whole some as a food than margarine; that it was in excellent food, and was turned out at a third of the price of butter. Why should there be any stigma cast on food made in this country? The Bill casts a stigma on margarine, and compels everybody who sells it to keep a record of it. I say it is very unfair treatment to a class of the population whose feelings we ought to respect. There is one other provision in the Bill to which I wish to call attention, and I hope this criticism will not hurt the feelings of its Friends in the House. There is a clause in the Bill which prevents the improvement of margarine, which was the
  1450
  clause which occupied the right honourable Gentleman longer than any other clause of the Bill; that is, the clause which prevents more than 10 per cent, of butter fat being put into margarine. Why on earth should we approve a provision of that kind? What is butter fat? I believe that butter fat is the main constituent, the principal ingredient, of butter; it is the best thing in butter. Therefore, I would say we ought to pass a law to put as much butter fat as possible into margarine. The more butter fat the better the margarine will be. I think the Government ought to use every inducement to make the manufacturer put in butter fat. What do the Government do? They will make it an illegal offence in this country to have any more than 10 per cent, of the genuine article in this mixture. I think that is a most extraordinary provision. I do not believe that this House will lend its approval to that provision in any case, and it is a most extraordinary example of the strange provisions which are found brought into this Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stated that I object to the Board of Agriculture being introduced into this matter. The President of the Board of Agriculture has disappeared now. He has left the Bill in charge of the honourable Member who represents the Local Government Board. Well, I want the Local Government Board to still remain the authority over the local authorities throughout this country. I see no reason why the Local Government Board should be pushed aside under the Bill and the Board of Agriculture substituted. Then, Sir, I object to this drastic clause I have mentioned. I want the examination at the port of entry to be done by the Customs, and I think that this clause which I have called the Star Chamber clause, which enables the Board of Agriculture to go and examine the books of a man, appoint officers in the local districts, and charge the expense of these officers to the Local Government of the locality I think these are very far-reaching proposals. There is not one of these proposals in the Select Committee's Report upon this Act. The right honourable Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, said that he had carried out 11 recommendations of the Committee in the second half of the Bill. I ask the House to

  1451
  observe that I have not said a word against the second part of the Bill. As a matter of fact, it does not make the law stronger than it is at present; it rather ameliorates the law in two or three cases. I have no objection to the second part of the Bill. I see by the face of the honourable Gentleman who represents the Local Government Board that that portion of the Bill is drawn with his full approval. I approve it also, but it is a mere bagatelle. The main part of the Bill is the first part, which gives these drastic powers that I have stated to the Board of Agriculture. That Board, Sir, is the most retrograde of all the Departments of the Government. It has worried the people of the country over the rights that it has got with regard to the muzzling of dogs. It does not discharge, as far as I can make out, any part of its duties satisfactorily or effectively. Neither the Ordnance Survey nor the Importation of Cattle Regulations, which are under the Board of Agriculture, command the support of the population of this country. Therefore I look with considerable jealousy at the great demand which the Board of Agriculture is making in this Bill for an extension of its powers; and, in accordance with that feeling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  *SIR C. CAMERON: I rise to second the Amendment, and I do so not so much from great animosity to the first part of the Bill as from my dislike of the second part. I entirely share the feelings which my honourable Friend has expressed with regard to the transference under this Bill of powers to the Board of Agriculture. When I came into the House and saw the right honourable Gentleman the President of that Board explaining this Bill, I remembered that in 1874 or 1875 the first Adulteration Bill was brought in in charge of the President of the Local Government Board. I recollected that, when this Committee was appointed at my suggestion, it was, in the first instance, presided over by my honourable
  1452
  Friend the then Secretary of the Local Government Board, and afterwards by the present Secretary to the Local Government Board. I remembered that when, last year or the year previous, an Adulteration Bill was introduced, it was introduced by the President of that Board. Certainly it does seem to me most suspicious and absolutely unaccountable that at this hour of the day we should have this Bill introduced in charge of the Board of Agriculture. Is it because the Secretary to the Local Government Board, or the President of that Board, does not understand the subject, or does not understand it so well as the President of the Board of Agriculture? Why, Sir, a more lamentable exposure of ignorance of the whole subject than was shown by the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture in his speech never, in all the course of my experience, fell to my lot to witness.
  SEVERAL HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No.
  *SIR C. CAMERON: No! Well, I intend to make that assertion good. A Member of this House comes down to legislate on the subject of butter and margarine, and confesses that he did not know what a "mixture" was until he heard an explanation the other day. It absolutely takes one's breath away. I was just expressing my astonishment that the task of dealing with adulteration should have been handed over from a Gentleman who, at least, had the advantage of presiding for several years over a Select Committee on the subject, who understood it wholly and thoroughly, to a Gentleman who confessed that until the last few days he did not understand what "mixtures" in the butter trade meant. Why, it is one of their standing grievances that they are obliged to sell a mixture of, it may be, 50 per cent, of margarine and 50 per cent, of butter, not as what it is—as it would have been in the case of chicory and coffee—not as a mixture of butter and margarine, but as what it is not, as margarine. I am one of those old-fashioned people who think that we should legislate on some definite principle, and it seems to me you should adopt, in dealing with margarine and butter, the same principles which you adopt in dealing with chicory and coffee,

  1453
  or any other mixture, and until you do so you will never have any satisfactory legislation on the subject of adulteration. Then, again, the right honourable Gentleman went on the say that it was not intended under this Bill to make an invoice a warranty, and he said it would be explained in some subsequent section of the Bill. Well, I have looked it through, and I confess I cannot find any explanation, but I know that that is one of the most important questions connected with the whole subject of the sale of foods and drugs. And the right honourable Gentleman went on to say that an invoice would never do for a warranty, and an invoice was not n document written with deliberation, but written often in a hurry. Was he ignorant that in the case of margarine an invoice is a warranty? Was he ignorant that in the case of feeding stuffs for cattle and fertilisers, not only is an invoice a warranty, but a circular, an advertisement, is held to be a warranty? And this from the right honourable Gentleman who has charge of this Bill, and is going to settle the whole question to the satisfaction of everyone Well, Sir, as to the examination at the Customs, I have no objection. I know that at the instance of my honourable Friend here (Mr. Kearley) some seizures of a mixture of margarine and butter were made; and I have always contended that if you want to put down adulteration, you must not go to the huckster who does not know what ho is doing, but you must go to the fountain head for evidence of fraudulent acts—go to the wholesale manufacturers. Why, in this Bill, there are to be found no powers of the sort. The right honourable Gentleman spoke about the warranty. Let him ask his honourable Friend beside him, and he will tell him that the difficulty is not to get at the retailer. What you want is the manufacturer; you want to get at him, and that is what the Bill does not provide for. I would have the provisions as to seizures in the Customs, which have effected so much good in the case of tea, and have been applied to butter, applied to everything. Now, the right honourable Gentleman is acting simply in the interests of the public. He wishes us to secure a better supply of butter, and a better supply of milk. Then why does not he carry out the recommendations of the Committee?
  1454
  Take the case of milk. I am one of those who have always found that the bulk of the traders are the men who are most opposed to adulteration. They consider it to be an unfair form of competition, and they desire to deal very harshly with the black sheep among them. I was a member of the Committee on Adulteration, presided over by my honourable Friend, and I had letters from the Glasgow Dairy Association suggesting that the standard of fat in milk should be raised from 2– to 3 per cent. I had suggestions from the Manchester Dairy Association that an extension should be made of the power of seizure of milk in transit, and on every hand it has been my, lot—and for many years I have taken a special interest in adulteration—to find the utmost and most honest desire on the part of the great majority of traders of all the respectable and associated members of a trade to put an end to adulteration. Now, the right honourable Gentleman said that he wishes to put an end to the adulteration of butter. Bui does ho? When I heard my honourable Friend behind me cheering away when everything was said in disapprobation of margarine and in praise of butter, I wondered, did he remember that one of the most constant and most complained of adulterations of butter was water? And the Committee, of course, took cognisance of it, and though they did not report that a standard should lie fixed by them, what they said was that—
  "Having regard to their proposal for the constitution of a court of reference, your Committee have not thought it necessary to give any recommendation upon the question of a standard of water in butter."
  That points to the fact that they thought the court of reference, which was by their recommendation established, should in the first instance fix a standard at which admixture of water with butter should be considered adulteration. Well, the right honourable Gentleman defended himself for not having made the colouring of margarine an offence. That is one of the two recommendations of the Committee with which I absolutely and entirely disagree. Apply general principles nil round. Make the admixture of colouring matter in every case an offence and then apply the rule to margarine,

  1455
  but do not allow butter to be coloured up to any given pitch, and apply a different rule to the case of another article. The right honourable Gentleman does not intend to do that, I know, but there was no occasion, I think, for his defending himself so vigorously for not doing it. The right honourable Gentleman said that he had based this Bill on the recommendations of the Select Committee—the Committee which sat, I think, for four years. It took an enormous amount of evidence— it certainly took during the two years in which I was on it a very large amount of evidence on all sides, and its recommendations, I think, should be treated with very great respect. What are these recommendations? I will take the recommendation of the Committee that in order to ensure the carrying out of the Acts, the County Councils should have their own officers to take samples. He proposes that that duty, which properly devolves upon the local authorities, should be taken charge of by the Board of Agriculture. The Committee recommended in the most unhesitating manner that invoices or equivalent documents should have the force of warranties in the case of all articles to which the Food and Drugs Acts apply. Why should they not? They are so already in the case of margarine and feeding stuffs for cattle. The reform is one which has been long and urgently demanded in connection with the sale of food and drugs generally. But the honourable Gentleman reverses the decision of the Committee—the proposal of his colleague the Secretary to the Local Government Board. In regard to margarine, under the Margarine Act the shopkeeper would not be liable for sale by an assistant of margarine as butter if he could plead proper precautions and instructions to the contrary; but under the Act, as regards butter, the plea of a disobedient assistant is no defence. In fact, the whole thing is such a jumble that, so far from making any improvement in the existing law, it will make matters ten times worse than they were before. Then there was the most important recommendation of the Committee to set up a Board of Reference at Somerset House to fix the standards in the mixture of margarine and butter. This, again, is not given effect to, and I
  1456
  am sure that when the traders understand that even the small concession of making the invoice an implied warranty is not to be granted, then they will get up an agitation against the principle of the Bill, which will strongly reinforce what I think should be the effort of every representative of an urban constituency, namely, to oppose a Measure, the only object of which is to secure a monopoly at the expense of the urban consumers for a certain class of agricultural producers.
  *SIR M. STEWART: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech which has just been made by the honourable Member, and I am bound to say that the reasons he has given for opposing the Bill seem to be most inadequate. I am satisfied that the conduct of the Bill could not be in better hands. I understand that the Secretary to' the Local Government Board has given his best attention to the Bill, as well as the President of the Board of Agriculture, and those of us who served on the Committee will remember the attention the honourable Member of South Tyrone devoted to the many points brought before him. Now I am not going to say anything about the second part, of the Bill, but I think the manner in which the honourable Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) has handled the first part was hardly fair to the House. Those who are interested in agricultural matters think it most important that we should have protection against adulteration, so that the public should know when they are purchasing cheese, butter, or margarine. It is a well-known fact that margarine is much liked by a certain part of the community. It has an enormous sale, and to' prohibit the sale would be almost an impossibility for any Government. But we want to know what is margarine and what is butter. Now I should like to say that this Bill does not seem to me to altogether simplify matters. There is a great amount of difficulty to decide what is adulteration and what is not. I remember a few years ago the late Lord Playfair made a speech in this House in which he declared that it was almost impossible to tell which was margarine and which was butter, even if margarine contained 50 per cent, of butter fat. Only the other day, I may tell the House, a sample

  1457
  of 33 per cent, of oleo was sent to an analytical chemist, and he pronounced it as pure butter; so that if the mixture of butter fat with margarine is not to legally exceed 10 per cent, there will be no end of prosecutions, many of which will be harmful to an industry of great importance in certain parts of the country. What I strongly object to in the Bill is that it is very much harder on the home manufacturer and producer than it is on the foreigner. That may not be the view of some honourable Members, but in my district, in the southwest of Scotland, where we have very large dairy farms and creameries, and where a manufacturer could turn out about 10 tons of margarine a week, the Bill, as it stands, may work very injuriously—to the advantage of the foreign producer. What will happen? A sample may be sent to the Board of Trade, an inspector sent down, proceedings taken, and a conviction possibly obtained. But what will happen if the margarine manufacturer lived on the other side of the Channel? Although no doubt great care would be taken at the port of debarkation, that would not be in any way sufficient to protect the home retailer, because he would have no idea where the foreigner lived, and would consequently be unable to track him. The effect of the Bill will be that it will drive dealers to buy from foreigners, against whom they will be unable to proceed, and that certainly will not be advantageous for this country. I would further suggest that the 10 per cent, referred to in clause 8, if it stands in the Bill, should apply to "added" butter fat. I am very anxious also to mention another point. We know that there is a great difficulty in getting a thoroughly uniform analysis, one analyst arriving at a result by a totally different process from another. If the authorities at Somerset House would lay down certain rules, and see that the whole thing is conducted upon that particular basis, you would have a much more uniform system to work upon, and one which would give satisfaction both to manufacturer and buyer. I am extremely glad that the President of the Board of Agriculture has brought in this Bill. I am very hopeful that it will be carried, and that it will do much good to the agricultural community of the country.
  MR. STRACHEY: The Bill now introduced will not satisfy the producer or safeguard the consumer effectively. It is most unfortunate that the Government have thought fit to rush the Second Reading of this important Bill. It was only printed and circulated to Members last Wednesday, and at first there was no intention of taking the Second Reading before Easter. This would have given ample time for the Bill to be considered and discussed in the country before its Second Reading. This is all the more necessary as the Bill is a complicated one, and is, as usual, full of references to other Acts, making it not easy to understand. A Measure of this kind should be simple and clear, and self-contained. For it must be recollected that this Bill will not only have to be administered by local authorities, but will have to be studied by thousands of producers and vendors. As the Bill now stands, it will be useful, no doubt, to lawyers, and lead to conflicting decisions by the magistrates, as is now the case under the present Acts dealing with adulteration. In the first place, I would point out that there is no definite provision in the Bill prohibiting the addition to milk or butter of any matter detrimental to health. At the present time the addition of so-called preservatives to milk and cream is increasing. The more common ones are borax, boracic acid, boroglycerides, benzoic acid, salicylic acid, formalin, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium fluoride. All chemists agree that all of these drugs, if added in excess, are harmful, if not dangerous, to children, and not beneficial for adults. But some, such as salicylic acid and formalin, are, even in small quantities, harmful if taken daily. Formalin is made from fusel oil, the refuse of whisky, and is certainly an objectionable addition to milk, cream, or butter, having a toxic action; and the addition of bicarbonate of soda is to make sour milk appear and taste sweet, while not really averting decomposition. The Council of the British Medical Association, in their report of the 18th January of this year, say, in referring to this matter—
  "The addition of preservatives, such as boracic acid or formalin, to milk by the vendors, whether wholesale or retail, should be

  1459
  entirely prohibited; such substances are apt to be used to cover fraud; for example, the admixture with fresh milk of stale or separated milk. They do not render the milk sterile, and their habitual consumption is not in itself free from injurious effects on the, individual."
  In France, no preservatives are allowed to be added to milk or butter except for export to England. In Belgium, no foreign matter may be added to milk or butter. In Denmark, no preservative, except salt, may be added to butter. In Germany the addition of preservatives to butter and milk is considered and treated as adulteration. It would appear, therefore, that other countries have definitely by law protected the consumer by forbidding the addition of preservatives, as being prejudicial to health. The consumer should be protected, and no preservatives should be introduced into milk or butter, either by the producer or the vendor. The consumer ought to get what he pays for, and he certainly does not, knowingly or willingly, ask for, or pay for, doctored milk, butter, or cream. The prohibition of preservatives may cause some inconvenience, but it is of more importance to protect the consumer and the honest trader. Again, the consumer should be protected against the addition of separate milk to whole milk, and the addition of margarine to butter. The provisions contained in the Bill with the object of so doing are either vague or of small value, and leave too much to rules and regulations to be made by the Board of Agriculture. But the most remarkable omission from the Bill is that it does not attempt to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Food Products Adulteration in reference to the colouring of margarine and its admixture with butter. The Select Committee, in their Report, say—
  "However, your Committee cannot but feel that the adulteration of butter with margarine, and the fraudulent sale, of margarine for butter, are greatly facilitated in many instances by the artificial use of ingredients to colour margarine While your Committee are reluctant to interfere with the manufacture of any edible commodity, they cannot, in the interest of honest trading, arrive at any conclusion other than to recommend the absolute prohibition of artificial colouring of margarine to resemble or imitate butter."
  1460
  This recommendation was inserted in the Report upon the Motion of the honourable Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), and was carried by a majority of over two to one, and was supported by the honourable Member for East Northampton and the honourable Member for North Hants. The Select Committee further recommended that the mixing for sale of margarine and butter should be prohibited. In Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, this mixing is not allowed for home consumption. I certainly wish to support the recommendations of the Select Committee which I have just quoted, and I do so on the ground that all articles of food should only be sold for what they are, and should not be sophisticated in order to deceive. In fact, in the interests of the consumer, and in the interest of the honest trader, I go further. It seems to me inadvisable that any article of food should be artificially coloured or adulterated in such a way as to deceive or defraud the purchaser. The custom has grown up of late of producers colouring milk, cream, and butter, and I deprecate such custom in the interest of honest trading, and on the ground that dairy produce should be sold in its natural state, and not altered from its natural condition. This system of colouring milk, butter, and cream is quite modern, and 20 years ago was almost unknown, and certainly not practised in our country districts. I lay it down as an essential principle that a man should know what he is buying, and that the addition of preservatives and colouring matter serves no good purpose and is unnecessary. As to the mixture of margarine and butter, this, too, cannot be defended, and the Select Committee reported against it, and it is surely calculated to deceive and to defraud the consumer and the honest trader. In fact, it is asserted that so skilful has this adulteration of butter with margarine become, that only the most expert analysts can detect it, and even they are unable to do so in some cases. I am one of those who would do nothing to interfere with fair and legitimate competition, and utterly repudiate the suggestion that margarine should be coloured and its sale prevented. In fact, I would withdraw all the harassing restrictions from the sale of margarine, and give it a free sale, so long as it is

  1461
  not coloured in order to deceive the consumer, or to enable it to be used for the adulteration of butter. "The Grocer," a paper representing the trade, says as regards the defects of the Bill—
  "The fatal stumbling-block in present conditions is the great resemblance of margarine and butter. Our readers' own suggestions to prevent deception amount to this: That butter and margarine should be differentiated, either by colour or by shape and packing, so that there can be no substitution which is not palpably and intentionally fraudulent. The Bill gives no assistance in the way of rendering the two articles distinct from each other— it simply forbids and penalises. The Bill simply says, 'Do right, or we will punish you.' It will worry honest traders with more inspection and prosecution, whilst the real rogues will laugh at the law. We mean that the Bill provides no means of reaching the man who, as our recent 'interviews' have shown, adopts the practice of selling pure butter over his counter, but sends margarine mixtures out to his family customers, who think they are getting butter, and pay for it. We should like less inspection and more prevention. There is ample proof that the practice is demoralising the whole trade."
  To sum up the main defects of the Bill, I will say that it does not protect effectively the honest producer and trader, or the consumer. The Bill, I venture to say, will not satisfy the agriculturists or the traders; it is one of those half-and-half sort of Measures that never pleases anyone, and will only hamper the producer, the manufacturer, and the retailer, without really effecting its object. In my opinion, this question should be approached from one point of view, and that is to prevent dishonest trading, and to insure that the public at large are not damaged in health or pocket by adulteration of food products. As regards margarine, I feel perfectly certain that the provision made is a complicated one, and, although I appreciate the efforts of the right honourable Gentleman, and I feel quite sure that this Bill is in the right direction, yet, at the same time, I cannot help saying that I feel sorry that he has not thought fit to deal with the question in a more drastic and simple manner, and one which is less calculated to harass the retail trade.
  MR. JOHNSTONE: I do not intend to trouble the House at length upon this subject, but I am anxious to say a word or
  1462
  two on this Bill, because I have been intimately connected with a council to which is committed the administration of the Food and Drugs Act. In answer to some remarks which fell from the honourable Member who has just sat down upon the subject of preservatives in milk, I should like to ask the honourable Member who represents Somerset whether he would like to trust a great quantity of milk sent up from Somerset to the tender mercies of the South Western Railway Company on a hot afternoon in July without some small admixture of preservative.
  MR. STRACHEY: I send milk up myself without preservatives.
  MR. JOHNSTONE: I do not know whether the honourable Member superintends the despatching of the milk himself, but I doubt whether those who live nearer to London than Somerset would care to trust their milk to the tender mercies of another railway, to a long journey on a hot afternoon without some small admixture of preservative. The Bill is not a heroic Measure, but, under a somewhat commonplace exterior, there lurks some extremely valuable and useful provisions. I venture to say that the great difficulty experienced by those who really try to administer the Food and Drugs Act, and those who try to put down adulteration, is the present system of taking samples. In the rural districts and the small towns, and also in many of the large towns, the effect of inspectors going into a shop and asking for a certain article of produce does much to ensure the consumer getting a genuine article. Now, if the Board of Agriculture or any other Government authority had power to send round inspectors, and, if they exercised that power frequently, it should be a, good thing; the samples should be taken unexpectedly by unknown people, and where this has been done I have noticed that the percentage of convictions for adulteration goes down very largely in a very short time, and, therefore, we may assume that adulteration decreases. Another valuable power is that given to the local authority to take and analyse samples, and in this respect I somewhat agree with the contention that this power ought to be exercised whether the interests of the agricultural

  1463
  producers are affected or not, for I think that power should be given irrespective of this consideration. I think it should be a general power, because you have only to look at the returns which come in, more especially from some of our boroughs, to see the good effect upon adulteration of the operation of the Food and Drugs Act. I am sure a great deal may be done in this direction, and I regard this as one of the most salutary and most useful provisions of the Bill. Then, again, I venture to call the attention of the House to the question of standardizing, for there is a provision in this Bill as to the standard of purity of certain articles. If the butter is not up to the conventional standard the presumption of procuring proof of purity will be with the seller, and I think it would be an extremely unwise provision to make one undeviating standard against which the seller shall have no protection at all. The purity of butter and milk depends, to a great extent, upon the condition of the cow, for if a cow was turned out by the roadside in the cold weather of January the milk might be below the standard, and yet there might not have been any adulteration. Therefore, I do not think it is wise and judicious that the standard should be a rigid one. Then there is a great controversy between butter and margarine, and between colouring and no colouring. It seems to be generally agreed on all hands that margarine is a wholesome article of food. I have not myself willingly and knowingly tasted it, but it is very possible that in several hotels in the course of my travels it has been presented before me in the form of butter. I believe it to be a fact that it is extremely wholesome, and it is used in large quantities. I have been told by shopkeepers that the call for it is really a matter of price, and, as it is always considerably below butter in price, there is a great call for it. I am not aware that it wants a great deal of colouring. If I am rightly informed, it has somewhat the colour of dripping, which, in my younger days, used to be very largely consumed by all sections of the population. With regard to this article and to dairy produce generally, if you are going to insist that dealers must not use any colouring matter at all, either in milk or butter, I am sure they will be very greatly hampered by
  1464
  such a restriction. My own belief is that the public mind is not sufficiently educated to this at the present time, and what the public require is a uniform article with a uniform appearance, for they like to see articles with the same colour put before them day after day and time after time, and if the producer can please them by his slight admixture of colouring to give what the customers have grown accustomed to, he should not be prevented from doing so. What the public want is the same sort of thing day after day. I am sure the British dairy producers would be very greatly hampered and hindered if they found that they were not able to give that slight tinge of colouring matter which enables them to put a wholesome article before the public. If he found himself handicapped in that way, I know his trade would fall off, and there would be a preference for those articles which were not so wholesome and not so sound. Therefore I think that public opinion is not ripe at the present time to deal with this question, and I think my right honourable Friend has exercised a very wise discretion, and has shown courage— which I may say always distinguishes him in dealing with this and all other matters—in going against the wishes of some of his agricultural supporters upon this subject. Although this Bill does not go so far as I should like it, I am convinced that it will be the means of educating the public and educating the consumer to such an extent that eventually both the British producer and the consumer will be able to take the more advanced view of the question which some of us do at the present moment. I shall give my hearty support to this Measure, because I think it is an honest attempt to deal with the question, and I shall, with confidence, commend it to those whom I represent.
  *SIR W. FOSTER: This Bill, which was introduced in an interesting statement by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, is one which, after all, is somewhat disappointing. It has taken a good deal of time to prepare, and this is the third Bill introduced. It contains 23 clauses. It was introduced the first time with 10 clauses, the second time with 13 clauses,

  1465
  and now it conies out in a third edition with 23 clauses, and yet it contains only some of the recommendations of the Select Committee which spent so much time over this business. I do not say that it does not contain several of those recommendations, but some of the greatest importance have been passed over. Some of the recommendations which I think are of extreme value, and which the Committee were especially anxious should be incorporated in any Bill of this kind, are left out completely, and we have not had any detailed statement from the right honourable Gentleman us to why these omissions have occurred. The Bill does contain, however, points upon which I wish to congratulate the framers, and I wish to be perfectly honest in my praise of this Bill in certain respects, because there are some other respects in which I cannot quite agree with the right honourable Gentleman and those who advocate this Measure. One of its most interesting features consists in introducing the system of inquiry at the port of entry, in order to stop the introduction of certain fraudulent food products which now come into this country in enormous quantities. The aim and object of every Bill of this kind ought not to be to protect any particular interest in this country, but it ought to be to protect the consumer. The first principle of any Bill dealing with food products should be to look after the interests of the consumer. Its object should not be to consider one manufacturer or another, or even to throw impediments in the way of the manufacture of food products, for that would be contrary to the spirit of the age. Chemistry is making giant strides, and some day we may be able to carry in our waistcoat pocket sufficient food to last us a week. That time, I hope, will not come during my lifetime, as it would take away legitimate pleasures in which we all indulge from time to time. But chemistry and science are going ahead, and any attempt to put obstacles in the way of the production of palatable articles of food should be resisted, and it is because this Bill, to
  1466
  some extent, does this, that it does not altogether meet with my approval. But we must not forget that, whilst science is doing a great deal in one direction, it is also doing a great deal to produce fraudulent food products in the other, in the shape of margarine-cheese and certain forms of condensed milk, which are sent here from abroad in large quantities. I think the right honourable Gentleman is doing well in this Bill to take steps at the port of entry to stop these goods being imported unless they carry a true and accurate description of the articles which are brought in. When experiments were tried in the past with regard to the adulteration of tea, which was an article greatly adulterated at one time, nothing stopped it so much as the inquiry which was made at the port where the tea was landed. Out of 403 samples taken not long since, I think there was only one sample which was found to be adulterated in such a manner as to make the article weigh heavier, which was formerly a common form of adulteration. Now the same thing might be done with cheese. If we can stop being introduced into this country for consumption cheese of an obnoxious and inferior quality, made largely of margarine, and which is described in this Bill as margarine-cheese, if we can prevent that coming in under any other name except that which is a true description of it, and prevent it being sold by any other than an accurate description of the article sold, we shall be doing a great deal of good. With regard to impoverished milks, there is also a great deal to be done in that direction. There ii a good deal of milk sent into this country from abroad in the form of condensed milk, which consists of separated milk, and which is very different in its nutritive properties to good milk. These milks are used largely for the nutrition of babies, and honourable Gentlemen interested in young families will do well to be careful not to use some of the brands of condensed milk which are introduced into this country. The fat is taken out of of them, and this process has been described by the analyst of St. George's,

  1467
  Hanover Square, as a serious cause of starving a large number of infants in this country. I have seen children not flourishing as they ought to have done because these milks have been given to them, and the whole secret of the wasting of these children has been that these milks are separated milk not containing the proper quantity of good healthy fat which milk ought to contain for the nutrition of the body. I think the Bill will do good as regards milk, as it will allow the Custom House officers to interfere at the port of entry. This was one of the strongest recommendations made by the Committee upstairs. We had witness after witness saying that they wanted to stop the importation of these fraudulent articles, and the only way to do it was to stop them at their very entrance into this country, and thus the Bill will do a great deal to discourage trade which is deceiving the people, and is practically robbing the poorest class of consumers. Then I go on to certain other points, and one is about butter. The right honourable Gentleman would have impoverished butter looked after in the same way, and stopped at the port of entry, and, at all events, labelled as containing what it really does contain. I think myself that the right principle in all these cases is not so much to stop the sale of any particular article as to take care that the article is sold under an honest and accurate description. I believe that is the right thing to do with all articles, for the public has a right to have butter-mixtures if they cannot afford to pay for pure butter, and a man has a right to be able to purchase the inferior quality so long as it is supplied under an honest description. On that point there was a large amount of evidence given before the Committee, and a good deal of inclination was shown towards the colouring of margarine, but the sympathy of some of the members of the Committee and the tendency of some evidence was to the effect that margarine should be coloured either a darkish red, a brilliant green, or a darkish blue, so as to prevent it interfering with
  1468
  home produce. That principle was contrary to the interests of those who wanted this article, for if a working man cannot afford to have butter, we want him to have his margarine served up to him in the pleasantest way, so that it may look as appetising and tasty as possible when it is put on his breakfast, dinner, or tea table. But we do not want it sold to him as butter, and every step ought to be taken to prevent margarine being foisted upon him as butter. Well, now, this leads me to say that when the right honourable Gentleman was introducing this Bill, and referring to these matters, he did not refer to the fact that the Committee upstairs was very strong in their opinion about having some Court of Reference. I know that it is very difficult to carry out in practice, but I think that after three or four years' delay some conclusion might have been arrived at by means of which we might have had a Court of Reference which would have been a permanent authority for fixing food standards. Until we have some such authority as that, we shall never have food standards put forward with the authority the public will accept. We know how easy it is to get eminent experts on either side to give evidence with reference to any subject of scientific dispute, and so until we have some evidence of experts arrayed against one another in a court of justice we shall never have the administration of this Adulteration Act as effectively performed as it ought to be in the public interest. The right honourable Gentleman takes powers in the Bill to establish standards through the Board of Agriculture, but I do not think that the Board of Agriculture is the best body for that purpose. I would rather have such a body as the analytical body which exists in Somerset House, or some body at the Local Government Board, to set these standards. I do not think the Agricultural Board is either fitted by its age or experience, or by its constitution, for being the authority to fix these standards. It is very difficult to settle the standard of pure milk, for instance. Upon this matter we had the most conflicting evidence. A man may sell certain qualities of milk at a

  1469
  certain season, and at another the milk from the same cows might be declared to be lamentably below the standard fixed by authority. We want the standards fixed by some scientific authority, and someone who is well aware of the manner in which these qualities vary. With all respect to the Board of Agriculture, I do not think it has been long enough in existence for the public to put full confidence in it with reference to a scientific matter of this kind. The right honourable Gentleman has placed upon the Board of Agriculture a most difficult task. Not only will it be a question about milk, but there will be the equally difficult question of the quantity of water and salt allowed in butter. Then there will be other questions which the Board of Agriculture is not fitted to discharge, such as the amount of preservatives to be added to various articles like milk and butter, such as boracic acid, which, so long as it is added to milk and butter in small quantities—much less than a medicinal dose—cannot do any harm. It requires not simply a scientific authority to fix a standard, but you want a board of scientific referees, from whom you can have a statement of authority carrying physiological and medical weight in their decision. I do not think the Board of Agriculture is at all well fitted to consider how far some preservatives may be injurious to health. There are one or two other points in reference to the Bill to which I want to refer, but before I go on to criticise it in one or two other particulars I desire to state that for some two years I learned much on these matters on the Select Committee. I may say that I examined personally the greater number of witnesses who appeared before that Committee. Now, I am convinced of this, from the consideration of the evidence placed before me, that we do not want very much alteration of the laws, for if the laws, as they at present stand, are properly administered, they are quite sufficient to protect the public. The protection of the public against fraudulent food is the one great object of a Bill of this kind. I think that is a proposition to which everybody will assent, and the law is sufficiently strong if it is properly administered; but the law is very badly administered, and in
  1470
  some parts of the country it is not administered at all. We want some authority by which we can put more pressure upon the local authorities for the proper administration of the law. But the analysis of food has gone on more satisfactorily of late years as compared with former times. Last year throughout the kingdom there was one sample taken for every 619 people, whilst in one group of counties there was only one sample taken for every 7,900 people. This is a point which is greatly neglected in some parts by the local authorities. In some boroughs it is almost as bad as the figures I have just quoted. I have a list of 17 boroughs, where only one sample has been taken for every 6,800 people. Now, that can be improved if you give greater power to the central authority to put pressure on the local authority, such as we have not hitherto had the advantage of. How is that to be brought about? The right honourable Gentleman would do it through the Board of Agriculture. The Committee upstairs were not of that opinion. When this question was raised before the Committee, and a vote was taken, that very proposal was raised, and the Committee was against it, and were in favour of keeping it in the hands of the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board have had considerable experience in this work. They have gone on from year to year increasing the inspection of districts, and they are quite capable, if encouraged, of making the Act more stringent that it is. Now, they have laid down the standard of samples to be taken annually at one for every 300 people. In London we have very nearly attained the standard laid down. One of the most creditable things that Local Government has done for the metropolis is, that the local bodies have taken one sample for every 381 persons, while in the provinces it is one to 693. A good deal to stimulate the Local Boards throughout the kingdom to do the same could easily be done. Now, I think it would do a great deal of good if the Local Government Board had powers vested in them by which they could insist upon the proper administration of the Acts generally instead of its being transferred partly to the inspec-

  1471
  tors of the Board of Agriculture. While I know that the Board of Agriculture will do their part possibly as well as the Local Government Board, I do not think it is altogether desirable that there should be two bodies to administer an Act like this if it becomes an Act of Parliament. In administering an Act dealing with the question of adulteration you have to deal with a great many interests; and I do not think it would be desirable to have the manufacturers' interests harassed by great many interests; and I do not think that the small shopkeepers and the manufacturers throughout the country would look with confidence to the Board of Agriculture for the administration of the law, for this reason, that there are certain words on the face of this Bill which it would be much better to leave out—e.g., clause 2 begins—
  "The Board may, in relation to any matter appearing to the Board to affect the general interests of agriculture in the kingdom, direct an officer of the Board to procure for analysis samples of any article of food, etc., etc."
  Those words will create an impression that the Board of Agriculture are not to act from the only motive which a Bill of this character ought to have—namely, to protect the people from the adulteration of their food, but are to act in the interests of agriculture.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I might remind the honourable Gentleman that it is not intended in the slightest degree to limit the Board of Agriculture in that particular. The interest of the consumer is to be observed, but the action of the Board of Agriculture will be con-lined to those articles which are chiefly connected with agriculture.
  *SIR W. FOSTER: The words are certainly unfortunate; they are repeated more than once, and I hope they will be amended or deleted before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I do not think those words ought to go out in the form in which they now appear. The principle of a Bill of this character is to secure the purity of the food of the people, and on that principle alone can the Bill be properly
  1472
  worked. Otherwise, you will have injurious suspicions engendered as to your action. You will have opposition. You will have all the manufacturers of margarine against the Bill, not because it is a bad Bill, but because they are suspicious of it. Now, this Bill gives great powers to the Board of Agriculture with reference to the margarine manufacturers. They are to have inspectors; they are to keep books, not only in the manufactory, but in the warehouse, to keep a ledger of all their transactions. Now, that is a matter which will harass the trade very much. Every adulteration Bill harasses trade in some way or other, and the proper way is to harass trade as little as possible. There is also the other question as to the amount of butter which is to be placed in margarine. I do not agree with the 10 per cent, limit. I believe you can produce good margarine with much less than 10 per cent, of butter. This margarine is made with scientific accuracy, and the taste of butter which it acquires is caused by its being mixed with milk in the process of manufacture, in the course of which it takes up some of the butter fats. But why limit it to 10 per cent, of butter? If it is good wholesome food, why should we not allow 20 or 30 per cent, of butter to be added, provided always that in the interest of the innocent purchaser you compel a label to be put upon it showing the percentage of butter it contains? Then you would have margarine more pleasing to the palate, and better for the digestion, and in times of scarcity the food of our poorest classes would be rendered more palatable. If you apply the same regulation to margarine that you might apply to coffee or cocoa, and declare upon the label the percentage of the butter fats which it contains, you would have a, perfect protection against fraud. With reference to the penalties under the Bill, I am glad that they have been strengthened by increasing the second penalty from £20 to £50, and the third £100. I think it would have been better if you had a minimum penalty for second offences. I should not object if you put into the Bill a penalty of imprisonment for repeated offences, because there are

  1473
  some people who, for the sake of gain, will continue to deceive their customers and sell noxious foods as pure products, and I think no punishment too great for that class. I hope before the Bill passes through the Committee that we shall be able to add other clauses by which the administration of the law will be strengthened in the interests of the general community. This Bill was only introduced last week, and only within the last few days has it been in our hands. I am surprised to see how little notice has been taken of it in the papers. To-day numbers of traders are hurrying up from different parts of the country, saying that they were not aware that it was coming on so soon, and protesting against the haste with which it is being pushed on. I do think that it is rather hard that a Bill like this, affecting the interests of large trades as well as the interests of agriculture, should be brought in and hurried over so very rapidly. The public ought to have time to study it, and I do hope, therefore, that the right honourable Gentleman will not press us to finish the Second Reading to-night, but will let us have some more time to consider it.
  *MR. LLEWELLYN: I cannot agree with the honourable Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. I think that great interest has been taken in it for some considerable time. Much anxiety has been shown throughout the country, and many speeches have been made both by honourable Members and others outside this House with regard to the support it was intended to give it, and I certainly hope that the intention will be fulfilled. I was sorry to see that at the outset a Motion was moved for the rejection of this Measure, and I sincerely hope that its rejection will not be carried in this House. Because, although the Bill does not go so far as some would wish, still, in Measures of this kind there will be found powers which do not exist in the present Acts. Now, the interest in this Bill centres round that part of it which deals with the colouring of the different articles of food. The President of the Board of Agricul-
  1474
  ture has laid down good and sound reasons why he cannot agree to the prohibition of the colouring of margarine, and inasmuch as we cannot prohibit the colouring of margarine we must also allow the colouring of butter. I do not say the materials used for this purpose are in any way injurious to health, but I do see one danger in it. There is, I consider, very great cause for anxiety in the case of the preservatives used. We must remember that cheese and butter are not the only commodities that are coloured. Milk is coloured to a very great extent, and for the purposes of fraud. There is not the slightest doubt about it that colouring means fraud. Good colour in butter means an expensive class of cow and a good system of butter making. The same thing exactly applies to milk, and to a very great extent the practice of colouring milk is adopted for the purposes of fraud, inasmuch as it cannot possess that colour and appearance without land and animals of superior quality. The extent to which colouring is practised is shown by a notice which, I hear from a friend, was exposed in one of the chief shops in a certain costly and fashionable neighbourhood, to the effect—this was during the drought, when butter was short— that there was "no water—no grass— butter dearer." Now that was misleading, because in that particular shop there was hardly a scrap of English butter. It was chiefly Danish butter; but that it was fraudulent butter there is not the slightest doubt. Honourable Members consider that the Danish butter which is sold here is pure. English butter is made in a careful way, and comes from a better class of COW; but that is not so with Danish butter, which is by no means the rich colour that we see it when it is made; all that colouring that we see is artificial. Now, I do not find fault, and the Bill does not find fault, with its being coloured, but I do say that that fact ought to be noticed, and at the end of the clause I would suggest that some words should be put in. I would suggest that at the end of the clause words should be added to the effect that "such butter or milk should be sold only as preserved or coloured, and that the vendor, if required, shall disclose to the customer

  1475
  the nature of such preservative of colouring. I cannot see that any harm would be done by adding some such words as those to the clause. There are, of course, a great number of subjects in this Bill that must be touched on, but I am not going to be one to delay the Bill by commenting more than necessary on its provisions. Now, something has been said about the standard of milk, and it has been said by some that it is impossible to fix a standard for the quality of milk. When you speak of good, prime, or pure milk, you do not necessarily condemn all other milk; but when people ask for a good, thoroughly sound milk for the use of their children or their households they ought to have it. Separated milk is good in its way for certain purposes, and skimmed milk also; but what I want to get in this Act is an ultimate Court of Appeal. Those who have to deal with these matters in petty sessions know the difficulties which arise out of the evidence, and the varying opinions of the public analvsts. All this points to the fact that there ought to be an ultimate Court of Appeal. And in speaking of a standard of milk—I speak as a milk farmer—it is not fair that farmers should go to the trouble and expense of getting good stock and clean dairies if they are not to get the benefit of turning out a genuine article. I will not refer again to the disappointment and others feel as to the clause dealing with the colour, etc., of the stuff which comes from abroad, but we in England are beginning to take a good deal of interest in the quality of our stock and produce. We spend large sums of money upon the technical education of our people, and we in the country spend as much as we can upon the education of our dairy women in order that they shall be perfect in this work. We are told there that good and pure and wholesome food can only be manufactured through care and cleanliness. While this education is being given in this country, and all this money is being expended, the foreigner is allowed to send in and compete successfully with his stuff, as to which we have no guarantee whatever. The point upon which I desire most particularly to draw the at-
  1476
  tention of the House upon this question is as to the ingredients of the preservatives and the colouring used, and I hope some words will be added to the Bill to carry out that intention, though they may not be the words that I have suggested.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I find myself tonight in somewhat an unusual position, and that is that I am not going to support the Amendment proposed from this side of the House, but I am going to support the Bill that has been brought in. The Bill goes a good way in the right direction, but I do think, in the interest of dairy farmers, it does not go sufficiently far, and, so far as the traders are concerned, I think it goes rather too far. The great object of the Bill is to' strengthen section 5 of the Margarine Act. Under that section, any trader who has taken reasonable precautions, and who can prove to the satisfaction of the court that he has taken reasonable precautions, to prevent fraud being committed in his shop, is allowed to go free, and the assistant who committed the fraud is liable. I do not know whether the right honourable Gentleman has overlooked "or forgotten the section, but in my opinion it certainly ought to be incorporated in this Act. Now, I have two copies of an agreement here which proprietors of shops compel every one of their assistants and managers of every one of their shops to sign before they employ them, and I have also a copy of the weekly price list—the usual weekly price list which is issued to the managers, and it reminds the managers of that section of the Act, and that if they commit fraud the proprietor will make them, so far as the law allows, liable for the fraud committed. Now, it seems to me that if this Bill is passed in the present form you leave the proprietors of a business which has many branches entirely at the mercy of their managers and assistants. Supposing I am the manager of a large provision shop, and supposing I have made it a paying concern, and done my best for my employer, and at the end of six months I have made an application for an increase of salary, he, having con-

  1477
  sidered that application, has come to the conclusion that I am not entitled to an increase, but I, convinced that I am entitled, say that I will be even with this man, and that before I leave him I will sell margarine for butter, and get him into a prosecution, and in my own viciousness I do so, there is nothing in this Bill which will make me liable for that act. The opponents of this Bill have got out of the difficulty by saying that it is a piece of class legislation. My honourable Friend the Member for Islington, who moved the rejection of the Bill, ventured to tell the House that the Committee upstairs was appointed largely because of certain resolutions passed by the Chambers of Commerce of London and other parts of the country, and my right honourable Friend who says that this is a piece of class legislation would also attempt to make the House believe that the London Chamber of Commerce, which embraces all trades and manufactures, and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce are composed entirely of agriculturists. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce do not want this Bill to protect the agricultural interest, and I am not now speaking in favour of Irish produce. What I am advocating is the interest of fair trade against profits. The object of this Bill is that the working classes of this country, when they pay their money for a certain article of food, shall get the article for which they pay, and shall not be defrauded. But my honourable Friend and the honourable Gentleman who seconded the Motion for the rejection of the Bill say that the consumers should protect themselves.
  *MR. LOUGH: I never said anything of the kind.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I do not think my honourable Friend was present when the honourable Gentleman seconded his Motion for the rejection, but, however that may be, that is one of the contentions of the opponents of the Bill. It may not be the contention of my honourable Friend, but it is certainly the main contention of the opponents of this Bill.
  *MR. LOUGH: I said that the fault I found with the Bill was that it was not sufficiently drastic in its remedies, and the point I took was quite away from the question of adulteration altogether.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I fear I cannot satisfy my Friend upon that point, so I will try another. It has been said that it would be a monstrous thing to stop carriers' carts in order to take samples for analysis. You have at the present moment power to stop milk in course of transit, and it is equally necessary that the Government should give power to stop butter in course of transit, because butter, as well as milk, is being adulterated every day. No one, whether margarine manufacturer or agricultural farmer, has seriously contended, since the Committee sat, that fraud is not being practised in this matter. It is because of the continuance of fraud and because of the increase of fraud that this Bill is necessary. The honourable Member who said it would be wrong to stop carriers' carts wants the House to believe that this would be an innovation, and that there are no precedents for it, when, as a matter of fact, there is not a Member in this House who does not know better. Apparently he is in favour of everything that was done in the past, and does not desire any further change. It is only of recent years that samples have been taken by the Commissioners of Customs at the port of entry, and everyone admits that this practice has been extremely useful, especially in the case of tea. But while that is so, the Commissioners of Customs have been only in the habit of taking samples of articles upon which duty could be levied, and which produces a revenue to the country. Because they can get no revenue out of margarine they do not take any samples, and because to do so would put expense on a Department some people say that it should not be done, and that it would be an undue interference with trade. In my opinion, the first duty of the Government, next to protecting the lives of the people, is to see that the industries of the country are not fraudulently interfered with by foreigners. I do not think the Board of Agriculture is the proper body to establish a standard for milk, cheese, butter, and other such articles of food. I should like to draw the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the apparent want of confidence shown in the Government Department at Somerset House by many of the analysts in this country. I have no doubt in the world

  1479
  that the scientific gentlemen connected with the Government Laboratory are competent for their position, and are men of the highest qualifications, but in speaking on this subject I am bound to pay considerable attention to the opinions of the public analysts, and to say that, judging from the evidence which was given before the Committee, those analysts have not that confidence in the Government Department that one would desire. The effect of clause 4 is that the Government Laboratory will practically establish standards for each article.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The honourable Member is under some misapprehension in this matter. There is no power in the Bill to enable the Board of Agriculture to establish standards. With the Government chemist will be associated gentlemen able to give the best technical advice, and it is hoped that by means of such a body a common ground of agreement will be afforded for the Government chemist and the local analysts, between whom there has been a certain difference and perhaps jealousy.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Then the Bill is intended to go much further in the direction of carrying out the recommendation of the Committee than I thought. As the right honourable Gentleman is aware, the recommendation made by the Committee was not that the Board of Reference should be wholly composed of scientists, but that some practical men should be associated with them, so that the trade of the country should not be altogether left at the mercy of scientists, but should be regulated to some extent by those who have practical experience. I am glad to hear from the right honourable Gentleman that although he has not adopted entirely the recommendation of the Committee, he has gone far in that direction. The right honourable Gentleman said he had made every possible inquiry into this subject, and had ascertained the opinions, not only of scientists, but of men engaged in the trade, and had found that the best margarine could be produced with from 2½ to 6 per cent, of butter fat; then why is such a high limit as 10 per cent, named in the Bill? The object of the Bill is to prevent fraud, and yet the right honourable Gentleman leaves the
  1480
  standard so high in the Bill as 10 per cent., which permits of the perpetration of fraud to the extent of 4 per cent. I hope we shall be able to convince the right honourable Gentleman that 10 per cent, is not an absolutely necessary figure, and get it reduced. To go back to' the Board of Reference, the right honourable Gentleman told us that of the samples taken at the port of entry a certain number were found to be adulterated, and a certain number were "doubtful." I want some explanation as to the word "doubtful" Is it impossible for the Government Laboratory, to whom, I presume, these samples were submitted, to declare whether the article of food is adulterated or not? If so, then the Government Laboratory is not up to date. That is the charge that has been made against it by analysts throughout the country, and I would suggest the strengthening or renewing of the Government Laboratory in such a way as will inspire confidence, and prevent the issue from them of reports stating that samples are "doubtful." Any thoroughly qualified analyst, who pretends to be an up-to-date scientist, ought to be able to tell whether an article of food is adulterated or not, and I do not think it is creditable to a public Department that they should state that a number of samples are "doubtful" Objection has been raised to any provision being put in this Bill prohibiting the colouring of margarine because it would largely interfere with the sale of wholesome food, but I do not know of any agriculturist who is at all anxious to prevent the sale of margarine as an article of food. It is the poor man's butter, and we do not want to interfere with the sale of it as long as it is wholesome; but it was given as evidence upstairs that a very large quantity of margarine sold in this country was not sold across the counter for the purpose of being used in the ordinary way that butter is used. One of the witnesses told us that 70 or 75 per cent, of the margarine sold in this country is used for cooking purposes. If so large a percentage of margarine is sold for cooking purposes, how does the colouring or non-colouring of it affect it? Does the right honourable Gentleman seriously mean to say that a dish cooked downstairs with margarine instead of butter affects him or anybody else when dished up? The reason people connected with the margarine trade desire to have

  1481
  it coloured is because it enhances the price and facilitates fraud. No matter what is said about making it more pleasing to the eye, the whole question of colouring margarine resolves itself into this—that it is sought by those who sell it to make it more easy to sell it as butter. We do not want it to be coloured blue or any other colour. We want it to be sold for what it is, and nothing else, and the natural colour of margarine, Mr. Speaker, is by no means what the honourable Gentleman below the Gangway said it is. The honourable Member for one of the divisions of Sussex said that the natural colour of margarine was like dripping. That is not so. While it is not exactly white, it is by no means an offensive colour. It is a much more appetising colour than dripping or lard. So long as manufacturers have the power to colour margarine, so long will the door be left open to fraud. I am told by honourable Members who are more interested in margarine than they are in fair and honest trade, that if you prevent colouring you will do an injustice to farmers and dislocate their whole industry. There is not a practical farmer in the country who does not know that the introduction of one or two Jersey cows into his herd would produce the effect which is now obtained by colouring. The Irish dairy farmers will be very much obliged to the right honourable Gentleman if he prohibits the colouring of margarine and butter, and I daresay several honourable Members who represent English agricultural constituencies will be able to say that the dairy farmers in their constituencies will also accept this Bill with satisfaction, even if the colouring of butter is prohibited. If this Bill is to be effective at all, the door must be absolutely closed to the frauds which have been committed for the past 10 or 12 years. I regret that the question of water in butter is not dealt with in the Bill. I want to know what would be the condition of the Irish farmers if this Bill passes in its present form. Great uncertainty prevails at the present moment as to what percentage of water in butter constitutes adulteration, and a recognised standard should be established. Different analysts take different views on the matter, and the trader is
  1482
  at the mercy of the particular bench of magistrates before whom the case comes. In the view of some public analysts, 14 or 15 per cent. should be the maximum, but in the view of others, 16 and even 17 per cent, is fixed. I think it would be found, on reference to the evidence given before the Committee, that the authorities at the Government Laboratory expressed the opinion that 18 per cent, of added water constitutes adulteration. This Bill still leaves the Irish farmers in their present state of uncertainty as to what the law is. I should like to draw the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the necessity for some definite standard being established. This is a matter of the most vital importance in Ireland. The police, who are the inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in Ireland have instituted several prosecutions on this question, and the most varying decisions have been given. One bench of magistrates have refused to convict where there was 20 per cent, of added water, while another bench has fined heavily where there was only 17 per cent. At the present time no butter is allowed to be sold in the Cork Butter Market which contains more than 18 per cent, of water. The trustees of the market do not prosecute where the percentage is higher, but they refuse to allow the brand of the market to be attached to these packages of butter. It may, therefore, be taken that, in the opinion of these well-qualified judges, 18 per cent, of water in butter is adulteration. I agree that this Bill is an advance upon anything we have had up to the present, but I hope that in the two or three particulars where it does not come up to the expectations of myself and others who represent tenant farmers, we shall be afforded an opportunity during the Committee stage of trying to get the Bill amended and to make it more serviceable. The right honourable Gentleman may be assured of this, that the greatest good he can do to the dairy farmer is exactly the greatest good he can do to the consumer. The more good the Bill does to the general consumer the more good it will do to the dairy farmer. During the last six months a consignment of American bacon was sold to a French house. It was transhipped in the port of London and sent to the French port, but was rejected by

  1483
  the head officer at that port on the ground that an excess of borax had been used for the preservation of the bacon. It was thereupon brought back and sold in London at a considerable loss. While the French apparently object to what they consider an excess of borax being used for the purpose of preserving bacon, it is not on record that any French Health Authority has ever objected to goods being sent over here because they contained too large a quantity of borax. They think that borax is bad for the Frenchman, but good for the English man. Some foreign countries have passed legislation prohibiting the use of borax as a preservative of food. In Brazil there is a special Act of Parliament prohibiting its use. This question is one which, I venture to submit, is well worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government. In my opinion, the use of borax has enabled many foreign producers to unduly compete with home producers. They are able, with the use of a very large quantity of borax, to put upon the London market milk and butter apparently fresh, but which is not in the strict sense of the word fresh, because it has been made for some considerable time. These are matters which dairy farmers are interested in, and for that reason I think it is one which should receive the consideration of the right honourable Gentleman. I regret that the right honourable Gentleman has refused to follow the example of foreign countries and have a sentence of imprisonment imposed after a third conviction of fraudulent adulteration. If the fines had been found to be effective for the purpose of stopping adulteration and the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter, we should not be considering this Bill to-day. It is because the fines have not been found sufficient that we have to consider an amendment of the law to-day. The right honourable Gentleman would find that three months' imprisonment, even without a plank bed, would do more to stop the fraudulent sale of margarine as butter than any amount of penalties in fines. I can give the House an instance of one man in the West of Ireland who was fined £10 one week, £20 the next, and was again fined a few weeks afterwards. He did not mind, because the proceeds of his illicit trade in the meantime enabled him to pay these fines. I hope
  1484
  the Bill will be amended in this particular at the Committee stage.
  *MR. LOWLES: I desire to take exception to the remarks made by the honourable Baronet who seconded the Amendment, and to say that if there is one Member of the Front Bench more than another who displays an intelligent grasp of the subject he handles, it is the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. There are at least 100 articles covered by the Bill in addition to butter and margarine, which have occupied almost the whole of the attention of the House—and it is my intention to say a few words on behalf of the retail dealer who sells these articles. It is becoming an increasing burden on the retail dealer to satisfy all the Acts of Parliament affecting him, and many Members are pledged to see that he is not unduly harassed in the trade. While we are protecting the consumer, and everyone would wish that we should do so, we ought also to have some little consideration for the retail dealer. The right honourable Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, led the House to suppose that an invoice would not be accepted as a warranty, although in clause 17 the words used are invoice or warranty. The right honourable Gentleman must be aware that in the Margarine Act of 1887, which has been in use for the last 12 years, the same words occur. But in practice under that Act an invoice has always been taken as a warranty, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will in this Bill continue to regard the production of an invoice stating specifically the nature of the article bought by the retail trader as sufficient indemnity to him in selling. The wholesale traders are perfectly able to take care of themselves. My next point is with regard to the liability of assistants. Under the Margarine Act, 1887, if the employer proves that he used duo diligence to enforce the Act, and that the Act was broken by the carelessness or malice of his assistant, he shall be exempt from any penalty. I hope that this Bill will be amended so as to protect the employer who shows due care and dilligence from suffering through the carelessness of an assistant. If the Bill is amended in these two particulars

  1485
  it will, as a final Measure, meet with universal acceptance on the part of the trades concerned.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The honourable Member who has just sat down has expressed the hope that this Bill will at any rate be a final Measure. The honourable Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex, on the other hand, announced that he was going to support this Bill because he had no doubt that it was merely a step towards another and better Bill to be brought in at some future date. I agree with him that this is not an heroic Measure. I think it is rather remarkable, considering the number of supporters of the Government who have spoken on this Bill, that not one of them has said that it is an excellent Bill, or even that it is a good Bill. The best that has been said for it is a kind of apology for what is assumed to be a step in the right direction. With one or two exceptions each speaker has announced his intention to support the Bill, but no honourable Member has accepted the Bill as a good Measure. Some have said that it will do a little good, and some that it can do no harm; but no one has given the Bill his full blessing. The tone of the right honourable Gentleman in introducing the Bill was also apologetic, but, instead of apologising for the Bill in the same way that his Friends have done— namely, on the ground that it did not go far enough, he has apologised to honourable Members who represent the margarine industry for having ventured to touch their precious trade at all. He used the word "fraud" in connection with the sale of margarine, and not in connection with the manufacture of margarine. For my part I consider that the provisions of the Bill should have been much more drastic. Clause I lays down that margarine or margarine-cheese must not be imported except in packages conspicuously marked "Margarine" or "Margarine-cheese," as the case may require. Adulterated or impoverished butter (other than margarine), or adulterated or impoverished milk, must not be imported except in packages or can? conspicuously marked with a name or description indicating that the butter or milk has been treated. The clause further provides against the sale of condensed, separated, or skimmed milk,
  1486
  except in tins or other receptacles which bear a label whereon the words "Separated milk" or "Skimmed milk," as the case may require, are printed in large and legible type. What is going to happen if anybody breaks this rule? The clause provides that the importer shall be liable, on summary conviction, for the first offence to a fine not exceeding £20, for the second offence to a fine not exceeding £50, and for any subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £100. These are maximum fines.
  [The honourable Member was speaking at 12 o'clock, when, by the Standing Orders, the House adjourned.]
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday.

  COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [23rd February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday, 27th March.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (CLAUSES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY [3RD MARCH].
  Report deferred till Wednesday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  PARTRIDGE SHOOTING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
    CLAUSE I.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 31st May.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 31st May.
  METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Appointment of Select Committee [20th February] further adjourned till Thursday.
  PARISH COUNCILLORS (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
  Committee deferred till this day.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed: —And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it: — And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. E. Barry, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Brymer, Sir Thomas Carmichael, Colonel Cotton-Jodrell, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Sir Henry Meysey-Thomp-son, Mr. Charles Morley, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Tollemache, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— (Sir William Walrond.)
  House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at Four of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  CATHCAET'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Rill be now read the second time; the same was agreed to; Bill read the second time accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
  Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Swansea) [H.L.]
  Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
  Wolverhampton Tramways [H.L.]
  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the petitions for additional provision in the following Bills—
  Gainsborough Urban District Council Gas [H.L.]
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Pilotage) [H.L.]
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  BUENOS AYRES AND PACIFIC RAIL- WAY COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Presented; read the first time and referred to the Examiners.
  INFANT ORPHAN ASYLUM BILL [H.L.]
  Report of Her Majesty's Attorney-General, received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RUSHDEN AND HIGHAM FERRERS DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on Thursday last, discharged; and Bill committed for Tuesday the 14th instant.
  GLASGOW DISTRICT SUBWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Committee to meet on Tuesday the 14th instant.
  WOLVERHAMPTON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read second time (according to Order).
  MUIRKIRK, MAUCHL1NE. AND DAL- MELLINGTON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read, and discharged: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
  LONDON HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
  Read second time (according to Order).

  HERNE RAY WATER BILL [H.L.] AND WALTON-ON-THAMKS AND WEYBRIDGE GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Committed.
  Newhaven and Seaford Water Board Bill [H.L.]
  Southport and Lytham Tramroad Bill [H.L.]
  Skipton Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Caledonian Railway (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]
  Glasgow and South-Western Railway Bill [H.L.]
  North Staffordshire Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Paisley and Barrhead District Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Stretford Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Cromer Protection Bill [H.L.]
  Glastonbury Water Bill [H.L.]
  Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Bristol Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Lea Bridge District Gas Bill [H.L.]
  Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill [H.L.]
  Nene Valley Water Bill [H.L.]
  St. Neot's Water Bill [H.L.]
  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.),

  E. Radnor,

  L. Sinclair,

  L. Carew,

  L. Rookwood (chairman),

  L. Newton;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 14th instant, at Eleven 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.
  Kirkcaldy Corporation and Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water Bill [H.L.]
  Wishaw Water Bill [H.L.]
  Aberdeen Corporation Bill [H.L.]
  Dumbarton Burgh Bill [H.L.]
  Greenock and Port Glasgow Tramways Bill [H.L.]
  Perth Water, Police, and Gas Bill [H.L.]
  West Highlands Railway Bill [H.L.]
  Airdrie and Coatbridge Water Bill [H.L.]
  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.),

  E. Derby (chairman),

  E. Malmesbury,

  V. Falkland,

  L. Northbourne,

  L. Muncaster;

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 14th instant, at Eleven 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.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1899.
  Miscellaneous Series: No. 498. Commercial Education in the Netherlands.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EMIGRATION.
  Report on the Emigrants' Information Office, for the year ended 31st December 1898.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
  I. North-Central Division: General report, for the year 1898, by the Reverend C. H. Parez, chief inspector;
  II. Code of regulations for day schools, with schedules and appendices, by the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education;
  III. Revised instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors, and applicable to the Code of 1899.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
  Forty-fourth Annual Report by the Registrar-General in Scotland, for the year 1898; and Thirty-fourth Annual lie-port on Vaccination.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  VACCINATION ACT, 1898.
  Petition for repeal of; of Guardians of the Drayton Union; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TELEGRAPH (CHANNEL ISLANDS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order). Bill reported without amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read a third time Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Five of the clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Four of the clock.