Sitting of 9 March 1899

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition—
Whereupon MR. JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith, CHAIRMAN OF WAYS and MEANS), proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order, at Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills,—That, in the case of the following Bills, referred
  258
  on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. G2 has been complied with, namely—
  London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway (Various Powers) Bill.
  Tenderton Railway Bill.
  Woodhouse and Conisbrough Railway (Abandonment) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (LORDS).
  Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, namely—
  Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts Amendment.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
  *MR. CECIL: I think it would simplify matters, so far as the Instruction which stands in my name on the Paper is concerned, if at this stage I made a statement with regard to this Question in its present aspect in view of a resolution passed by the Lea Conservancy Board. The Lea Conservancy Board, since this matter was previously before the House, have passed this resolution—
  "That if the clauses relating to the Lea Conservancy be withdrawn from the present Bill, the Lea Conservancy Board will themselves promote a Bill in the next or following Session of Parliament for the reconstitution of the Board in such a manner as to make it representative of all the interests of the River Lea."
  The Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Members, who are specially concerned in this question, have also come to the decision that it would be desirable that the

  259
  Lea Conservancy Board should be allowed to promote such a Bill next year on condition that the present clauses relating to the constitution of the Lea Conservancy Hoard are withdrawn. I am given to understand that as the Lea Board have a bona fide intention of promoting this Bill, and as it is also the desire of Hertfordshire, which I particularly represent, that such a Bill should be promoted, the London County Council will withdraw the clauses.
  MR. STUART (Shorediteh, Hoxton): I may as well reply at once to the statement that has been made by the honourable Gentleman. In the Bill itself there are a large number of clauses to which no objection has been taken. The whole question centres round that portion of the Bill which refers to the reconstruction of the Board of the Conservancy of the River Lea. Now, Sir, I regret that there should be opposition to these clauses, or to something being done even in the present year in this matter, because ' the preamble of the Bill fairly states, I believe, the position of things. By reason of the large abstraction of water, the condition of the River Lea below a certain point is offensive to the inhabitants residing in or near thereto, and if anyone looks at the present constitution of the Board of Conservators they will see that it is not a Board of the present day, nor one that can be continued. Indeed, the interests of the River Lea are those of the sanitary authorities which surround that river, and their interests, from a sanitary point of view, are pre-eminently the interests of the population represented by the London County Council. The matter has been pressed upon the London County Council by the various local sanitary authorities. It is also a matter that has been before the House. It maybe within the remembrance of some honourable Gentlemen that the present Lord Chief Justice, then Sir Charles Russell, in 1886 secured the appointment of a Committee to investigate the offensive condition of the River Lea. That Committee sat and took a great deal of evidence, the whole of which clearly pointed to the absolute necessity of reorganising the Conservancy Board, and of making it much more representative in character. That Committee did not conclude its labours by the end of the
  260
  then Session, and, owing to Parliamentary circumstances, the Committee was not at the time reappointed, but I venture to think that if anyone peruses the report of the evidence given before that Committee they will see that the report could scarcely have stated other than that the condition of the Lea was offensive, and that some reconstitution of the Lea Conservancy Board was necessary. I will not detain the House longer, but it is necessary for me to lay these facts before you in taking the course I am about to take. As to the present Conservancy Board, I should like to read a couple of extracts from the evidence taken the day before yesterday by the Royal Commission. Here is a question put by Mr. Pember to the Chairman of the Commission, Lord Llandaff—
  "I do nut know," said Mr. Pember, "whether you have had the constitution of the Lea Conservancy Board referred to. We may as well have it."
  The Chairman replied—
  "We have had it many times, I think. I do not want to say anything against the integrity or impartiality of the Lea Conservancy Board, but it is obvious that they are dependent on the water companies. They could not live without them."
  Mr. Pope added—
  "If the water companies did not pay, the Conservancy Board would have to shut up."
  Let me now show the House, from another quotation, what occurred before Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission on the Water Supply of London. A certain gentleman was called as a witness for the East London Water Company, and he was asked by the Chairman of the Commission—
  "Will you explain to the Commission why it is that you come to speak as a witness for the East London Water Company and not for the Conservancy Board?"
  That witness was the special adviser, the consulting sanitary engineer, who looked after the purification of the river, and whose duty it was to see that the companies did not take more water from the river than they were entitled to; but he appeared before that Commission to speak on behalf of the water com-

  261
  pany, by whom he was retained, instead of on behalf of the Conservancy Board. I think the few facts which I have brought before the House will show the very difficult position in which the River Lea is placed, and the necessity for the reorganisation of the Conservancy Board upon some basis which shall be adequately representative of the population concerned. I observe that the resolution which has been passed by the Lea Conservancy Board states that they will bring in their Bill next year or the following year, and that the Hertfordshire County Council, or the Hertfordshire representatives, have urged that it should be brought in next year. I would venture to say that this Bill ought not to lie over till the year following next, but ought to be brought in next year. I have no doubt that that is what the Lea Conservancy Board intend to do, but, should they not bring in a Bill next year, I must hold the hands of the London County Council open to reintroduce a Bill dealing with the matter, and I must at the same time also hold the hands of the London County Council perfectly open to deal with the Measure which may be brought forward by the Lea Conservancy Board—either to oppose it or support it in accordance with the way in which it answers the ideas which the London County Council may form of in adequate and proper representation. With these restrictions I accept the pledge which is now given in the House, on behalf of the Lea Conservancy Board, and am prepared, on behalf of the London County Council, to withdraw the clauses which are referred to.
  MR. PYM: I think it is only just and fair to say that my honourable Friend the Member for Hertford would have spoken at greater length if he had known that the Member for Hoxton was going so fully into this matter. The Lea Conservancy Board consider that the proposal of the County Council, which desires to change the whole character of the Board, is a most unjustifiable one. The County Council propose to change the Board into one which should be entirely representative of the majority of the County Council members, and this is a proposal which, in justice to the great interests which are concerned, the Lea Conservancy
  262
  Board felt they ought to oppose in every way possible.
  MR. BUXTON: As to what has been said by the honourable Member for Bedford, I think it was absolutely necessary that. the honourable Member for Hoxton, in withdrawing these clauses, should give his reasons for so doing, and explain why the County Council originally introduced the clauses. The animadversion of my honourable Friend is therefore unmerited. I hope this Bill which the Lea Conservancy Board are to introduce will be brought in next Session, and not postponed for two or three years, and, in the second place, that the representation will be adequate and proper.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (No. 1) BILL.
  "To provide for dissolving the National Telephone Company (Limited), and for reincorporating the Company and defining its objects, capital, and powers; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (No. 2) BILL.
  "For conferring powers on the National Telephone Company (Limited)," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Belfast to lay down Tramways; to make works and to purchase lands for cemetery purposes; to amend several of the Local Acts in force in Belfast; and to confer various powers on the Corporation," read the first time: to be read a second time.
PETITIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Barnet, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (MUNICIPAL TRADING).
  Petition from Leeds, for inquiry by a Select Committee; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour:—From Truro;— Gloucester;—Liverpool;—and, Redbank (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Copy presented,—of Forty-eighth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March 1899 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (EXCESS), 1897–8.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good the Excess on the Grant for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories for the year ended 31st March 1898 (by Command); referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. (No. 98.)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) (COMMERCIAL, No. 1, 1899).
  Copy presented,—of Reports respecting the Telephone Service in various Foreign Countries (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  BANKRUPTCY COURTS (IRELAND).
  Annual Returns presented,—of the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland and the Local Courts, Belfast and Cork, for the year 1898 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1897–8.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Public Record Office for the year ended on the 31st March 1898 (by Command); referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. (No. 99.)
  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of Estimated Expenditure to 31st March 1899, under the Naval Works Act, 1897 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES (ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE, 1898–9).
  Order (8th March), That the said Estimate be referred to the Committee of Supply, and be printed, read, and discharged: Estimate withdrawn.—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  SANITARY INSPECTORS' EXAMINATION BOARD. Return ordered,
  "Of Copies of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Sanitary Inspectors' Examination Board (formed by the Sanitary Institute and other bodies) and of the Licence granted by the Board of Trade pursuant to section 23 of the Companies Act, 1867.—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return ordered,
  "Of monthly comparative statements of the number of Paupers of all classes (except lunatics in asylums, registered hospitals, and licensed houses, and vagrants) in receipt of relief in England and Wales on the last day of every week in each month of the several years from 1857 to 1899, both inclusive; and Statements of the number of Paupers (lunatics and vagrants included), distinguishing the number of adult able-bodied Paupers relieved on the 1st day of January 1899, and the 1st day of July 1899, respectively."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 100.)

  STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Ordered,—That all Standing Committees have leave to print and circulate with the Votes the Minutes of their Proceedings, and any amended Clauses of Bills committed to them.—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a. Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1897, and the Post Office Acts in relation to the Channel Islands."(Telegraph (Channel Islands) Bill (Lords.)
QUESTIONS.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. NICOL (Argyll): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the hardship which would otherwise be caused to teachers who cannot in all respects fulfil the conditions of the Superannuation Act, it would be possible to continue for a few years the pensions now offered under the Code; and whether, seeing that in Scotland the principle of the Revised Code of 1862 was not adopted until after the passing of the Scottish Education Act and seeing that the date fixed in the Code before which teachers must have served in order to be qualified for a Code pension, namely, 9th May 1862, was fixed by the introduction of that Code, it might in the case of Scotland be altered to the year 1872, the date of the passing of the Education Act?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): In reply to the honourable Member, I have to say that the Department recognises the hardships which might arise were the pensions offered under the Code to be immediately withdrawn, and they have obtained the consent of the Treasury to the maintenance of these pensions for the present. They also recognise that the difference in the date at which the principle of the Revised Code was applied
  266
  to Scotland does constitute a valid claim for a difference in the period from which a teacher should have served in order to become qualified for a pension; and on their representation the Treasury has agreed that the date should be altered accordingly to the 6th August 1872, when the Education Act was passed. A Minute will be placed on the Table accordingly.

  BLOOD MONEY FOR WOUNDED BRITISH OFFICERS.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that blood money on the authorised scale has been granted to British officers wounded on service while employed in the Egyptian Army; and whether it is intended to extend similar treatment to those wounded in recent operations; if not, could he explain the reason; and, if so, when will such payments be commenced?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WTNDHAM,): The whole question is still under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to give a reply.

  SHEEP STEALING IN THE ISLE OF MAN.
  MR. HOZIER (Lanark, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why John Dickson, an ex-policeman, who was sentenced on the 8th of July last to five years' penal servitude for sheep stealing in the Isle of Man, was released on the 8th of August, after undergoing only one month of his sentence; and whether sheep stealing is very prevalent in the Isle of Man?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE EOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): After careful consideration of all the facts of the case the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that the verdict could not be upheld, and advised the grant of a free pardon. He has no information as to the prevalence of sheep stealing in

  267
  the Isle of Man, but has no reason to suppose that it is more prevalent there than the other parts of the country where sheep farming is conducted under similar conditions.

  TELEGRAPH CLERKS' INCREMENTS.
  COLONEL DALBIAC (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the Post Office decline to grant increments for technical knowledge to telegraph clerks who possess a first-class certificate for technical telegraphy and have passed in electricity and magnetism (Science and Art Department), but do not possess a certificate for the latter; and whether the South Kensington authorities have consented to place their official list at the service of the Post Office; if this is so, will the Postmaster-General accept the information thus supplied as a sufficient proof of the applicant for the increment having passed the examination?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Yes, Sir. Mere passing is not enough. The Science and Art Department grants certificates only to those who pass in the first class. Telegraphists who do not attain this class cannot be allowed the double increment.

  PRISONERS' EARNINGS.
  MR. FLOWER (Bradford, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Prisoners that prisoners should be able to earn something continuously during their sentences?
  MR. COLLINGS: The suggestion made by the Committee has not been lost sight of, and is still under the consideration of the Prisons Commissioners, but the financial question, of course, presents considerable difficulty.

  PRISON SCHOOLMASTER-WARDERS.
  MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a fact that schoolmaster-warders are only allowed the same extent of annual leave of absence as ordinary warders; and if the hours of duty of schoolmaster-warders are considerable longer than the hours of duty of other prison schoolmasters?
  MR. COLLINGS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. This matter was inquired into by the Departmental Committee of which Lord de Ramsey was Chairman, and which reported that the evidence did not support the demand for alteration in the terms of the service of the schoolmaster-warders. The answer to the second paragraph is also in the affirmative. The schoolmaster-warders are discipline officers who have satisfied the Chief Inspector of the Education Department that they are, qualified to teach. They are disappearing as a class, and are being replaced by the new clerk and schoolmaster-warder class. The maximum number of hours given to teaching is the same in all cases, namely, six a day.

BREAD SUPPLY TO MANCHESTER GAOL.
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the statement contained in the last annual Report of the Visiting Justices of Manchester Prison, to the effect that the bread provided during part of last year was of an inferior quality, being tasteless and chaffy, and its ultimate effect prejudicial to the health of the prisoners; if the contractor for such bread has been notified by the Prison Commissioners that his contract must be determined; and, if so, whether the declaration on page 314 of the last annual Report of the Prison Commissioners that the diet of Manchester has not been sufficient and of good quality is, in respect of the bread supplied, well-founded or not?
MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State is not aware what is the report referred to. In the Visiting Com-

269
mittees Report for 1898 they stated that the provisions were of good quality. It appears that in 1897 they had occasion to call attention to the bad quality of wheat supplied to the prison, and steps were at once taken to put the matter right.
MR. FLOWER: But is it not the fact that the Visiting Justices did complain of the quality of the bread?
MR. COLLINGS: That was in the Report for the year 1897. In 1898 it was said in the Report that the provisions were of good quality.

PRISON LABOUR,
MR. FLOWER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of cranks and tread wheels at present in use in local prisons?
MR. COLLINGS: There are 33 tread-wheels and 11 cranks now in use. All these are used for productive or useful prison purposes, e.g., grinding wheat, sawing wood, or pumping water.
MR. FLOWER: Is there any intention of gradually doing away with these cranks and tread wheels?
MR. COLLINGS: That I cannot say.

ITALY IN CHINA.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN (Merthyr Tydfil): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has refused to concede 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-Tamen has received a note from the British Minister at Pekin supporting the demands of Italy; and whether the Liquin dues of the Province of Che-Kiang (in which Sammun is situated) have been pledged by the Chinese Government as security for the repayment of the loan for 16 millions sterling?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): We understand that the matter is still under the consideration of the Chinese Government. We have expressed our sympathy with the desire of Italy to obtain a coaling station, but have always recognised that it is one which it is for the Chinese Government to consider whether they shall accept or not. The Likin dues of a portion of the Province of Che-Kiang are understood to have been pledged to the bondholders, but, no doubt, in any arrangements made by the Chinese Government, these interests will be safeguarded.
MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN:Are the English Government advocating the demands of Italy?
[No Reply.]

CONNEMARA POLICE HUT.
MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the district, he will abolish the police hut at Maam Cross Roads, Connemara, occupied by a sergeant and four policemen, which was established there in 1882 when the the country was in a disturbed condition?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The hut at Maam Cross was established in 1891 as an ordinary police station, and not for special protection purposes. It is the only police station on the direct road between Oughterarde and Clifden, a distance of 32 miles, and in the opinion of the responsible authorities, there are no sufficient grounds for disestablishing it.
MR. KILBRIDE (Galwny, N.): What was the reason for the increase of the establishment in 1891?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have not the facts. If the honourable Member wishes further information, perhaps he will put down a Question.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: What is the cost for extra police to the country in connection with this hut?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is no charge for extra police.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Where does the money come from that is required to keep it up?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Out of the Chief Secretary's salary, perhaps.

TELEGRAPH WAY-LEAVES IN BELFAST.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he is aware that serious public inconvenience is being caused by the great delay, and in many cases the refusal of the Post Office to give consent to the carrying of wires across railways over which the Postmaster-General possesses exclusive way-leave rights for telegraphs; and whether he is aware that business firms in Belfast are thus deprived of the telephone service; and whether the refusal of these way-leaves will be persisted in in view of the Treasury Minute on Telephones approved by Parliament in 1892?
MR. HANBURY: The right of the Postmaster-General to refuse such way-leaves was specially reserved by the agreement of 189G. In places where there is no competition, such as Belfast, they will continue to be granted, subject, of course, to revocation at short notice in order to place the Company and the municipality, so far as possible, on equal terms in this respect, should there be two competing systems.

COAL FOR THE NAVY.
SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the explanation of the diminution of the Supplementary Estimate for coal from £316,000 to £110,000?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. MACARTNEY, Antrim, S.): The explanation is that the balance has been met by saving on other items of the Vote.
SIR C. DILKE: Then that amount has been spent on coal?
MR. MACARTNEY: Yes, certainly.

CHINESE AGREEMENTS.
MR. MOON (St. Pancras, N.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Agreement concluded on the 27th August (8th September), 1896, by the Imperial Chinese Government with the Russo-Chinese Bank is more or less comprehensive than the Statutes of the Eastern Chinese Railway Company, which were imperially confirmed on 4–16 December, 1896, and presented in an abridged translation to this House in March, 1898 [C. 8777], and whether he will obtain and supply to Members translations of the following sections of the Statutes of the Eastern Chinese Railway Company, namely, (18) Functions of Board of Management; (19) Constitution of the Board; (21) General meetings of shareholders, and the subjects that shall come under their notice; (23) Conditions under which general meetings shall be recognised as legally held; (24) Participation of shareholders in proceedings of general meetings; (25) Local management of works of construction; (26) Local management of railway when in working order; (27) Questions to be submitted for confirmation by Russian Minister of Finances; and (28) Committee of audit; and whether he will consider the question of appointing a British Consul at Vladivostock where there are already United States, French, Belgian, and German Consuls or Commercial Agents?
MR. BRODRICK: We have not seen the Agreement of August 27th (September 8th), 1896. Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg will be requested to send home translations of the sections referred to, and his dispatch will be included in any further correspondence respecting China which may be

273
presented to Parliament after its receipt. The question of the possible appointment of a British Commercial Agent at Vladi-vostock has been suggested, but no decision has yet been arrived at.

EASTERN CHINESE RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain and state to this House how much bond capital has up to this date been issued under section 11 of the Statutes of the Eastern Chinese Railway Company; whether any annual reports have been presented under section 16 of the same Statutes to the general meeting of shareholders in respect of the years ending 4–16 December, 1897 and 4–16 December, 1898, respectively, and whether he will supply translations of such reports, if they exist, to Members; what are the names of the chairman, vice-chairman, and the other seven members of the board of management of the company; and whether, under section 19, the chairman is appointed by the Chinese Government from among the nine members elected by the shareholders, or independently?
MR. BRODRICK: The information which the honourable Member desires to obtain is not in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, but if he attaches importance to it, Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg will be asked whether any documents giving the particulars are available to the public.

TELEGRAPH FACILITIES AT BELFAST.
MR. YOUNG (Cavan, E.): On behalf of the honourable Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the desired establishment of a telegraph office at the post office beside the Grand Metropole Hotel, Donegal Street, Belfast, whether any further representations have been made to the Postmaster of the City of Belfast on the matter; and whether, considering the urgent necessity for same, he will
274
favourably consider the establishment of a telegraph office there without unnecessary delay?
MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that further representations have been made to the Postmaster of Belfast with reference to the establishment of a telegraph office in Donegal Street, Belfast. As promised on the 20th ultimo, a further report has been called for on this subject, and as soon as it is received, no time shall be lost in communicating with the honourable Member.

DUNDRUM BAY FISHERIES.
MR. YOUNG: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a petition from the women of Newcastle, county Down, directing his attention to the injury and threatened ruin caused to them and their families by steam trawlers without lights trawling in Dundrum Bay; whether the petitioners complain that a number of the poor fishermen of Newcastle are now being prosecuted for alleged carrying away of gear belonging to one of these trawlers, while the owners of the trawlers, notwithstanding their destruction of fish, have been allowed to escape; and whether he will, in the interest of these poor fishermen, cause full inquiry to be made into the matter.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. With regard to the proceedings now pending against a number of fishermen at Newcastle, I am informed that the case will be investigated by the magistrates at the next petty sessions to be held on the 17th instant. Under these circumstances, it is undesirable, at the present stage, to make any statement respecting the action of the fishermen which led to their prosecution for malicious injury.

KENSINGTON PALACE.
MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that a sum of £23,000 is being expended on

275
the restoration of the State Rooms and Banqueting House of Kensington Palace, will he state if arrangements can be made for this Palace, or part of it, to be opened during certain hours to the pubilc?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I thought I had made it sufficiently clear, both last year and again on the Supplementary Estimate, that the sum expended on Kensington Palace was voted by the House in consequence of Her Majesty having more than a year ago signified her intention of throwing open the State Rooms of Kensington Palace to the public during her pleasure.

BALLINTOY AND PORTBALLINTRAE HARBOURS.
MR. W. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will endeavour to secure for the Antrim coast some allocation of the moneys now being spent in harbour and pier accommodation in the west of Ireland, and to have same expended in scouring out and rendering reasonably safe the harbours at Ballintoy and Portballintrae, so as to enable the fishermen of those districts to pursue their calling; and if his attention has been called to the present dangerous condition of those harbours for want of the necessary expenditure, and of the strong local demand for same?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid the two harbours mentioned in this Question cannot be considered as possessing claims for special consideration by Government. If the expenditure referred to in the Question is that provided for out of the funds of the Congested Districts Board, the answer is that it would obviously be impossible to apply the funds of that Board to a non-congested district. My attention has been called to the condition of one, if not both of these harbours, by a Question put to me on the 17th ultimo by the honourable Member for Galway, and I would refer my honourable Friend to the reply given by me to that Question.

MILITIA TRANSPORT.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been directed to the Militia being without a transport service, and, in view of the absolute necessity of having the Militia provided with its own transport, will he issue an authority to each unit of Militia to detail an officer and a limited number of noncommissioned officers and men during the approaching preliminary drill and training to go through a course of instruction in transport duties?
MR. WYNDHAM: In the event of war the majority of the Militia regiments will be posted in garrisons, where transport will not be required. Transport is allotted to those regiments which will form part of the Field Army.

MILITIA O.R.C.S.
MR PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to remedy the grievance under which the Militia O.R.C.S. of all branches of the service at present labour, namely, being deprived of all chances of advancement higher than the rank of sergeant by virtue of the position they hold; and whether, prior to the publication of Army Order 294 in 1890, the position of Militia orderly room clerk carried a progressive rank, and other inducements were offered for suitable non-commissioned officers to undertake the work without destroying their prospects of future advancement?
MR. WYNDHAM: Before the publication of Army Order 294 of 1890 orderly room sergeants were on the permanent staff of Militia regiments. In 1890 these appointments were abolished and it was decided to substitute orderly room clerks on the depot staff. These clerks are eligible for promotion to the post of orderly room sergeants of the depot when a vacancy occurs. They can also obtain promotion in the ordinary way in their service units.

IRISH MILITIA TRAININGS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it has been decided not to have any Irish Militia trained at Salisbury Plain this year: and whether, as they would therefore be deprived of the advantages of an extended period of training 34 days which is to be granted to the English and Scotch regiments training at Salisbury Plain, will he extend the period of training in the Irish Militia brigade camps to 34 days?
MR. WYNDHAM: No Irish Militia will be trained at Salisbury Plain this year. The regulalr period of training is 28 days, and it is not desirable to extend it in ordinary cases.

IRISH TRAINING COLLEGES.
MR. M'GHEE (Louth, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what number of monitresses in their fifth year of service and girls for entrance to training colleges presented themselves for examination at the different centres in Ireland last Easter week; and whether monitresses were examined three months previous to the termination of the monitorial engagement, although in former years the examination was held in the month of July; whether, considering that a number of new subjects were added to the programme and for the first time made compulsory, he will explain on what grounds young girls having given five years' faithful service as monitresses should be dismissed the service upon failure in needlework only; and if the whole matter will be taken into consideration in the interest of the service?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: 1,163 candidates of the class mentioned presented themselves at the Easter examination of 1898. Of these 550 were monitresses and 613 training candidates. The examination took place in July in previous years, but due notice of the change was given. Only one additional subject was included in the new programme. Monitresses who failed to qualify in needle-
278
work and who made sufficient answering on the whole, were not denied classification, but obtained it provisionally on condition of passing needlework at the Easter examination of 1899, to which they will be summoned. There were only 15 such cases. The Commissioners consider that it is for the interest of the service that this arrangement should be continued.

ABERDEEN RAILWAY STATION.
MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the scheme of the Caledonian Railway Company and Great North of Scotland Railway Company for making a new station at Aberdeen, and to the omission in that scheme to make provision for a public access on each side of the station (which will be a long one), and to make adequate provision for the very large and increasing traffic in fish; whether the Board is aware that a strong and general feeling exists in Aberdeen that the plans for the new station are seriously defective in both the above respects; and whether the Board will take the matter into consideration, and will, if satisfied that the facts are as above stated, represent to the two railway companies the propriety of so amending their scheme as to make-due provision for securing the above objects, and generally for the convenience and safety of the public using the station?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for the PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE): My right honourable Friend requests me to state that he has received a letter from the Caledonian Company which he will be happy to show to the right honourable Gentleman. The company are, he believes, conducting negotiations with regard to the improvement of the station, and are consulting the local authority with reference thereto. Until those negotiations are further advanced he is not able to say what their effect will be.

BELGIUM AND CHINA.
MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Belgian Minister at Pekin stated to the Tsung-li-Yamen that that Minister's application for a concession at Han-kau for the Lu-han railway terminus is supported by England?
MR. BRODRICK: We have not heard that any such statement has been made, and it would be incorrect.

MILITARY FUNERALS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that, in connection with the recent death of a non-commissioned officer of the 4th Volunteer Battalion (the Queen's) Royal West Surrey Regiment, application was made for leave for a military funeral, and whether the application was not acceded to on the ground that no authority could be found for such a ceremonial in relation to Volunteers; and whether, if that be the case, the Secretary of State for War will cause the Volunteer Regulations to be so amended as to permit in future of Military honours being paid at the funeral of any officer, noncommissioned officer, or private serving in the Volunteer force at the time of his death, provided such Military funeral is desired by relatives or others concerned?
MR. WYNDHAM: The application for a Military funeral was refused by the officer commanding the battalion on the grounds referred to in the question. The suggestion of amending the regulations to provide for such funerals will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State for War.

SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
MR. ALLAN.: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is able to give a reply to the memorandum presented last Session on behalf of the second division clerks of Her Majesty's Civil Service; and whether, before filling up all the
280
vacancies in the first division by direct appointment, the Lords of the Treasury will cause careful inquiry to be made whether there are meritorious and deserving second division clerks of over eight years' service in the Admiralty, War Office, Board of Trade, Board of Agriculture, Local Government Board, and Inland Revenue Departments, who are, under the terms of the Orders in Council, eligible for consideration for advancement in accordance with the recommendations of the Playfair and White-Ridley Commissions?
MR. HANBURY: The Treasury have had under consideration a series of petitions from clerks of the second division relating to their pay, prospects of promotion, and annual leave. The arguments in these petitions and in the memorandum handed to me by the honourable Member in the course of last Session included nothing 'which had not been considered and dealt with in former Minutes of the Board of Treasury; and the petitioners were so informed by a circular letter of 24th December 1898. It is not the duty of the Treasury to take the initiative with regard to the exceptional promotion of second division clerks to posts in the upper division. But whenever a second division clerk is recommended for such special promotion by the head of his department on the ground of "exceptional fitness" or "very exceptional ability, merit, and diligence"—which are the words used by the Ridley Commission—his case always receives the most careful consideration at the hands of the Treasury.

RAILWAYS ON THE GOLD COAST.
MR. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to state the present condition of the railways now in progress in the Colony and Protectorate of the Gold Coast, and when it is proposed to open the first section of the line for traffic; and what steps have been taken, or will be taken, to ensure the erection of suitable piers and landing-stages for commerce at Accra, Cape Coast Castle, Axum, Winnebah, Addah, Chamah, and Quittah?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The railway from Sokondi to Tarquah is making good progress, and it is anticipated that, if the seasons are not unfavourable, this line will be open for traffic early next year. Surveys of certain other routes have also been made, including a flying survey for a line to Coomassie. The construction of piers and landing stages on the West Coast is impracticable, in most cases, without very costly protective works against the heavy surf which constantly prevails. The question of carrying out such works at the places which may eventually be selected as the coast termini of the different railways is receiving-careful consideration.

IRISH SUB-POSTMASTERS AS COUNTY COUNCILLORS.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Ros-common, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-master-General, whether the postal authorities in Ireland have issued an order forbidding sub-postmasters becoming candidates for the position of county councillor; whether this applies to the office of district councillor; and, if not. what is the reason for the discrimination between the two councils; whether the postal authorities intend to treat a salary of about £6 per annum (as in many cases) to a rural sub-postmaster as a disqualification for lilting an important public position at the call of the electors; and, in case this order, if made, be disregarded, what action it is proposed to take against the offender?
MR. HANBURY: The reply to the first Question is in the affirmative. On the introduction of the Irish Local Government Act post office servants were reminded that they were forbidden to become candidates for the county councils. This prohibition, which was laid down by the Government in 1888 for the whole Civil Service, was not extended to district councils or parish councils, for the reason that attendance at meetings of district or parish councils would not, it was considered, be calculated to interfere with post office servants' official duty so
282
much as attendance at meetings of county councils which might take place at a considerable distance from then-offices. The permission to become candidates for district or parish councils was given to post office servants in 1894 on the understanding that in any case in which the duties of the council were found to conflict with those of the post office the Postmaster-General reserved to himself the right to require the officer to retire from the council. As regards the third Question, the Postmaster-General could not undertake to make any distinction between officers with small salaries and those more highly paid. The reply to the fourth Question is that disregard of the rule relating to county councils would in all probability lead to the severance of the officer's connection with the Service.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is there any reason why sub-postmasters whose salary is less than £5 per year should be prohibited, while inland revenue officers are not? Is the right honourable Gentle-man aware that an inland revenue officer has already been elected a county councillor?
MR. HANBURY: I believe the prohibition is the same in all cases, but I will inquire.

LABOUR IMMIGRATION INTO ASSAM.
MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can lay upon the Table of the House the Triennial Report on Labour Immigration into Assam, which should have appeared at the end of the year 1895, or thereabouts, and which was not produced when last asked for because it was said that the last Viceroy had not been able to consider it owing to the grave events in India—war and famine.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): On the 9th of May last I explained, in reply to a Question from the honourable Member, how the matter stood: the Report in question was sent home in March, 1897, but the Government of India had not arrived at a conclusion in regard to certain changes

283
of system recommended by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. These recommendations are still under their consideration, but I learn from a dispatch of February last that I may expect to receive their conclusions at an early date.

GAME LICENCES.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is illegal for game dealers in the United Kingdom, either wholesale or retail, to sell English game after 10th February which has been killed and bought before the close time (1st February) and consigned to cold-air stores in this kingdom, in view of the fact that foreign game can be sold all the year round; and, in the affirmative case, would he consider whether it would be possible to allow game dealers in this country to sell British and Irish game after close time on production, when challenged, of the cold-air stores delivery notes; and what proof is at present given that so-called foreign game exposed for sale after 10th February is what it professes to be?
MR. HANBURY: This Question should be addressed to the Home Office.

OLDHAM ROAD GOODS YARD FATALITY.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now inquired into the case of J. Cavanagh, who lost his life in December last at the Oldham Road Goods Yard of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company in Manchester; whether he will ascertain if any, and what, improvements can be made in the working of the capstans by applying treadles, better lighting, or otherwise, with a view of lessening the loss of life in that yard; and would he inquire how many accidents have happened in that goods yard during the last five years, and the nature and cause of each accident?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for the PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE): My right honourable Friend has been in communication with the company on the subject referred to by the honourable Member, but has not yet received their reply. Until he does it is not possible for him to say what steps (if any) can be taken in the matter.

DELAGOA RAILWAY ARBITRATION.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether nine years have elapsed since the Delagoa Railway case was sent to a tribunal for arbitration, and that the final decision was promised before last autumn; whether there is any prospect of the decision being promulgated within a reasonable time; and whether the lease by Portugal of Delagoa Bay for a term of years to the British Government is awaiting the decision of the experts in the Railway case?
MR. BRODRICK: The answer to the first portion of the Question is in the-affirmative, but no promise as to the date of the final decision appears to have been given. Her Majesty's Government trust that the decision on this question will not now be much further prolonged, but we have no power to accelerate it. The answer to the last paragraph of the-Question is in the negative.

DISTURBANCES IN ST. CLEMENT'S CHURCH, BELFAST.
MR. McCARTAN (Down, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday last there was a repetition of the disturbances in St. Clement's Church, Belfast, and that the constabulary had to be called in to remove or order out the disturbers from the church; whether he is aware that a most disorderly mob pursued the Rev. Mr. Peoples on his way from the church to his residence, and that a stone fired from the crowd went through a window of his residence and seriously injured in the face a young lady who was in the room: and whether some steps will be taken to protect this

285
clergyman from the disorderly rabble in the performance of his duties?
MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday last a stone was thrown through a window in the house of the Rev. Mr. Peoples, in Belfast, and that the stone struck a lady who was sitting in the house; and whether the offender has been brought to justice?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are generally as stated in the two Questions of the honourable Members for South Down and East Mayo. A large force of police is employed in protecting Mr. Peoples, and the authorities will continue to afford him every necessary protection. The person who threw the stone that struck one of the inmates of the house has not yet been made amenable.
MR. DILLON: Does the right honourable Gentleman think there was the necessary protection when a lady was struck in the face with a stone?
[No Reply.]
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh, they are Orangemen.

PROMOTION IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. MACALEESE (Monaghan, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the system called the "P Examination is causing much discontent in the ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary through practically abolishing promotion by seniority, and lifting constables of a few years' service over the heads of old and experienced officers; whether experience shows that the" P. Examination is detrimental to the efficiency of the constabulary, since young constables, studying for it, neglect to perfect themselves in a thorough knowledge of police duties; and, if this be so, will he devise some means by which a remedy may be applied to this grievance?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware that the system of examination referred to is causing discontent, as suggested in the first paragraph. It is not correct to say that promotion by seniority is practically abolished. Out of 186 promotions made in the past year as many as 156 were made from amongst deserving senior men. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative: the result of experience shows that men who have been successful at the examinations in question generally make excellent sergeants. It is not proposed to alter the present system.

DURHAM TERRITORIAL REGIMENT.
MR. ELLIOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of bringing the city and county of Durham into close connection with the territorial regiment, by establishing barracks at at the city of Durham which might contain the depots of the Durham Light Infantry and the permanent staff of one or both Militia battalions?
MR. WYNDHAM: The Durham Light Infantry and the Northumberland Fusiliers now have a double depot at Newcastle, which would have to be broken up if effect were given to the suggestion of the honourable Member. In view of the advantages afforded by double as compared with single depots the Secretary of State cannot assent to a proposal which would involve the breaking up of a double depot.

BELFAST CUSTOM HOUSE STEPS.
MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Custom House steps in Belfast are being used as a platform by itinerant preachers and others on Sundays for haranguing gatherings of disorderly persons, to the prejudice of the public peace; and will he take steps to enclose this Crown property in such a way as will prevent those persons from making the steps a platform for their mischievous addresses?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that the steps of the Custom House in Belfast are being used, and have been used for many years, as a platform by persons representing various sects and religious denominations? The expediency of enclosing the steps is doubtful.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the Government consider the propriety of proclaiming these meetings?
[No Reply.]

ORKNEY LAND TAX.
MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether a double land tax is levied in Orkney; and, if so, upon what grounds the imposition is justified?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Office of Woods and Forests that a double land tax is not levied in Orkney. The Skatt in Orkney appears to be the equivalent of the Feu-duties imposed on hinds in other parts of Scotland, where the land tax is paid in addition to the Feu-duties.

WATERVILLE POST OFFICE.
MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been directed to the great inconvenience to tourists and others staying at the hotels in Waterville, county Kerry, owing to the fact that there is no telegraph office attached to the Post Office at Waterville; whether they are obliged to make use of the Cable Company's Offices, situate more than half a mile from the hotels, causing loss of revenue to the Post Office and inconvenience to the visitors; and whether, in consideration of the increasing importance of Waterville as a favourite fishing place and health resort, he will provide telegraph facilities in connection with the present Post Office?
MR. HANBURY: No representations appear to have been made to the Postmaster-General in regard to the alleged inconvenience of the existing telegraph arrangements at Waterville. An offer to extend the telegraphs to the Post Office under guarantee which was made some years ago did not meet with acceptance, and but for the arrangement under which the Commercial Cable Company undertook to accept telegrams at their Cable Station, on behalf of the Postmaster-General, the locality would have been without telegraphic facilities. The extension to the Post Office would involve considerable expense, but the Postmaster-General will be happy to look into the matter, and will communicate with the honourable Member.
MR. KILBRIDE: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that the local postmaster is willing to give the guarantee?
MR. HANBURY: The honourable Member must be well aware that that is not the sort of guarantee that we require.

FLEET PAYMASTERS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state how many Fleet Paymasters over 55 years of age have been refused retirement; and whether steps will be taken to augment the entries of assistant clerks in order that the list of paymasters may be brought up to the number sanctioned by the Queen's Regulations]
MR. MACARTNEY: Optional retirement has been temporarily suspended in the ease of six Fleet Paymasters, owing to the exigencies of the Service. Care is taken that the entry of assistant clerks is sufficient to meet requirements.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the list of paymasters is at present 20 short?
MR. MACARTNEY: I am not aware of that.

POSTCARDS.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether any decision has yet been arrived at relative to the provision of large sized postcards; and, if it has been decided to provide them, when will they be issued?
MR. HANBURY: No decision has yet been arrived at.

LONGFORD COUNTY CESS COLLECTOR.
MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Galway I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. G. Sherritt Golding, county cess collector for the barony of Longford, county Galway, had about 200 notices served between the 1st and 3rd of February on the cesspayers in the Killimore district; and whether, although they paid on the next day the collector visited the district, he was entitled to charge each of them 6d. costs?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts, I understand, are as stated in the first paragraph. The cost of serving the notices was stated, on each of the forms, to be 6d. The proceedings in these cases were taken under the Grand Jury Acts, which are administered by the Grand Juries, and, it is not for the Government to express any opinion as to the legality of the charges to which reference is made in the Question.

LICENCES ON HEARSES AND WHEEL BIERS.
MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a parish council or churchwardens keeping, for the use of parishioners, a hearse or wheel bier adapted for being drawn by one or more horses is exempt by statute from taking-out a licence in respect of it; and whether, if there is no such exemption in the Statute, Her Majesty's Government will introduce such an exemption.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I do not think the suggestion of my honourable Friend necessary. I understand that a licence is not required in such a case.

BRAWLING IN BELFAST.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that a man who gave evidence against Johnson, who was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for brawling in St. Clement's Church, was brutally assaulted on last Friday in the yard of Messrs. Workman and Clarke, in Belfast; whether he is aware that the witness was knocked down, kicked whilst on the ground, and obliged to fly amidst a volley of stones; and what action the Executive propose to take?
MR. YOUNG: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a scene at the shipbuilding yard at Messrs. Workman and Clarke, Belfast, in which a witness, on returning to work, who had given evidence in the prosecution of Johnson for brawling and disturbing the congregation at St. Clement's on 2nd March, was stoned, kicked, and barely escaped with his life, and deprived of his livelihood; and whether any steps will be taken to investigate the nature of this outrage, with the view of bringing its perpetrators to justice?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is the fact that a man named John Moore, who was a witness for the prosecution in the case brought by a churchwarden of St. Clement's Church against a man named Johnson for brawling in the church was assaulted on the 3rd instant. Moore received some kicks, and was struck with a stone on the back of the neck. He gave the name of two of his assailants to the police, and stated he would prosecute them; but I am informed this morning that he will not now issue a summons against his assailants. Under these circumstances the case will be taken by the Crown, and directions have been issued to the police accordingly.

RUSSIAN PROTEST AT PEKIN.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Minister at Pekin has renewed his protest against the conditions of the Chinese North Eastern Railway Extension Loan: and whether the Russians have 20,000 soldiers near Kirin, the capital of Manchuria, and are everywhere acting as if they were owners of the country?
MR. BRODRICK: So far as we are aware, the protest of the Russian Minister has not been renewed. It is understood that his representations to the Chinese Government were made with the object of calling their attention to the tendency which it appeared to the Russian Government had been displayed in the Loan Agreement of not keeping to their prior engagements with Russia; and not with the object of opposing the conclusion of a loan in England for the construction of the railway. The information in our possession does not lead us to believe that there are 20,000 Russian troops at Kirin.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Do I understand that the protest referred exclusively to matters within the Russian sphere of influence?
[No Reply.]
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask either the Under Secretary for War or the First Lord of the Treasury whether we are to understand from the reply that the Russian Government have withdrawn their objection to the conditions of the Northern Railway Extension in the two principal details— namely, the objections to a British engineer and to a chartered accountant.
MR. BRODRICK: I must ask my honourable Friend to give notice of the Question.

MUSCAT.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what part of the Muscat coast it is proposed to place the French coaling depot: whether the
292
French Government have clearly renounced all territorial and political rights over the site where the depot is to be placed: and whether the Russian Government have also applied for a coaling depot on the Persian Gulf?
MR. BRODRICK: The site of the proposed French coaling depot has not yet been actually fixed, but the Sultan will be advised only to grant a depot at Muscat itself. The French Government have now accepted our view of the Treaty of 1862, that it precludes either Government from accepting any cession or lease of Muscat territory, and in lieu of their former concession have agreed to accept a coal depot on exactly the same terms as our own. We have received no information to the effect stated in the third paragraph of the Question.

EAST HAM POLICE FORCE.
MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the limited number of police in East Ham; and, having regard to the immense growth of this district, and to the fact that 'a little girl has been most brutally murdered lately, whether he will cause inquiry to be made and see that the police force is adequate to protect life and property in that part?
MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State is not aware of any ground for supposing the strength of the police in East Ham to be inadequate for the requirements of the place, but will make inquiry in the matter.

POSTAGE ON TYPE-WRITTEN' CIRCULARS.
MR. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether circulars which have been typewritten are subject to be charged at the letter rate, while the same circulars, if printed, would only be charged a halfpenny each?
MR. HANBURY: The reply to the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. Written or type-written circulars rank with letters, and are liable to letter postage; while printed circulars, like other printed matter, are transmissible at the book or halfpenny rate of postage. I should add that copies not less in number than 20, produced by some mechanical process, can be sent by book post.

MUSCAT.
SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, if the Muscat incident is at an end, Her Majesty's Government will at once lay upon the Table the Papers which explain it?
MR. BRODRICK: Though the question is settled in principle, the details are still under discussion, and it would not be expedient at this stage to lay any Papers on the subject.

TELEGRAPH CONSTRUCTION ON THE GOLD COAST.
MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the branches of special expenditure, other than telegraph construction, in the northern territories of the Gold Coast for which a Supplementary Estimate for £70,000 is asked?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Of the £70,000 £20,000 is for telegraph construction, and the remaining £50,000 is for the cost of maintaining a force in the Hinterland to protect the inhabitants, with whom we have made treaties, and to secure the peace and good government of these territories for which we are now responsible.

COMPULSORY ROTATION SORTING DUTIES.
CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the petition from the postal sorting force in the East Central district, with reference
294
to compulsory rotation duties, which was forwarded through the proper official channel in September last, and which was stated by the Controller to be under consideration in December last, has now been dealt with; and when the petitioners may hope for a reply?
MR. HANBURY: The reply will be sent very shortly.

GREAT BRITAIN'S PLEDGES TO CHINA.
MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the instructions given to Sir Claude Macdonald on the 22nd of July last, namely, that he was to inform the Yamen that Her Majesty's Government would support the Chinese Government against any Power which committed an act of aggression upon China because China had granted to a British subject permission to make or support any railway or similar public work, have been cancelled or in any way modified; and, if not, whether the said promise of support applies to the case of the Northern Railway Extension contract?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): I desire to ask the right honourable Gentleman a Supplemental Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether, in referring to this statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, he will include in his answer a reference to the statement made by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, which somewhat differs from this? Lord Salisbury said that Sir Claude Macdonald was instructed to inform the Yamen that Her Majesty's Government would support the Chinese Government in resisting (not "against") any Power which had committed an act of aggression on China because China had granted to a British subject permission to make or support any railway or public work. In Lord Salisbury's statement the word "similar" is left out.
MR. BRODRICK: There has been no modification of the undertaking an-

295
nounced in the House of Commons by Mr. Curzon on 2nd August 1898, but it is not anticipated that any question regarding it will arise in respect to the Northern Railway Extension.

MUSCAT.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the concession which the Sultan of Muscat had granted to France in regard to a coaling depot included the right to fly the French flag on the depot, and to fortify it; and what is the nature of the concession now granted?
MR. BRODRICK: A piece of land was granted in one of the coves dependent on Muscat as a mark of favour and respect to the French Government. There was no stipulation in the grant to preclude the hoisting of the French flag or the erection of fortifications. It is now proposed that the French Government shall have the use of a coal-shed in exactly the same manner as the British Government have, and probably in the same place; but there will be no lease or cession of any kind.

FASHODA.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any portion of the sum demanded in the Navy Supplementary Estimates is due to expenditure in regard to preparations and demonstrations connected with the Fashoda incident; and, if so, under which sub-heads such expenditure is to be found?
MR. MACARTNEY: The answer is in the negative.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that those thousands of pounds which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said had been spent in preparations and demonstrations are not included in the Supplementary Estimates?
MR. MACARTNEY: I am not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever made such a statement.
MR. LABOUCHERE: He certainly did.

ECCLESIASTICSL COURTS.
MR. MELLOR (York, W.R., Sowerby): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if he can state by what authority the Archbishop of Canterbury is about to hold a Court with the Archbishop of York as assessor; whether such Court is a legal Court; if not, would the Archbishops in such a Court be bound by the decisions of the Privy Council; will all parties bo heard; and how is it proposed that the decisions of the Court shall be enforced?
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER, Isle of Wight): The question of the right honourable Gentleman is founded on a misapprehension. The hearing proposed to be held by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury will not be a Court, but will depend, as other similar tribunals, upon the consent of the parties who appear before him. None of the subsidiary questions which the right honourable Gentleman has raised apply to such a tribunal.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does consent give jurisdiction?
SIR R. WEBSTER: Yes, certainly.

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
MR. HUBBARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the admittedly unsatisfactory working of the Conscience Clause, the Government will, in the interests of religious liberty, bring in a Short Bill at an early date to amend the Education Act, 1870, and provide that any child withdrawn from religious teaching at an elementary school under the Conscience Clause may be also withdrawn from the school during such period for the bond fide purpose of obtaining religious instruction elsewhere?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I agree with my honourable Friend that there are cases in which the Conscience Clause does not work satisfactorily. Perhaps they are not so great as is sometimes supposed, al-

297
though they undoubtedly exist. If I understand my honourable Friend's proposal right, it is very much on the lines of a clause we introduced in the Bill of 1896, and, therefore, naturally, I am disposed to look at it with sympathy and favour. I cannot, however, promise legislation on the subject. It is impossible in the present state of legislation to add to our programme, and though no doubt it might be in our power to bring in a short Bill, I can hardly guarantee on that Bill that the discussions would be equally short.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
MR. THORBURN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can name an early day when the Second Reading of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Bill will be taken?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope to be able to take the Second Reading of this Bill before Faster, but in the present state of Supply I cannot give any definite pledge on the subject.

ST. DOGMAEL's BATTERY, NEAR CARDIGAN.
MR. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a contract for work to be done at St. Dogmael's Battery, near Cardigan, was given to a London tradesman; whether a local tradesman wrote to the Admiralty for specifications, and got no reply till after the contract had been given; and why this work was handed over to a contractor in London when it could have been done as efficiently and more cheaply in the locality?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The local tradesman referred to did not apply for specifications till four days after the tenders had been opened. The contract was given to a London firm whose tender was the lowest received.
MR. PHILIPPS: Was it known locally that tenders were to be invited?
MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say whether it was in this case. The work required was of a peculiar class, and I very much doubt if any local contractor could have executed it. We always try to get local tenders if possible.
MR. PHILIPPS: On another occasion will the Admiralty let it be known locally that specifications are to be given out?
MR, A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot undertake to advertise on every occasion. But we always call for local tenders when possible.

CLOGHER BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting of the reinstated Board of Guardians of the Clogher Union, held on the 11th February, at which Mr. Cuthbertson, the rate collector appointed by the Local Government Board, reported having collected and lodged about £22, out of £254, in Monaghan divisions of the union; whether he is acting by deputy, which Miss Magill would not be allowed to do; and what reply has been given to the resolution passed by the Clogher Board requesting the Local Government Board to dispense with the services of Mr. Cuthbertson, and to appoint Miss Magill to complete the collection?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Guardians' resolution of the 11th ultimo called attention to the unsatisfactory state of the collection in Collector Cuthbertson's district, and pointed out that they believed that the only way to bring the collection to a close before the 25th of March was the immediate issue of a sealed Order of the Local Government Board dispensing with Mr. Cuthbertson's services, and directing Miss Magill to complete the collection. The Local Government Board were unable to regard this suggestion as made in good faith, the Guardians being fully aware of the Board's ruling as to the necessary qualifications of poor rate collectors; and

299
as the Board had local information to show that the only effect of the Guardians' resolution had been to induce the people to further withhold the payment of rates, their reply to the Guardians was to the effect that instead of passing resolutions which placed obstacles in the way of the collection, the Guardians should call upon the people of the district to pay their rates. The Board also pointed out in answer to the alleged unsatisfactory progress made by the collector, that if his collection was backward they could only regard it as the natural consequence of the letter written by the present chairman of the Board at the outset of the dispute, advocating the non-payment of rates to the collector appointed by the Local Government Board. I am informed that the collector has, as a matter of fact, lodged £288 in this district. The Board understand that he is not acting by deputy, but owing to the opposition to payment of rates (prompted very possibly by the chairman's letter), he has to make many seizures for rates, and is obliged to employ persons to assist him in this work.
MR SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that the Board was dissolvd because it appointed a woman rate collector, and insisted on retaining her against the direction of the Local Government Board?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It was dissolved because it would not appoint a proper rate collector.

ST. CLEMENT'S CHURCH, BELFAST.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on or about Friday, 24th February last, a number of hymn books, the property of the church, were carried off from St. Clement's Church, Belfast; and whether the police have taken any steps to bring the offenders to justice?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. On the matter being brought under the notice of the police inquiries were at once made, and every endeavour made to trace the books as well as the person, or persons, by whom they were removed from the church, but so far without result.

DISPATCH OF IRISH MAILS FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, with reference to the posting of letters from the House of Commons to Ireland, whether he is aware that the latest hour for posting with an extra stamp is 8 p.m., and whether this was exactly the latest time for posting such letters when the mails left Euston considerably earlier than they do now; and whether he will consider the matter with the view of extending the time for posting letters addressed to Ireland?
MR. HANBURY: The facts are as stated by the honourable Member. The late letters from the House of Commons for the Irish night mail—dispatched from Euston at 8.45 p.m.—are sent to Euston with the late letters for the Scotch mail, which is dispatched at 8.30 p.m.

ARMENIAN ORPHANAGE.
MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have yet received any information regarding the closing of the Choonkoosh Orphanage: whether the man who rented the house for the orphans and one of the house fathers has been thrown into prison; whether the orphanage at Palu has been closed; and whether the German Orphanage at Diarbekir has also been closed?
MR. BRODRICK: I gave on Monday last all the information which Her Majesty's Government have as to the closing of these orphanages. Her Majesty's Government have received no information as to the imprisonment of persons connected with the orphanages.

DISEASE AMONG THE TROOPS IN INDIA.
MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the facts stated in the Army Medical Report of 1897, that the number of admissions to hospital for

301
venereal disease per 1,000 was 507, only three per cent. less than in 1896, and that the number invalided to England in 1897 was 662, an increase of 183 over the previous year, the Government will consider the advisability of permitting the Indian Government to take such measures as they may think fit for the detection of diseased persons of both sexes, and to detain such perons in hospital until cured; and whether the Government has received any Reports as to the effectiveness or otherwise of the new cantonment rules enforced in 1899?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The statement quoted by my honourable and gallant Friend relates to troops in cantonments only. Including those on field service, the admission rate for venereal disease was 485 per 1,000 in 1897, against oil in 1896, a reduction of 26 per 1,000. The new cantonment rules were not brought into operation until towards the end of 1897, and could not be expected to have much effect in lowering the ratio for the whole year. No Report has yet been received as to their effectiveness or otherwise, and until the results of their working have been ascertained I do not propose to take any further action. The Returns for 1898 so far as they are known are very encouraging, and show a considerable further decrease.

CASE OF GEORGE JOHNSON AT LIVERPOOL ASSIZES.
MR. MGHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of George Johnson, who was tried at the recent assize held at Liverpool, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour and to be flogged three times, receiving 15 lashes on each occasion; and whether he will consider the revision of such sentence with a view to remitting the flogging?
MR. COLLINGS: The Secretary of State's attention has been called to this case, and he is making inquiries into the matter.

LASCARS ON BRITISH VESSELS.
MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be in possession of the opinion of the Solicitors to the Board of Trade as to whether the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, are applicable to Lascars in like manner with other seamen employed on British registered vessels regardless of the port of engagement?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (for the PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE): A case upon the point mentioned in the Question has been prepared for submission to the Law Officers of the Crown, upon which an opinion will be obtained in due course.

NAVAL QUESTIONS.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the number of engineer students to be entered into the Royal Navy in the financial year has been determined by the Admiralty, with a view to rendering possible the option of retirement of Fleet engineers of 50 years of age; and whether the system of such retirement, which was temporarily suspended seven years ago, will be again resumed?
MR. MACARTNEY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative, and to the second, not at present
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state to the House what facilities, if any, are afforded to the senior engineer officers of the Royal Navy to enable them to attend the valuable lectures on the progress of marine engineering given at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and how far such facilities, if any, compare with those afforded to the senior officers of other branches in the Fleet; and whether the senior engineer officers are precluded from attending the engineering lectures-owing to the paucity of their numbers?
MR. MACARTNEY: The lectures on marine engineering at the college are equally open to engineer officers of the Royal Navy as to other branches of the Service when they are not otherwise employed. The exceptional requirements of the Service did not admit of these officers attending last year, but the lectures given on the last occasion were printed and issued to the Fleet.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state to the House what was the actual sea-going engine-room complement of H.M.S. "Argonaut" and "Ariadne" at the time of their official trials, exclusive of the party for taking records; and what numbers of engine-room ratings were drafted from the Medway Reserve to make up such complement?
MR. MACARTNEY: The drafts of engine-room ratings employed on the trials of the "Argonaut" and "Ariadne" numbered 207, and all the ratings were provided from the Medway Reserve, to which the vessels belong.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee presided over by Admiral Sir A. Cooper Key 22 years ago, that engineer officers in the Royal Navy should have executive control in their own department?
MR. MACARTNEY: The answer is in the negative.
MR. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme): Why has not the recommendation of the Committee been carried out with regard to the engineer officers of the Royal Navy?
MR. MACARTNEY: The honourable Member had better give notice.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether large additions are to be made
304
to the executive ranks of admirals, captains, commanders, and lieutenants in the Navy; and whether any increase is contemplated, and, if so, to what extent, in the number of engineer officers of the various grades to meet the growing requirements of the Feet?
MR. MACARTNEY: Certain additions will be made to the executive ranks and to the lists of engineer officers.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERY: When will it be made known?
MR. MACARTNEY: The honourable Gentleman had better wait for the First Lord's statement.

CLERKS TO SURVEYORS OF TAXES.
MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who has the appointment and dismissal of clerks (other than assistant surveyors) employed in the offices of the surveyors of taxes, and if any standard of qualification is required, or any examination has to be passed by them; and whether these men, who in the ordinary course of their duties become possessed of information of a confidential and private nature, are employed under an agreement terminable at a week's notice at wages varying from 8s. to £2 a; week, and without any claim to a pension or to allowance in case of prolonged illness?
MR. HANBURY: The clerks in the offices of the surveyors of taxes are appointed and dismissed by the surveyors themselves. They are not required to pass any examination in order to qualify for the employment. It is a fact that these clerks are liable to dismissal at a week's notice. The large majority of them are in receipt of wages varying from £1 to £2 10s. a week, but 16 receive less than 10s. They are not entitled to pension or sick pay.

POINT OF PROCEDURE.
MR. BUCHANAN: With regard to the Orders of the Day I desire to ask the Deputy-Speaker's ruling on a point of procedure—whether there is any precedent for the Course which the Government propose to pursue, and, if there is no precedent, whether it is in order to move the Deputy-Speaker out of the Chair in order to go into Committee on the Navy Estimates when the Navy Estimates have not yet been placed in the hands of Members?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I believe there are two precedents, in 1896 and 1897, when the same course was pursued as is proposed to be followed to-day.
MR. BUCHANAN: Do I understand that in 1896 and 1897 a Motion was made to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates, or any other Estimates, without those Estimates having been circulated?
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The honourable Member only gave me a very few moments' notice, but during the interval I have ascertained so far as I have been able that precisely the same course is being followed to-day as on those two occasions.

"THE TIMES" AND THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain how it is that "The Times" has been enabled to make some important statements as regards the Navy Estimates which are not known by Members of this House?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I have absolutely no idea how "The Times" could have got any information whatever. Absolute secrecy has been preserved with regard to every newspaper and every individual. I can give a guarantee for the truth of that assertion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY'S STATEMENT.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Goschen.)
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): The Navy Estimates have never, perhaps, been introduced under more singular circumstances in some respects than to-day. Before us we have the proposed Conference on International Disarmament. Behind us we have the troubled months of October and November last, when comparisons as to the relative strength of the naval forces were in everyone's mouth. Memories are short, but I think that everyone will be able to recall the striking confidence which the people of this country showed at those critical moments in the naval forces of this country and in their preparedness to meet any emergency. That confidence, I humbly submit to the House, is the reward and the result of past expenditure. It was the result and the reward of the liberality of the House of Commons and of the nation as regards the Navy Estimates. We were ready. We had to make no feverish purchases, no sudden enrolments; we had not to come down to the House for a Vote from the Treasury. It was possible to conduct everthing with calmness and quietude. Now, I know that a different opinion prevailed in some quarters. The public rather likes headlines in newspapers, and it likes sensational statements, and many sensational statements were made at that time. It was said that we were spending millions. If we had spent such a large sum we should have had a large Supplementary Estimate to propose. On one occasion it was said we had made a gigantic purchase of coal. We had purchased 200,000 tons of coal, it is true, but the occasion of that purchase was not our prepara-

  307
  tions, but the fact that the strike had come to a conclusion, and that we had to replenish our stores in the ordinary course. Then it was said that officers were being recalled from leave in haste. It was entirely a mistake. One officer at one dockyard had left a ship on leave, and was wanted back for some particular duty. That was the whole of the ground for that particular statement. We had some small expenditure, and I can reply now to the honourable Member for Northampton. I made inquiry into the amount of money spent in the dockyards during the months of October and November, at the time when headlines in the Press were largest. The approximate total addition to the sum for wages in the dockyards during the eight weeks in question, including overtime, the cost of docking and cleaning the bottoms of many of the Fleet reserve ships, repairing and refitting the Fleet, and repairing ships in commission and reserve, was £13, 600. That is all that we spent in labour on ships in order to produce mobilisation. Of course, we took steps at once to examine any weakness in our joints. We took the opportunity of seeing where we could improve our defences. There were constant conferences with the War Office, but only to adjust particular points. One weakness we found and remedied. That was, that in the mobilisation scheme in general, kits had not been prepared for the Naval Reserve men, if they should be suddenly called out. We asked for kits for 10,000 men, and they were produced at once. That is the main expenditure connected with the so-called mobilisation, and it is an expenditure that ought to have been made before. It was not made in order to strengthen us at that moment, but because we ought at all times to be in a position to put our reserve men into fighting condition if they are required. The result of our past expenditure has been this, for instance, that we have had to purchase no ammunition, we have given no new orders. There is an item in the Supplementary Estimates of £100,000 under Vote 9. That is not in respect of mobili-sation; it represents the commencement of the guns to arm the ships to be built under the supplementary programme which* was sanctioned by the
  308
  House in August last. This was not taken to increase our resources at the moment. It was no menace of any kind; it was simply providing guns in advance for ships which will not be ready for two or three years to come. I think the Estimates of last year were justified by the tranquillity of the country. Under the conditions which then existed, if we had not had a-Navy ready and prepared, should wo not have lost many more millions than have been spent on the increase of the Navy, in the fall of securities, in the general disorganisation of trade, and in the general feeling of disquietude which would have taken place, besides the eredit which we might have lost by timid counsels prevailing in place of the attitude which the country took, and was entitled to take, during those troubled months? The Continental Powers were somewhat disturbed by the allegation that we were arming so greatly. I am glad to have had the opportunity of making this statement, because I do not know that it has been made before, in order to remove the impression that we were either arming unnecessarily, or were arming for any particular purpose, or for any aggressive action. It was the belief in many Continental countries; in fact, we had reports from almost every capital in Europe to that effect. There was a deeply ingrained idea in the Chancelleries of Europe that England had some plan of attack for which she thought her opportunity had come, and that, having regard to the greatness of her naval forces, she would take care to seize that favourable opportunity. I need not assure this House—it would be absurd almost to do so—that such an idea never entered into the mind of the Government of this country. I know that people abroad are incredulous, but they ought to know that such a war undertaken in such a spirit would have been against the whole traditions of this country, and would have been against the whole moral sense of this country. [Laughter from the IRISH MEMBERS.] Both sides of the House are agreed on that subject, and I do not see the point of honourable

  309
  Members' merriment. That being so, foreign countries may be assured that while we have the country behind us in maintaining our rights and in the justice of our cause which affects our honour or our interests, I do not believe that we should have the country behind us in the case of what I may call an Opportunist War. I have spoken, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of the slight preparations which were made in consequence of the incidents of last autumn. I now pass to the ordinary work of the present financial year before I deal with the Estimates for the future year. The shipbuilding work has been more satisfactory than in the preceding year, but there are still short deliveries of armour and machinery. In the year before, the course of business, the course of construction, was interrupted by the strike, but the effects of that strike did not cease with the cessation of the labour troubles. The effects were felt during the present year, and they were felt in this way: there was a boom generally in mercantile shipbuilding. All the ships the construction of which had been arrested, and the machinery of which could not be completed, had to be taken in hand, and the consequence was that the contractors found very great difficulty in keeping up to their dates. And indeed they had not the matter entirely in their own hands, for their sub-contractors were dilatory in their deliveries of many of the materials which they require for construction. The House may recollect the controversy as to the output of armour. In the course of the present financial year the output of armour has increased, but the Admiralty were so far justified by the provision they had made, that the output has not been, in fact, what it was expected to be, and which was hoped by the manufacturers to be possible. There was a short delivery of armour and machinery of £800,000 on Vote 8. The "Cressy" class of cruisers has been delayed in consequence, and there has been some delay in the completion of the"Canopus" class, but in the dockyards new con-construction has proceeded most satisfactorily. The dates for laying down the new battleships have been anticipated. We have been able to begin these battleships before we expected when I made my statement to the House last year. Let me recapitulate the new
  310
  programme of construction of the present year. There were three battleships under the original programme, and four battleships under the supplementary programme. There were four cruisers under the original programme, and four cruisers under the supplementary programme. The House will remember the cause of that supplementary programme. It was due to the celebrated ukase of the Emperor of Russia, when 90 millions of roubles—that is to say, £9,000,000 sterling—were assigned to the Minister of Marine out of a special fund. The Government held, and the country supported them in their view, that an effort like that must be met by some corresponding effort on our part; and the consequence was, much against the grain, and regretting as much as anyone could regret the increased burden thus put upon this country, we were nevertheless compelled to commit ourselves to the construction of four battleships and four cruisers. Of the three battleships, two were of the "Canopus" and "Formidable" class, and each of these two classes now forms a complete and homogenous group of six ships. The chief features of the new battleships I am able to submit to the House. They do not differ greatly from the ships which have been already designed. The following are the principal features of the battleships: I may say that we propose to name the four ships the "Duncan" class, i.e., the "Duncan," "Exmouth," "Cornwallis," and "Russell"—all great historical naval names. The following are the measurements of these vessels: Length 405ft., breadth 75ft., mean draught 26ft., displacement 14,000 tons, indicated horse power 18,000. Their chief armament will be four 12-inch breech-loading guns in barbettes, 12 6-inch quick-firing guns in casemates, and 12 12-pounders. Stability and buoyancy will be secured by vertical side armour 7 inches thick, extending over a considerable portion of the length, and continued in a gradually reduced thickness to the bow. The barbettes for the 12-inch guns will have 11-inch armour, and the casemates for the 6-inch guns 6-inch armour. The speed of 19 knots with natural draught exceeds that of the preceding battleships in the Royal Navy, and is to be obtained on an eight-hours' trial with natural draught in the

  311
  stoke-holes. I may say that these battleships are of a similar class to the "Formidable." With reference to the four cruisers on the original programme, two, as stated by me last year, are of the "Cressy" class, and two are of a type equal to that of the "Powerful" class, so far as armour protection is concerned. We propose to name these the "Francis Drake" class. The principal features of these ships are: Length between perpendiculars 500ft., extreme breadth 71ft., mean draught 26ft., displacement 14,100 tons, indicated horse power 30,000, speed with natural draught 23 knots. The armament is two 9.2-inch guns with armour shields, 16 6-inch quick-firing guns in casemates, 14 12-pounder quick-firing guns, three 3-pounders. The 9.2-inch and the 6-inch guns will be of the latest and most powerful types, with armour protection equal to that of the "Powerful" class. Buoyancy and stability will be secured by vertical side armour about six inches thick, associated with strong steel decks, as in the Canopus" and "Cressy" classes, and the bows of the new vessels will be most strongly protected. I may say generally that these ships will be the most powerful cruisers afloat in any Navy in the world. It is a necessity for us. I do not want to make any special comparison with foreign ships, but I may say we have been driven to construct these ships after a careful review of the new designs of the ships of various other Powers; and we hope that these designs will secure to us that we shall have four ships stronger than any cruisers which are now building by any other country.
  SIR F. EVANS: Are they capable of going through the Suez Canal?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes certainly. The draught is 26ft., and the speed 23 knots. I may say generally that what we aim at now in these new ships and in all our cruisers is speed. That is the governing factor in all the cruisers which we are building. Besides these new cruisers, there are two which are of a smaller class, and will be built with special reference to a great rate of speed. Sir William White has endeavoured, in his designs, to solve the
  312
  problem of armoured cruisers of a very high rate of speed and of moderate dimensions. Again I say that this design has been carefully considered with reference to the ships which they may have to meet. Their length is 240ft., extreme breadth 66ft., mean draught 24½ft., displacement 9,800 tons. Their speed with natural draught will be 23 knots, and the indicated horse power 22,000. They are to have 14 6-inch quick-firing guns, four in turrets and 10 in casemates, 10 12-pounder quick-firing guns, and three 3-pounder, and two torpedo tubes. The 6-inch guns will be of the latest type, and will be protected by armour about four inches thick. Vertical side armour of the same thickness will be carried over a considerable portion of the length, with thinner armour on their bows. In laying down these ships we have been simply following a plan, which I have indicated throughout, of not exceeding the standard which I consider we ought to maintain to meet what is being done by the other Powers. I am still dealing with the programme of the present year, and am not speaking of the coming financial year. The two cruisers I have-last mentioned are not yet ordered, although the tenders for them have been issued, and they do not belong to the programme of the coming year; they belong to the supplementary programme. If there has been some delay it has been in order to see how this problem can be met—i.e., the combination of armour, of high speed, and of small displacement—and the delay has-been well worth the result which we hope to attain. I have said that under Vote 9 there is an increase of £100,000, but it is in respect of guns which have been ordered for these new ships. I now turn to inform the House how we have fared as regards the personnel in the present year. The number of men and boys voted will be secured without any difficulty by the 1st April. The recruiting, of course, is spread over 12 months, and for the 10 months past we have secured the full proportion. There has been no difficulty in obtaining the necessary number of recruits. With regard to the Reserve, I may say that the experiment which has been tried of insisting that all Reserve men within a certain time should go to sea, has been completely successful. Many Members of the House

  313
  will remember the object we had in view —that the Reserve should not be a paper Reserve, that they should not simply be trained at our batteries, but that we should have the security that a large number of men had actually been trained in a man-o-war at sea. Well, we have made that experiment, and I am glad to say that in the present financial year 1,800 Reserve men will have been embarked on Her Majesty's ships, many of them in the Channel Squadron, some of them in the Mediterranean Squadron, and some of them in the guard-ships; and in all respects we have heard a satisfactory account of them. They take great interest in their work, and the officers take great interest in them. There has been perfect good feeling between these Reserve men and the ordinary crews of the ships, and I am very glad that such a link has been established—a very valuable link, I think I may say—between the Mercantile Marine and Her Majesty's Navy. Now, if I may sum up briefly the results of the last financial year. We shall have secured all the men we wanted; we shall have succeeded in our Reserve scheme; we shall have perfected our mobilisation arrangements; we shall have strengthened the stores in our naval bases: and we shall have secured all the guns and all the ammunition for the guns which was necessary. I may say that every ship has not only got its guns and ammunition ready, but that the reserve of guns for the ships and the reserve of ammunition for these guns were all ready on the 1st January last. We have commenced seven battleships; we have anticipated the programme in the dockyards in the dates of laying down three of these new ships; we have commenced six new first class armoured cruisers, besides two the tenders for which have been invited. The only drawback I see in the year's work has been the short deliveries of armour and machinery by the contractors. The total cost of all this is enormous, but if we have enrolled the men, if we have got the ships ready, if our bases have been strengthened—if in all these respects we have been able to place the Navy in a position of preparedness, I think that the taxpayer has his reward in the serene tranquillity with which the nation is able to face any dangerous crisis that
  314
  may arise. Before I pass to the Estimates of the coming financial year there are two topics upon which the House would probably like me to touch. One is Wei-Hai-Wei, and the other is the Naval Works Bill. With reference to Wei-Hai-Wei there has been some expenditure on account of some purchase of land in the island in the present financial year, and some money has been taken for Wei-Hai-Wei in the coming financial year. What we propose to do is to make it what I may call a secondary naval base, to fortify it sufficiently against a raid, to have coal stores and small repairing shops, and, above all, to secure a good anchorage by dredging. A dredger has been sent out for the purpose, and if honourable Members thought that the anchorage at Wei-Hai-Wei was an unsatisfactory anchorage generally, I can assure them that the captains of our ships, after considerable experience during the past year, have come to the conclusion that it is one of the most valuable anchorages that we have in the East, and that it will be of great importance to us in any operations we may engage in in the China seas. The climate is good, and in every respect we are able to give a good account of the place. The other point is the Naval Works Bill. I shall leave that this year, as I have left it in past years, to be expounded to the House by my honourable Friend the Civil Lord, but in order that the total expenditure may be gauged by the House, which I know they are all anxious to do, I may say that the expenditure of the present financial year under the Naval Works Act will reach about £1,300,000, and that in the coming financial year we expect that the expenditure will be a little over 1½ millions. I pass now to the coming financial year, and I will deal briefly in the first instance with the other Votes, leaving the shipbuilding Vote, which is the-most important, to the last. As regards the personnel, we propose an increase of 4,250 men and boys, which will bring up the personnel to 110,640, including 6,500 boys under training. Here again we see, and we cannot but feel, the result of the necessity for our supplemental programme. I had hoped to have been able to have stopped at the

  315
  point which we reached last year. I indicated such a possibility in my statement last year, but our hopes have been falsified, not by any desire that we should expand our armaments, but simply because we had to take corresponding action to that taken by other Powers. Let me remind the House of the drawback under which we are in any comparison of international expenditure by the fact that we have a recruited Navy as we have a recruited Army, and that the cost of that Navy is, of course, naturally very largely in excess, in proportion, of that of any other country. Again, we have to give heavy retainers to our Reserve, and our system of pension, gratuities, and retired pay, necessary as it is, and fitting in with the whole system of our recruited Navy, also adds to the vast proportions of the total cost of the Navy. Perhaps it would be wise for me to say that this increase of men was settled in August last before the Fashoda incident. It was settled then in the ordinary way, by the study of the Manning Committee as to the number of men necessary for the Fleet, and it had no reference whatever to any subsequent difficulties which we may have had. It is the extension which we considered necessary in ordinary times. Honourable Members of the House who do not care for the study of the Estimates may not know the great proportion which the pay of the men and officers of the entire personnel bears to the whole. It amounts to £5,242,000 in this coming Estimate, besides half-pay and gratuities to the amount of. £2,232,000. The total pay for the personnel which goes into their pocket, apart from victualling and clothing and all that appertains to the general fitting out of the Fleet—the actual pay, pensions and gratuities amounts to £7,474,000. France pays £3,000,000 under that item, and as to Russia—I cannot understand how it can be—but a study of their estimates only reveals an item of £445,000 for the pay of the entire Russian navy. I say again, that in any international examination of the Estimates, the different position which we occupy would have most seriously to be taken into account. The increase in the amount for the personnel, taking all the Votes together is £46,000. Then, of course, when there are more men they need more clothing, more
  316
  rifles, more guns, generally more ammunition, more hospital accommodation, and more barrack accommodation. Many increases are hidden away in other Votes, and, therefore, not taken into account generally, although due exclusively to the personnel, when the cost of the personnel is being discussed. Here I would ask, is there any Party in the country, is there any body of men in the country who would wish to see the personnel decreased, or are they prepared to pay, and to pay cheerfully, for that large personnel? These great numbers which we have successfully enrolled during past years were enrolled not spasmodically, but by a steady calculation of what was necessary; and in that way we have added 27,000 men to the Fleet since 1894–95. I doubt whether there are many people in the country who would condemn that portion of these large Estimates which I have to submit to the House. Under Vote 9 for Armaments, I have to ask for an increase of £161,000, chiefly due to the construction of guns, but partly due also to the increased need of ammunition for firing practice. The House knows the enormous importance which has been really attached to gunnery. That is a matter which has commanded our special attention. All the events which have taken place of late show that the firing of guns and the practice of the gunners are matters to which too much attention cannot possibly be given. We have increased the number of guns and ammunition, but we are also anxious to provide for sufficient ammunition at all events, to give them the necessary practice with their guns in time of peace. I have to add £161,600 increase on Vote 9 to the increase which we have before for personnel of £462,000. That gives an increase on personnel and gunnery of £623,600. There remain outside Vote 8, Vote 10, and miscellaneous Votes. Vote 10 is for works, and we have had to increase the accommodation of hospitals, to improve the accommodation of hospitals in order to meet the modern necessities of hospital treatment. It has been for some years difficult to secure sufficient money for the development of our hospitals, but it has been absolutely necessary; and we have not considered it possible, even in a year of such great expenditure as this, to refrain from a certain addition to the Vote in respect

  317
  of hospital accommodation. There are other items which go to swell the total. The increase of Vote 10 is £145,000, and there is an increase in miscellaneous Votes of £31,500. Adding to that the previous sum of £623,600 for the personnel and for the gunnery we get a total excess over this year's Estimates of £800,100. This excess is exclusive of the Ship Building Vote. In what respect can we diminish these Estimates? I can see none. They are the natural corrollary of what has been done as regards personnel, the natural corrollary of the position which both sides of the House have always desired their respective Governments to take up. I now come to the Ship Building Vote, the most important Vote of all. We propose to provide for about the same number of men who are now in the dockyards, which is a slightly larger number of men than those taken for the Labour Vote last year. The increased cost of £199.000 for labour over the original Vote of last year is distributed over the various headings of the Vote with which I shall presently have to deal. Now, let me remind the House that the amount of this Vote is determined by four factors —first, the liabilities which are carried over from the previous year, that is to say, the necessary provision for the continuance of the building of the ships under construction on 1st April: secondly, the necessary provision for the commencement of such further ships as it may be necessary to lay down; thirdly, the necessary provision for such repairs and reconstruction as may have to be undertaken—work on ships already built, work for the maintenance of the Fleet; and, fourthly, the necessary provision for coal, sea stores, yard services, and a number of miscellaneous items. In order that I may deal undisturbed by any parentheses with the ship building proper part of this Vote, that part with which naval policy is mostly concerned, let me clear off the minor but still very considerable remaining items grouped under this Vote. I am met in the forefront by a formidable item for coal. Last year we asked for £660,000 for coal: practically, we spent £920,000. £200,000 of that sum was due to the enhanced prices caused by the strike: the remainder was due to increased use, the necessity of further steaming, and
  318
  purposes of that kind. We propose to take in the coming year £135,000 more than we asked for in the present year, that is to say, £765,000, which is less than the cost of the coal for this year, but which has been burdened by the excessive cost due, I am sorry to say, to the strike. I am also sorry to say that the present prices still remain higher than the normal prices, and we have been obliged to include in our Estimate for coal, consequently, an allowance for a somewhat higher price. I am not going to detain you with any details about stores or matters of that kind, but I will say at once that we ask £78,000 more for stores, and £75,000 for yard machinery. The construction of the new ships, the constant necessity of repairs on old ships, and the greater amount of work thrown on the dockyards, makes it absolutely necessary, and, of course, economical, to keep up the machinery in the yard to the best condition of efficiency that is possible. It would be false economy to strike out from these Estimates such necessary improvements in the yards as are required for the purposes of the work to be turned out. Then, we are unfortunate in this coming year in that we do not secure the benefit of £100,000 which the Vote has had in the present year. The present financial year was relieved to the extent of £100,000 by purchases made in anticipation in the previous year. We have no similar benefit, and consequently the Vote appears to that extent to be £100,000 more than that of last year. Putting these items together I get a total of £438,000. Well then, as regards repairs, we ask for £411,000 more than in the present year—more than was asked for, but not very much more than we spent last year. A portion of the short earnings by contractors for armour and machinery has been with the consent of the Treasury applied to other work in the dockyard, work that otherwise would have probably involved a Supplementary Estimate. We wish in this coming year, if possible, to avoid a Supplementary Estimate. I think my right honourable Friend opposite knows that scarcely any First Lord has ever succeeded in keeping below his estimate for repairs in the dockyards. It is an item that is habitually under-estimated. I wish on the occasion of these vast Estimates to be en-

  319
  tirely frank with the taxpayers, and that is why I have gone perhaps more fully into the details of this Vote than has been usual in a statement of this kind. I do not wish to gloss over items and muddle up totals; I am anxious that the country should thoroughly understand these Estimates. £438,000 more is asked for machinery, sea stores, coal, yard services, and purposes of that kind, and £411,000 more for repairs. I am afraid than in my anxiety to make everything as clear as possible I have taken the House through a considerable number of details.
  HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I now approach the question of new construction, and that is under two heads, namely, the continuance of the ships under construction, and the new Programme of such ships as we may think the occasion may require us to lay down. We are faced, in the first instance, by the inexorable claims of the work begun. There are the liabilities of the Original Programme and the liabilities of the Supplementary Programme, which altogether form an item of £8,255,000. Of that. two millions is represented by the liabilities of the Supplementary Programme. The liabilities of the original Programme would have been £6,225,000, but it has been raised by two millions through the action we were forced to take in August last year. Then the liabilities of the Original Programme are somewhat swollen by the short deliveries during the past two years of armour and machinery. These have not been so great as we anticipated in the present financial year, and a certain portion of that will fall on the coming financial year. This is included in the £6,225,000. Let me recall the facts of the Supplemental Programme. We must remember that 90 million roubles, or nine millions sterling were to be spent by Russia over a course of years, and if I take it that that course of years is five years, which is a moderate estimate, it means an additional expenditure of two millions a year. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a windfall like the fortunate Minister of Marine in Russia, and had been able to place a corresponding sum of eight or nine millions at the disposal of the Admiralty,
  320
  our liabilities this year would have been less by two millions, and we could have shown no increase on Vote 8 at all. I hope I have made myself clear. If our liabilities have been swollen to the extent of two millions in the present year— I need not enumerate all the ships that will be under construction—these liabilities represent a formidable amount of work. And now the question arises, that being the situation, what ought to be our course as regards the laying down of new ships? I have to survey the position from three points of view. I have had to frame a Programme on the examination of the Estimates and Programmes of other nations; on the examination of how these Programmes bear on the distinct mandate of the British people, as I understand it to be, as to the relative position in Naval strength which this country ought to hold; and lastly, I have examined the position from the point of view of the near approach of a Conference for International Disarmament. Thus far I have seen no reference to the approaching Conference in the Naval or Military Estimates or Programme of any of the great Powers of Europe. But that is no reason why, representing a Government which has accepted the invitation of the Tsar, I should refrain from considering the position which has been created by means of that Conference. I have stated that I have examined the Programmes of other countries as they stand. It would be affectation to pretend that it would be possible to frame cur Programme- without examining those of other countries. I have studied the Programmes of other nations, and that study has not been very reassuring. It is not only the Powers who may be our possible opponents, but there has been an immense increase in shipbuilding on the part of other nations, which of late years have only begun to enter into what I may call the naval competition. I have caused to be added up the amount of warships under construction by the six chief Naval Powers, and I find there are 685,000 tons of men-of-war under construction besides 225.000 tons which are projected.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): What are the names of the Powers!
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: France, Russia, the United States, Japan, Italy, and Germany. Well now, looking at the ships building all over the world, and looking, on the other hand, at our position, I want to call the attention of the House to this question. Is it fair to say our increased Estimates—an increase which we are compelled to propose—are the result of the aggressive policy of any particular Government of this country? Are these Estimates framed in any aggressive spirit? Does not the House see that they are forced upon us by the action of other countries? We have not taken the lead in any excessive steps. We have not endeavoured to raise the standard of the number of ships on which we are working. We have gone forward steadily, keeping that standard in view. I believe that it is going to be said in certain quarters that these Estimates are the Estimates of extravagance. [Some Opposition cheers]. I am glad to hear that that cheer comes from a very small Party in the House. I make the remark not for any political purpose; not to draw any contrast between one Government and another. What I want to do is to point out to the public, and, if possible, to Europe, that these Estimates cannot in any way be considered the Estimates of aggression. For that reason I was anxious that these Estimates should not be published before I made my statement.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right honourable Gentleman tell us at the same time whether he can give us any explanation why the figures appeared in the "Times" this morning?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I do not know what the honourable Member means. I have already said that the Admiralty have no knowledge of the matter. It must have been some breach of trust in some quarter or other. I think the honourable Gentleman ought not to have interrupted me at this important stage of my statement. Why I was anxious to make this statement before the Estimates were in the hands of honourable Members was because I did not wish the amounts of these Estimates to go forth to the world without the explanation which I was able to give of the motives which
  322
  underlie them and the circumstances in which they are framed. It is perfectly possible that if these Estimates had been in the hands of the public it might have been telegraphed all over Europe that we had made an immense increase in our Estimates, indicative of aggressive purposes, and of some design hostile to the general peace which we know the country desires, and which no Government ever desired more than we desire ourselves. I have spoken of the general increase in shipbuilding all over the world, but I must look to one case in particular. I look to the Estimates of the two most powerful nations—France and Russia. The increase in the French Estimate for naval construction is very small. In the case of Russia it is very different. They have increased their ordinary Estimate for ship construction by £1,500,000, and if you add to that a proportion of the £9,000,000 which was placed at their disposal they would be able to spend this year between £-1,000,000 and £3,500,000 more than they have been able to spend in former years. If, therefore, on Vote 8 there should be an increase of £2,000.000, let it not be thought that we have gone one jot beyond the circumstances as they stand now before the Conference is held. Looking at the Estimates and Programmes of other countries now before us—looking, I say, at the general situation and the known Programmes of other nations—I have come to the conclusion to lay down the following new ships: —Two ironclads, the construction of which will be in strict accordance with the principle we have followed throughout; two armoured cruisers of the displacement of 0.800 tons; and three smaller cruisers of a design not yet settled, which are to be very fast, and much smaller than the others in order to meet a special purpose. I want to call the attention of the House very briefly to the fact that some of our rivals are practically giving up the idea that they would be able to meet us in the open sea, or, if they were able to meet us in the open sea, that at all events the better policy would be to endeavour to wear out the patience of this country by prolonged attacks upon our commerce, our food supply, and our sources of production. They think that while our battleships would be lying opposite their ports, they would be able to

  323
  sweep down upon our commerce, until this country tired of the uncertainty and the injury inflicted upon us, and of the flag being transferred to other nations. It has been avowed in the most distinct terms. Scientific and professional writers and politicians and statesmen have all commended this plan, and, what is more, they have acted upon it. The plan now is to build very fast cruisers which shall prey upon our commerce and which shall inflict that damage upon us which I have attempted to describe. We cannot sit still in the face of the construction of cruisers intended for that purpose. We know that purpose, and it is our bounden duty to defeat it. It is in consequence of this that our Programme for the present year has been proposed. It is in pursuance of this policy, which I am sure honourable Members opposite would pursue if they were in the place of the present Government, that we have made our plans, and it is for that purpose we lay down in the coming year these five cruisers which I have described. It is scarcely necessary to speak of a couple of sloops which are to take the place of older ships. The money required for this new Programme in the coming financial year will be £550,000. The two large cruisers are to be commenced late in the year. The money we have taken is £550,000, besides the sum of £80,000 for some smaller craft and steamboats. Adding this sum of £630,000 to the £8,225,000 at which the liabilities of new construction from former years stood, you get a total of £8,855,000, an increase of £1,167,000 for the coming year. Adding the other items under Vote 8, the total Vote rises to £12,817,000, being an increase of £2,016,000 over the Vote for the present year. Those are the Estimates as they stand, looking to the present situation. But an International Conference is to be assembled. Will the deliberations of that Conference—will the actions of other nations resulting from that Conference—make it possible for us to diminish or modify our Programme for new construction, while, of course maintaining our standard and not altering our relative position? We have been compelled to increase our expenditure as other nations have increased theirs, not taking the lead, not pressing on more than they. As they have in-
  324
  creased, so we have increased. I have now to state on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that similarly, if the other great Naval Powers should be prepared to diminish their Programme of shipbuilding, we should be prepared on our side to meet such a procedure by modifying ours. The difficulties of adjustment are no doubt immense, but our desire that the Conference should succeed in lightening the tremendous burdens which now weigh down all European nations is sincere. But. if Europe comes to no agreement, and if the hopes entertained by the Tsar should not be realised, the Programme which I have submitted to the House must stand. It is constructed on the basis on which the House itself has always expected us to rest it. It is the lowest which can be justified by the existing expenditure on shipbuilding of other countries; it is the lowest by which we can secure the object which the people expect of the Navy. The increase in Vote 8 is £2,016,000. I have arrived at £850,000 as the increase in the personnel and other Votes, and thus we arrive at an increase of £2,866,000. The total estimates will be £26,594,000. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Morley) said the other day that our expenditure at that time of £24,000,000 was an expenditure in a time of profound peace. I do not know whether the House, bearing in mind the agitating time of the autumn, will think that the state of Europe was a state of profound peace. I should rather say it was at that time a state of precarious peace. I see now that the expenditure of the country is about to be attacked. I shall wish to know how far under the general cover of the reduction of expenditure those who embark in that campaign intend to attack the figures of the Navy Estimates. I do not care whether they denounce the Government, but do not let them attempt to dissuade the people from bearing such taxation and bearing such burdens as may be necessary to carry on the duties of Empire. If they wish to reduce, let us know in what they wish to reduce. Let them come out into the open; let us know where we are. The moment has come, perhaps, when the nation may be put to the test as to paying for this great expenditure. I believe the nation will be prepared to

  325
  bear it. I do not believe that the nation, which was satisfied with its position last year, I do not believe that honourable Members who last year went from platform to platform sincerely and patriotically, as we believe, speaking of our naval predominance—I do not think they, under the guise of denouncing expenditure in general and resisting the imposition of taxation, would wish that the result of their action should be in the slightest degree to diminish the efforts which we must make if we intend to hold our own. It depends on how you look at it. If you think that a war is simply an absurd impossibility, if you think you can have peace without power, if you believe in the sweet reasonableness of Europe in arms, then I admit that these Estimates are a crime. If, on the other hand, it is not so, then these Estimates are a necessity, and they are simply the embodiment of the will of a peace-loving, but a determined people.
  On the Question that the Motion to go into a Committee of Supply be withdrawn,
  MR. ASQUITH (Fife, E.): I think that the peculiar position in which we are placed should not be allowed to pass in silence. The right honourable Gentleman has made, as he always does, a lucid and powerful statement, but in listening to that statement the House has been deprived of the advantage which, until the present Administration came into power, it uniformly enjoyed of having had before it the Estimates in print. Owing, however, to the position in which we are placed, it is impossible intelligently to follow the statement of the right honourable Gentleman, and to adequately appreciate the situation. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, and speaking, I believe, the opinion of a very large number of Members on both sides of the House, that the reason which the right honourable Gentleman has given for a departure from the usual practice is wholly inadequate. The only reason he has stated is that if he circulated these Estimates in advance foreign nations might have been so alarmed at the apparently extravagant figures that they would have imputed to this country aggressive designs. Is that an adequate or satisfactory reason for depriving the
  326
  House of Commons of its constitutional right to know beforehand exactly what the Ministers of the Crown have to submit? For my part, I do not think we should be justified in allowing this opportunity to pass without a strong and emphatic protest against the course adopted, which is an entire departure from the uniform practice of the past, and which, if persisted in, will to a large extent, in these introductory statements which are so important, deprive the House of a privilege and indeed disable it from performing the duty of effective criticism. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes that this Debate should be resumed. In the circumstances in which we are placed I would suggest that at any rate a reasonable delay should take place in order that we may have the opportunity of comparing the right honourable Gentleman's statement with the figures which we have seen for the first time in print.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Are we to be favoured with a Memorandum, or are we to depend on the First Lord's speech?
  MR. DILLON: When I previously directed the attention of the right honourable Gentleman to this subject, the only reason which he gave for withholding the Estimates and the Memorandum until the close of Questions was that, if he had allowed the figures to become public property without being accompanied with his explanations, the facts might have been telegraphed all over Europe; and, having heard the figures, I am not surprised that he believed Europe would interpret them as a menace and a threat. But, Sir, how could such an argument for a moment justify the withholding of the Estimates or the Memorandum during this forenoon? Does the right honourable Gentleman imagine that if the Estimates and Memorandum had been placed in the Vote Office this morning, or at two or three o'clock this afternoon—as we were led to expect they would be from the answer of the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House—or even yesterday, that they would have been immediately communicated to Europe and produced the international results feared? Now, Sir, I think I am entitled to draw the attention of the

  327
  House to one of the inevitable evils which always spring from such attempts to keep the House in darkness. The newspapers are active, and some of them unscrupulous in endeavouring to get information that is interesting. And what is the result? "The Times" this morning gives a résumé of the right honourable Gentleman's figures which were denied to the House of Commons. When I asked the right honourable Gentleman to explain the fact that these formidable and startling figures were published in "The Times," to the exclusion of the other papers—because it is generally understood that the words "We understand" are used by such papers as "The Times" to introduce a semi-official communiqué—he said that the utmost secrecy had been maintained. How is it that the newspapers fail to get hold of the Budget figures? Why cannot the Admiralty maintain the secrecy of their office as well as the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When I pressed the question, the right honourable Gentleman said all he could say was that there must have been a very great breach of official duty and a betrayal of trust. Well, Sir, this is only another example of the rule which I think has a universal application— namely, that unless, as in the case of the Budget, there is an overwhelming and overmastering public necessity for maintaining secrecy, all these attempts to keep the House in the dark are always productive of great evil and ought to be avoided. The general result is to- be seen in the scandalous publication, as I do not hesitate to call it, in "The Times." As a private Member, I must say that I think the practice of the present Government of introducing the Navy Estimates in this way, without previously giving the Opposition an opportunity of seeing them, is a very bad one. I do not see why the introduction of the Navy Estimates should not be preceded with the same publicity as the Army Estimates.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I tell the honourable Member that no one can regret more than the Admiralty do that by some means or other, which I have called a gross breach of trust, or some piece of carelessness, those figures should have become known. I would apologise to the House if it
  328
  were necessary, or if it thought it had been treated by a want of courtesy through the non-circulation of the Estimates. I must remind the House, however, that the same practice as is now condemned was followed two years ago by common consent of the House, and I understand that it was considered to be a convenient method. ["No."] It was at that time. If serious remonstrances had been made at that time the practice would not have been followed now. I regret now that I have taken the course which I have taken. I wish to be entirely frank with the House, and to give honourable Members every possible convenience in studying the Estimates. The present method was adopted in the full belief that the House would find it to be as convenient now as I believe it found it to be convenient in 1896.
  *MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): After the statement and expression of regret made by the right honourable Gentleman, I think it would be invidious to persist in the complaints we have been making during the past few days. I should, however, like to point out that our complaint is not of any want of courtesy on the pare of the right honourable Gentleman, but that the Government have deprived the House of its constitutional opportunity of seeing the Estimates before the speech and Motion made by the right honourable Gentleman. Since the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement in answer to the Question Which I put to him on Tuesday, I have made investigations, and desire to take this opportunity of pointing out the course pursued in 1896 and 1897. I find that in 1897 the Motion for the Speaker leaving the chair was taken on Friday, 5th March, and the Estimates were circulated on Wednesday 3rd March. In 1899 a Motion was made on the Speaker leaving the Chair on the 2nd March. The Estimates were not circulated to Members until the morning of the 3rd March, but I am informed in the Vote Office that to Members who inquired for them the Estimates and the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty were in the Vote Office for the use of Members at the moment that the First Lord of the Admiralty made

  329
  his speech. So I venture to say that the course of proceedings to-night by the First Lord of the Admiralty has been a distinct departure from all former precedents, or, at any rate, a very largo extension of the bad precedent of two years ago. Now, I appeal to the First Lord that he should go back to the old practice of the House, and that Members of the House of Commons should be safeguarded in the maintenance of their privilege in having an opportunity of seeing these Estimates in detail, and the Memorandum of the Minister responsible for them, before they are called upon to hear his elaborate and detailed statement, which otherwise they cannot fully comprehend. And I venture to submit, Sir, that in so doing he would be returning to a good practice, which has proved acceptable and useful, at any rate, until two years ago, and which apparently, by the proceedings of to-night, there is no sound or substantial reason for departing from to-day.
  MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin): I wish to ask, Sir, whether if any Member continues the Debate now, he will be debarred from joining in the Debate when it is resumed?
  *THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the House now grants permission to withdraw the Motion, he would not be debarred. Of course, if the House does not do so, discussion will have to go on, and then every Member who has already taken part in the Debate would be debarred from taking further part in the Debate upon the Motion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): I take my chance of being debarred and I have got up now to ask a simple question, for which I desire an answer from someone in a responsible position on the Treasury Bench. I wish to know whether there will be an inquiry in the Admiralty Office as to how this special information was furnished to "The Times?" Now, there is a precedent for that. In 1878, when the Sehouvalofi-Salisbury Memorandum was published, I believe in the "Globe" newspaper, an inquiry was held—but the "Globe" is not "The Times": it is not the more-favoured journal. When that Sehouvalofi- Salisbury Memorandum was
  330
  published two days before Lord Salisbury denied all about it, there was an inquiry at the Foreign Office, and then three or four officials were dismissed. It can be easily found out who gave this information if it is wished to do so. If the Government refuse an inquiry, we will still believe that this information reached "The Times" through some authorised source.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): No doubt it may be by a little technical irregularity that we should not have had the Estimates, but it does seem to me somewhat strange that those honourable Members who are making so much about the increasing desire for peace throughout the world should forget that the reason the Government has given us is that they thought that this might tend to aggravate the feeling of Europe, and that the Estimates have been withdrawn until this very reasonable Statement could be put forward. It seems to me that those of us who really wish to promote peace ought to support the Government in this, because the reason given by the First Lord of the Admiralty seems to me to be a most pacific one, and one likely to tend rather to the welfare of the world than the reverse.
  MR. ASQUITH: Would the right honourable Gentleman now answer my question?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR. Manchester, E.): On Monday.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question (6th March)—
"That the Bill be now read a second time:"—
And which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question again proposed—
"That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. PHILIPPS: The feature of the opening Debate on this Bill, when it was introduced by the

331
President of the Board of Agriculture, was, I think, that the Bill was not warmly received in any quarter of the House. Now, Sir, I think the reason of that is very simple. The Bill is not a Bill that can create any enthusiasm among those who wish to strengthen the position of the consumer, as against the adulteration of food, and the Bill is not one that can, create any enthusiasm from the friends of the farming industry. Now, Sir, the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he was introducing this Bill, said that even if this Bill was passed as it stood, the law of the land as so amended would not be nearly as drastic on the subject of adulteration as were the laws of other countries. I can well believe it, because this Bill, if it became law, would do exceedingly little to make the law more drastic. All through his speech in introducing this Bill the President of the Board of Agriculture was talking of fraud, and there is no doubt—it is admitted on all hands, on both sides of the House—that the sale of margarine, as it is conducted at present, does undoubtedly lend itself largely to fraud, and it is used largely for the purpose of fraud. And in respect of that fact the President of the Board of Agriculture, in introducing the Bill, used mild phrases about being very reluctant to hinder trade: he would not stop the colouring of margarine for fear of hindering an innocent trade that supplied a most wholesome and excellent food. But, Sir, I should like the President of the Board of Agriculture to remember this, that when he is introducing a Bill like this he is defending the interests of two great classes. He is defending the interests of the consumers, and he is defending the interests of the farmers, and I must say I wish the right honourable Gentleman had taken in his speech some bolder tone. It was said by the honourable Member, sitting on this side of the House, who represents a Division of Glasgow that this Bill aimed at securing agricultural produce a monopoly. Well, Sir, I do not think it does, but what it aims at, although I do not think it effects its purpose—what it purports to do, is to secure agricultural produce a monopoly of sale as agricultural produce, and I do not see how any Member of this House can say that agricultural produce is not
332
entitled in justice to be the only thing sold to the consumer as agricultural produce. Now, to turn to the Bill itself. My contention is that this Bill is a very weak thing, that is going to do very little good to anybody. I turn to Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1 says that if margarine or margarine cheese is imported, except in packages marked as margarine or margarine cheese, or, being adulterated or impoverished before, is imported, except in packages showing what is contained therein, or if condensed, separated, or skimmed milk is imported in tins or other receptacles not bearing the words "separated" or "skimmed"milk—then in any of these cases the importer is to be fined. How much is he to be fined? For the first offence, a fine not exceeding £20— this, Sir, not being a fine of £20, but to be a fine not exceeding £20; it may be as low as you like, but it must not, be more than £20. For the second offence, it may not be more than £50, and for every subsequent offence it may not be more than £100. Now, it is admitted on all hands that if margarine is sold as butter the profit is very large indeed, and it is admitted that mixtures of margarine and butter cost something like 6d. a pound and largely sell at 1s. 2d. a pound. Well, a man who is fraudulently selling stuff he gets for 6d. for 1s. 2d., and doing that every day of the week, is making such profits that if once or twice in a year he is lined £100 it will mean very little out of his pocket. He could well go on repeating the offence. It is well known that men who commit fraud of this kind are detected, not every time they commit it, but only once in very many times. What I submit to the Government is this: Let them, after the first and second offence, at any rate, do away with fines; let them sentence a fraudulent importer to imprisonment instead of tine. If some of these respectable people who defraud the poor were sent to prison instead of being fined, then I think it would be a very fine example, and would be doing a great deal to keep trade pure. That is not done in this Bill. Well then, Sir, I turn to another clause, Clause 7 of the Bill. In that clause it is proposed to compel a manufacturer of margarine, or a wholesale dealer in margarine, to keep a register with certain particulars, and if he fraudulently omits to enter any par-

333
ticular—and I should like the House to remember it is not a case of mere careless action—which this Bill orders him to enter, what is to be done with him.? He is to be fined, and the fine is not to be more than £10. That is from the Government which is strengthening the law against fraud, and in this particular case there is no punishment more than a maximum fine of £10. I ask, What is that going to do to stop fraud.? Then take clause 11, which is perhaps the weakest clause in a weak Bill. By clause 11 it is enacted that every tin or other receptacle containing condensed, separated, or skimmed milk must bear a label on which the words "separated" or "skimmed" milk are printed in large type, and if any person otherwise sells or offers for sale condensed or skimmed milk—what is he to be fined? A fine not exceeding £2. Well, Sir, it may be said you stop a poor milkman in the street when he is selling skimmed milk once in a way, and it is quite enough to fine him £2; but we all know that the man who sells skimmed milk for real milk is not found out every time, is not detected even time. It is only once, perhaps, in one hundred times that he is detected. I venture to say this is one of the cruellest frauds that can be committed. There are numbers of ignorant people in the country who do not know that milk from which the cream has been extracted is not enough to supporf the life of children, and numbers of children in this country are fed, or rather starved, on milk from which the natural fat has been removed. And yet this form of cheating, which is one of the cruellest forms of cheating you can have, is by this bold Government proposed to be punished by a maximum fine of £2. Why, it ought to be punished with imprisonment. Then I want to call the attention of the Government to another matter, to clause 2 of the Bill. By clause 2 of the Bill the Government may, in relation to any matter apnearing to the Board of Agriculture to affect the general interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom, direct an officer of the Board to procure for analysis samples of any article of food, and thereupon the officer shall have all the powers of procuring samples conferred by the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Well, Sir, the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he introduced this Bill.
334
complained—and it is quite true that all over the country, or, at any rate, in many parts of the country—that the Acts against adulteration are very badly enforced. The local authorities do not take action, and so he proposed to give the Board of Agriculture power. But, Sir, why should not other people have the power? Why should you confine it to officials of the Board of Agriculture? Why not give the general public the power of protecting themselves? I do not quite see why the Board of Agriculture is to have this special power. I wish the President of the Board of Agriculture would explain why this special power under his Bill should be confined to the officials of the Board of Agriculture. Then, Sir, as to the working of this Bill. It is true the Government by this Bill propose that packages should be marked, but we all know that is a provision that it is almost impossible to enforce. Men in shops may put margarine into paper marked "margarine," or they may not. It is very difficult to detect frauds of this kind, especially when children and ignorant people are acting as purchasers. But there is one way in which fraud as regards margarine can be stopped, and everybody knows it, and that is by preventing margarine being coloured like butter. Sir, it is not the first purchaser only who ought to be protected. Most of us may be able, in buying butter for consumption in our own houses, to deal with tradesmen we know, and we may-get butter; but, after all, people in all positions in life eat stuff in hotels and restaurants which may have been sold to the hotel-keeper or restaurant keeper as margarine, but it may be retailed by the hotel-keeper or restaurant keeper as butter to his customers, and who is going to stop these frauds? There is only one way, and that is to have margarine coloured differently to butter. And. Sir, you can see what may happen now. A man may go into an hotel, eat some nasty stuff believing it to be butter, whereas it is margarine, and then he may say, "What an ignorant person the British farmer is. He does not know his business. How superior the Danish butter is. How far superior the butter from Normandy." Yes, because butter from Normandy and Danish butter is butter, and half the time the stuff you are eating in hotels and restaurants may

335
not be butter at all, but margarine. Now, Sir, the President of the Board of Agriculture, when introducing the Bill, said you could not stop the colouring of margarine without stopping the colouring of butter. For my part, I do not quite see why you should not, because I think it would be easy to differentiate between the colour of butter and of margarine. If you colour a light butter yellow, after all it is butter. It is being sold as butter; But if you colour margarine you are colouring a thing which is not butter in order to have it sold as butter. But if it is necessary, as the President of the Board of Agriculture says, that if you forbid colouring in the one case you should forbid it in the other, I, for my part, should be quite ready to accept that alternative, and to see colouring forbidden altogether, whether the stuff coloured was margarine or butter. I know the President of the Board of Agriculture complained that some people in the House would insist upon margarine being coloured something different altogether. I do not think there would be anything very outrageous in that. An honourable Member talked the other day as if yellow was a sort of sacred colour in food, and nobody could reasonably be expected to eat any food which was not yellow. I do not know why we should set up margarine on a pinnacle in that way. After all, there is plenty of good food in the country which is not yellow. You cannot say that yellow is general. Jam is not bad, but it is not yellow-. I have never heard that pâte de fois gras was a nasty thing; I have never heard that caviare has a nasty look about it. But the President of the Hoard of Agriculture says that anybody who tries to stop margarine from being coloured yellow wishes to stop the margarine industry. Well, Sir, I do not pretend to know what effect the prevention of margarine being coloured yellow would have upon it. He said that that would be the result. I do not know what the result would be, but we all admit that margarine when it is coloured yellow lends itself to fraud, and if it would destroy the trade were we to say that it shall not be coloured yellow, it only tends to show that the margarine trade is largely fraudulent, and that margarine is largely sold because it is yellow and because it imitates butter, and for no other reason. Now, somebody
336
on this side of the House said the other day that to prevent the colouring of margarine yellow would be a Protective measure. In one way it is. It is protective against fraud. I say I shall never be ready, I hope, to vote for the protection of the produce producer against competition, but I do say the British producer has an absolute right to be protected against fraud. And this trade is largely a fraudulent trade. That is admitted on all hands. I say that we understand—["No!"] It is admitted—["No!"] Well, almost everybody who spoke the other night spoke of cases of fraud in connection with the trade, and I venture to say that the Report of the Committee that sat upon this question showed endless cases of fraud, and the correspondence that has been appearing in the papers in the last few days from country grocers and others show that this fraud is a very common one, and not only injures the consumer and injures the purchaser, but injures honest tradesmen as well, who have to suffer from the competition of unscrupulous rivals. Well now, Sir, the President of the Board of Agriculture made a statement the other night that rather surprised me. He said, that it would be unwise of the farmer to stop colouring altogether. I do not know why. I do not suppose the President of the Board of Agriculture holds the belief that margarine is such a good food that if people knew it was margarine and not butter—
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG, Liverpool,): If the honourable Member quotes me I must ask him to quote me accurately. I did not say it would' be unwise of the farmer, I said it would' be a very great change which I thought the farmer would have to make. I did not express an opinion whether it was a good or a bad one.
MR. PHILIPPS: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the right honourable Gentleman, for it was far from my intention to do so. I think the farmers whom I have the honour to represent would take the risk, and would be quite prepared to welcome the change and see margarine coloured something which was not yellow But I must say that, from' my point of view, the Bill is a disappoint-

337
ing one. The Bill does one thing—I do not say that it was intended to do it: flatters the farmer with the idea that his interests are being looked after. The Government will be able to go to the country, to the agricultural constituencies, at the next Election and say, "We have done something to prevent the fraudulent sale of margarine." But before this Bill comes into law some of us on this side of the House will give the Government one more chance. We will put down Amendments that will make the Bill a real Bill, Amendments that shall prevent margarine from being sold as butter, shall prevent margarine from being coloured yellow. We will put down Amendments so that fraudulent salesmen may be sent to prison instead of being lined; and if these Amendments are carried, and if they are passed into law, I venture to say that the Bill will be a real Bill, and will be a thousand times more effectual against fraud than in the milk-and-water form in which the Government has introduced it.
*MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk): I am sure the President of the Board of Agriculture must have listened with great pleasure to the speech that we have just heard, because last Monday night we heard nothing but denunciations of this Bill as hampering trade, harassing manufacturers, and ruining retail traders. Then, up gets the honourable Gentleman on the same side and says, on the contrary, it will do nothing: it is a milk-and-water Bill and will have no effect whatever. Now, Sir, the honourable Gentleman commenced his speech by saying that no one has risen to say that this is a good Bill. Sir, I do not think there has ever been introduced into this House any Bill which those who spoke on the occasion of its introduction have declared to be so good that they could not themselves make it better. What the honourable Member means is that one speaker after another has risen and pointed out how in detail he could have made it a better Bill if he had had the drafting of the Bill. No doubt honourable Members could— or think they could—have made it a tetter Bill. But the real position is this. We are not discussing these details, which we may be enabled to do in Committee, but the general principle of the Bill. No doubt the general principle of
338
this Bill is that adulteration should be put an end to by process of closer inspection of articles than is now given to these articles. We desire—and under this Bill it is done—to make the inspection at the ports, which is at present spasmodic, regular, and real, and energetic; and as for the inspection at home, we desire that where the local authorities are inactive they shall be galvanised into action by the central authority. Two honourable Members have been found in this House, carrying out what is said to be one of the functions—of the principal functions—of an Opposition, to oppose this Bill—the honourable Members for West Islington and for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. But their attacks upon this Bill show that, though they might agree in the ultimate end of their speeches, their ways of looking at the Bill were totally divergent. The honourable Member for West Islington opposed the Bill because, although he has no objection to the second part, he could not swallow the first part of it. His seconder seconded, as he told us, not because he had any objection to the first part, but because he could not swallow the second part. And between the two of them they moved the rejection of this Measure altogether. Now when those two honourable Gentlemen did agree they seemed to show that their agreement was on this point—that though they loved adulteration little, they loved agriculture less. They belonged, both of them to a section of this House who are always in fear of Protection. They must know that Protection is dead.
COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No.
*MR. GRANT LAWSON: Yes, with respect to the honourable Member, I say that they know—though perhaps my honourable Friend behind me does not know it—that Protection is dead, and yet they are always conjuring up its spirit in the most unlikely places. Why, Sir, the honourable Member for West Islington in his speech said that this was a Bill to exclude foreign food. I wonder under what section of the Bill he considers that foreign food is excluded. A far more damaging criticism of the Bill has come from another speaker on that side, who complained not only that the Bill would not stop the introduction of

339
foreign food when adulterated, but does not even detain it in transit. Under the Bill the consignments, although adulterated, are to go forward to their destination, with the sleuth-hounds of the Board of Agriculture let loose upon their track, under sub-section 6 of the first clause. That clause provides that when articles come to this country adulterated, they are to be clearly branded with a conspicuous mark that they have fallen from the state of purity; and adulteration is defined in a way which really answers the whole speech made by the honourable Member for South Somerset. The honourable Member for South Somerset complained that any quantity of acids, of which he gave us the names, might be put into milk, and into butter, and yet that would not be stopped by this Bill. Sir, they would be stopped under the last words of clause 1. As I have said, the principle of this Bill is close inspection. The Customs are to take samples. It may be said that the Customs have the power now to take samples under the Customs Consolidation Act of 1879. That is so in law: but what is the fact? The Chairman of the Board of Customs came before the Committee and he said this—
"As a matter of fact, under the existing law we do very little, I may almost say nothing, except in respect of tea."
Well, the object of this Bill is that the Board of Customs should do something, acting under instructions which they are sure to receive, at any rate, from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Minister of Agriculture. Sir, I hope myself that the analysis of these samples when taken will be sufficient to detect the presence of microbes. I believe that this tubercle bacillus, of which we are so much afraid at the present moment, is very often a foreign immigrant, and that matter should be looked into at the ports before we endeavour to cast out these particular microbes from our homes by the very strong measures now before this House promoted by private individuals. The sample having been taken, and the adulteration detected, these articles go forward to their destination. When they get there the recipients can consume them if they like; if these articles contain matters which are injurious to
340
health he may not sell them under the present law, if they contain certain adulterations which are calculated to deceive he may not sell them so as to deceive. That is the law at present, so that it is perfectly obvious that the law, if properly administered, is strong enough to catch the offenders. The arm of the law was strong enough originally, but in many cases it was paralysed because it was to be wielded by the local authorities, and in many cases they did not wield it. Evidence was given before the Committee that in the years 1895 and 189G the Board of Agriculture called the attention of the local authorities to 70 cases of adulterated articles, a trade in which was going on in their jurisdiction, and not a single prosecution followed. Now this Bill will enable the Board of Agriculture to see that the law which was intended to reach the offender shall reach him, a result which has not been found to be the case in the past. The honourable Gentleman the Member for the Ilkeston Division is tremendously jealous of the honour of a. Department with which he himself has been connected, and he said that the Board of Agriculture was not a proper Department to perform this function. Now, the Bill expressly confines the first part of its operation to matters affecting the general interests of agriculture. If the Board of Agriculture cannot look after the general interests of agriculture I should very much like to know what Department has a better claim. The honourable Gentleman himself saw the weakness of his own case, because he said if the Local Board fixed a standard of purity the feed and breed of cattle might make a great difference. Who is the best judge of the breed of cattle, the Board of Agriculture or the Local Government Board? Now I want to say a word or two upon the subject of colouring, which has been dealt with by the honourable Member who has just sat down. I think if anything has been done by this discussion, what has been done has been to show the consumers of this country that the natural colour of margarine is so odious that a man has to shut his eyes before he opens his mouth to take it in its natural colour. Supposing we boldly said that colour was not to be added, the ingenuity of of the margarine manufacturer would

341
produce a compound the natural colour of which would be that of butter, and then we should have to amend our Act in order to make that colour some other colour. It is not fair to say that the colour of margarine is always put in for the purposes of fraud, because a large amount of margarine is sold openly as margarine. There is, of course, some colouring done for the purpose of fraud. Margarine is apparently always sold coloured. In this discussion the prevention of colouring has been discussed as if that was the end at which the agricultural interest has been aiming. That is not so; it is not the end, it is only one means to the end. The end in view being to prevent margarine being sold as butter. My right honourable Friend has found that if he adopts the most obvious means of stopping the sale of margarine as butter that course would be too dangerous to contemplate. He has to find some other road to the same goal. All I can say is that if my right honourable Friend finds a way to the common object that we all have in view which is practicable—a way in which it is possible for us at once to travel—we, so long as he reaches his object, should not complain about leaving the route to him. The very mildest provision in an Act of Parliament is more valuable than the strongest provision in a Bill that remains a Bill. My opinion is that half a loaf is better than no bread. The route by which my right honourable Friend has elected to reach his destination is by way of inspection, detection, and punishment. The route has many advantages; in the first place, it places inconvenience on the dishonest seller without touching the consumer. Secondly, it follows a route which has led to success often before with regard to other articles; and it has a third advantage, that it does not introduce a new principle into our laws. I do not think there is an article, certainly no compound article, which is sold in its natural colour. I do not think that any honourable Gentleman in this House, for instance, can tell me what the natural colour of his boots is. Then, again, the natural colour of ginger ale is not the same as that of beer; yet the teetotaler colours it to be the same as beer, no doubt for the purpose of deceiving himself, and nobody objects to his doing so. The law has not to interfere with colour-
342
ing; the law has to be very careful not to do so. If it did, what would happen to all traders in artificial articles? Ladies would have to do without sealskins that never clothed a seal, and without ostrich feathers that never grew on an ostrich. Then take the case of jewellery, you take a bit of glass and colour it and it looks like a ruby or a pearl. We do not grudge the poor man his eighteen-penny ruby, and the law does not step in. Take another illustration, that of a knife or spoon or fork; by silver plating those articles assume the colour of silver, but nobody says they ought to be allowed to stop it, that a spoon or a fork ought to be left in the natural colour of its baser metal. I think that I have shown that it would be a very strong thing indeed if my right honourable Friend had attempted to make a law on the subject of colouring; it would be far better for us to concentrate our efforts on other methods of preventing these fraudulent sales. Some methods are mentioned in the Bill, but there are many matters which had better be left to the consideration of the Committee. I am myself in favour of what the honourable Member for Pembroke proposed, namely, prison fare for the adulterators of food. I am also in favour of publishing their names. These are questions for Committee. Those who oppose the Second Reading have to show one of three things—first, that there has been no adulteration to speak of. That was completely contradicted by the evidence given before the Committee. Or, secondly, to show that if this is not the best way to stop adulteration that there is an alternative, and you have got to show the alternative. No one has attempted to suggest the alternative course. Thirdly, you may attempt to show that adulteration ought not to be stopped; that the people ought to be allowed to remain under this system of robbery, for fear that some profit should come to the interest of the dealer in genuine articles. The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down said that we were considering the consumer and the farmer; there is a third person who has to be considered, and that is the honest trader, who does not wish to sell adulterated articles, but who must sell them or he would be undersold by his fraudulent neighbours. I think that this will lead to meeting a

343
great evil, and for that reason I shall support the Bill.
*MR. KEARLEY: Whatever may be the opinions of honourable Members on either side of the House as to the merits or demerits of that Bill no one has ventured to gainsay that an enormous amount of adulteration has been carried on in this country, and that it has been injurious to the principles of honest trade. I think that the criticism to which the Government has been subjected, and the suggestion that they meant wholly to benefit the agricultural interest by this Bill, arises from the language which has been employed by them in drafting the Bill. Personally, myself, I have no hesitation in saying that the day has gone by when any Government could set up any protective Measure which would interfere with the free flow of the supply of food products into this country. But it is perhaps a little unfortunate that the Government in this Bill should appear to be influenced, to some extent at all events, in the direction of protection. As the practice of adulteration extends to articles of almost every description there should not, in my opinion, be a preference given to agriculture; but the Bill should be a comprehensive one dealing with all articles of food in which adulteration exists at present, or in which it might exist. The last speaker who addressed the House commented upon some of the alarming statements that were made the other evening, and I certainly do not believe that this Bill will raise prices, or deal in any way with the fair competition of foreign food supplies, or interfere in any manner with their importation into this country. I will go further, and say that agriculture is as much entitled to protection against unfair competition as any other trade. And though some agriculturists may hold the impression that this Measure will diminish competition, the chances of its doing so are so remote that, in my opinion, they are bound to be disappointed. Now, the right honourable Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, made a statement to the effect that it was based upon the recommendations of the Select Committee: technically, of course, that is true, because some of the provisions of the Bill were made in view of the recommendations of the Select Committee,
344
but in the main I assert, and my first complaint is, that it does not follow the recommendations of the Select Committee to their full extent. Out of the 23 recommendations of that Committee the Government in this Measure have ignored all but 10, and some of those which they have ignored contain some of the provisions which would have proved most beneficial, if they had been incorporated in this Bill. Therefore, I am prepared to regard this Bill as a mere instalment of the legislation necessary to give us effective protection against adulteration. But that is no reason why I should offer the Bill uncompromising opposition. I prefer to regard it as a framework into which we must endeavour to work our wishes by Amendments which may result in a very useful Measure. Before I sit down I shall mention some of the matters which I think we should criticise, so that on further consideration the Bill may be amended in those particulars. In Committee, of course, we shall have an opportunity to make many suggestions for amending the provisions of the Bill, and I do not think that the Second Reading should be made the occasion for moving the rejection of the Bill. Now the most serious omission from the Bill, in my opinion, is the recommendation of the Select Committee, carried with absolute unanimity, that there should be set up an independent court or body of reference to deal with the technical and scientific questions which will have to be considered in connection with the adulteration of food products. The Board of Agriculture proposes to set up a body presenting some of the characteristics recommended by the Select Committee, but I am confident that the body which it is proposed to set up by this Bill will not possess the confidence of this country. The Board of Agriculture is not in such a position to command the best technical and scientific knowledge as would be a Board that had a perfectly independent existence. Under the proposals of the Board of Agriculture to set up these Boards they propose to take enormous powers. In the first place, they intend to establish standards of purity for milk.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No; no!
MR. KEARLEY: If you will allow me to state it in my own way first, when I have stated it you can correct me. I say that they propose, if they propose to do anything at all, to establish standards of purity for milk and butter, and they propose to set up a standard of preservatives and colouring that may be legitimately introduced into these products. Now, the right honourable Gentleman, in reply to a Question, said that the Board of Agriculture was not prepared to fix a definite standard. Are you prepared to fix an indefinite standard, because if you are that appears to me to give point to the objection of the Irish representatives? At the present moment the one thing which the Irish butter producers complain mo6t bitterly of is that there is no definite standard, and they want to know what the standard will be. If you have a low standard of purity fixed for milk the milk producers of this country will be able to water down their milk to the standard, and the vicious effect of that will be as great as it is now at the present moment. While I am upon the question of standards, I notice that there is one which you do not propose to deal with at all, and that is the percentage of water that shall be permissible in butter. We have heard from all the speakers who have addressed the House upon this subject of the adulteration of butter with margarine, but I venture to suggest that there is just as much adulteration of butter by dishonest persons by the addition of water as there is by the addition of margarine; but there is no proposal at all in this Bill to deal with that. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out the other night that in order to make legislation effective it is necessary that the law should be enforced. I agree with that, and I go beyond, and say that in addition to enforcing the law deterrent penalties must also be enforced. At the present time not only is the law not enforced as it should be, but the penalties which are inflicted are not sufficiently deterrent. One of the speakers said that the law at present in existence was efficient if it was properly administered; I think to a large extent that is so. The proposal of the right honourable Gentleman is that the Board of Agriculture shall have power to enforce the administration of the law, but it is only where
346
the interests of agriculture are affected that the Board of Agriculture proposes to step in. It is stated in the Bill that where the law is not enforced, and the interests of agriculture are found to be affected, the Board of Agriculture is to compel the local boards to take action. I should strongly advise the Government to delete all language from this Bill which pre-supposes a predilection in favour of agriculture. These references carry no substance with them, whilst they are great disfigurement to the Bill, and they will give rise to accusations against the Department which it would be better to avoid altogether. I strongly advise the Government to get rid of these words: they can only prejudice the Board of Agriculture, because so long as that Department has the administration of this Act there will be an opening for the enemy to say that it is worked in the interests of agriculture. I do not suggest that that is so myself, but I do think that it is a pity, considering that the Local Government Board is the recognised central authority for dealing with local boards, to transfer these powers to the Board of Agriculture. The Local Government Board is the most fitting authority to set local authorities in motion. I could give reasons why the Local Government Board is the most appropriate body to have the power to enforce the Act where local authorities fail to enforce it. In the first place, they would not be subject to the suspicion which is attached to the Board of Agriculture. The Local Government Board is a national body, and so is the Board of Agriculture, but the Local Government Board is not the servant of any particular interest in this House, while the Board of Agriculture is the servant of the agricultural representatives in this House. Even if I had listened to the speech of my honourable Friend the Member for Pembrokeshire with my eyes shut I should have known that he was an agricultural representative by the tone of his argument, and that is the spirit that permeates the whole of the agricultural interest in this House. Of course, they want to do the best they can for their own interest, and they are quite right too. So long as the Board of Agriculture has the administration of this Act there is always an opening for the enemies of this Measure to say, "It is

347
worked in the interests of agriculture." I do not allege that myself, but I do say that considering that the Local Government Board is the recognised central authority for dealing with local bodies, it seems to me to be improper to transfer these powers to the Board of Agriculture. The local Government Board already deals with the local authorities when they are in default in respect of proper water supplies or drainage. If they refuse, the Board have power to apply for a mandamus to compel them to act. Surely the question of a power of this nature in regard to food is as important as the power with regard to the water supply; and as the Local Government Board is the body for securing to the public pure water, I contend that it should be the body to secure by its administration pure food supplies for the people. Now I want to deal with one or two points that have already been referred to in connection with some provisions under this Bill. There is a general agreement, I think, that the penalties which are already imposed are inadequate. On the Select Committee we passed a unanimous decision that the penalties were altogether inadequate, and that they ought to be strengthened and increased. That Committee recommended that for the second offence there should be a minimum fine of £5. Under this Bill you propose to increase the fine which is leviable for the second offence, but you make no minimum fine, and magistrates are so prone to regard these offences leniently, that unless you lay down by Statute that for the second offence the fine shall be a substantial one, I am sure there will be a repetition of these one shilling or two shilling fines which have been so common in the past. That was what the Select Committee recommended; and perhaps I may be allowed to say that I took an active part in inducing them to come to that decision. Now, for the third and subsequent offences, I think it should be within the power of the magistrate to send a man to prison who is found guilty of adulteration. Of course, I know that it would be a very drastic proposition that a man brought up for a third offence and convicted should be imprisoned, but it certainly should be left to the discretion of the magistrate to take that step if he thought fit and proper. I will cite a
348
case brought to my notice some little time ago in regard to the operations of a particular gang. There is a gang working in the poor parts of London, who have shops, known as the Welsh Gang, but I hope this will not be taken as a bad compliment by the Welsh Members of this House. It is called the Welsh Gang because the name of the founder, I believe, is Morgan. Well, these people have been prosecuted time after time and convicted. They appeared at the Clerkenwell Police Court a few months ago, and were fined £70 with £21 costs, but the very next week the same men for the same offence appeared at the same Police Court, but before a different magistrate, and were fined £1. That will give the House an idea as to the manner in which some magistrates regard these offences. Now, I do think that people of this description should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and more especially so because they find it sufficiently profitable to continue their evil ways and pay the fines. Of course, I do not allege this against traders as a whole, but there seems to be almost a criminal class in this respect who cannot resist the temptation of stealing—for it is nothing else but stealing— and defrauding the public, and they persevere in their evil deeds, although they are fined from time to time.
MR. A. MOORE: The fines are paid by an association.
*MR. KEARLEY: Well, that is not within my knowledge. I wish to press upon the Government the necessity of carrying out the recommendation of the Select Committee, that the magistrates should have it in their power on the third conviction to send a man to prison, and that is not asking for an extraordinary power, because the power to imprison people already exists for far less serious offences. Take for example an Act in which the agricultural Members are particularly interested, namely the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. For a second offence under that Act in the same year a man is liable to a month's imprisonment. As to the nature of the offence, there can be no comparison between the offences committed under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act and defrauding the public by forcing upon

349
the consumer an article which is not what it is represented to be. Similar powers of sending people to prison for smaller offences than those of adulterating food exist under the Merchandise Marks Act and the Licensing Laws. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take a strong attitude upon this question of minimum fines and imprisonment, because, if they do not, they will very much mar the prospects of their Bill being successful. If the Government will be firm, I think 99 per cent. of the adulteration will disappear, that is providing that you make the local authorities do their work. If you imprison the rogues and the thieves I am sure that you will have no great amount of adulteration existing in this country. Now, I want to say a word or two about the provision of this Bill dealing with goods at the port of entry. The Government propose to continue their operation of taking samples, but that will not prevent adulterated articles from circulating in this country, and it will be impossible, by the time they have finished their investigation, to enable any of these adulterated articles to be recalled, and the sale of them checked. I have spoken before upon this matter, and I repeat that falsified goods coming into this country should be detained pending an analysis. Well, of course, the answer will be made,"How are you to tell that these goods are falsified? You cannot tell until they are analysed."That is so, but there are always merchants who are prepared to give to the Customs authorities information as to the practices of certain shippers. The leading importers in this country take the precaution of having the opinion of an eminent analyst, and they can find out by that means, from time to time, whether certain shippers' goods are dishonest. I maintain that if you take powers, as you should do, in this Bill which will enable you to detain goods which are falsely described, you may, when the information is supplied to you from time to time, detain such goods pending analysis, and if you find them to be falsified you can confiscate them. That was done in connection with butter some years ago. A certain merchant had reason to suspect that a shipper was sending him adulterated produce, and he stated his case to the Customs authorities, but they said they could not inter-
350
fere. He then went to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right honourable Gentleman only agreed to interfere after this importer had entered into a very heavy bond. Well, the goods were investigated and analysed and found to be adulterated, and they were confiscated. Now I want the Government to obtain this security against falsified goods in this Bill. It may not be necessary to put it in force very frequently, but I think it would have a deterrent effect if the authorities had this power. It would be a great pity to forego and to lose the opportunity which is now offered of putting in a clause of this description. When we have done with this piece of legislation, it will be 20 years at least before the House will again listen to any more proposals to deal with the adulteration of food products, so that now is the time to try and make this Bill as strong as we can in every particular. Now, the other points that I will refer to briefly are those affecting the admixture of butter and margarine. My honourable Friend said the other night, "Why interfere? Why not let butter be mixed with margarine? That seems a very simple question to put, but I will give a reason why. The reason why it should not be allowed to manufacture mixtures is this—that they are intended to be sold not as what they really are, because if that was the case they would have to be sold as margarine, but they are intended to be sold as butter. If the present law was properly administered we should not now be advocating this Measure, and I will give you a convincing argument against these mixtures. Honourable Members know that the system of joint stock enterprise in connection with distributing agencies has enormously increased of late years, and there are now in this country well-recognised distributors whose turnover amounts to several millions a year. I have made inquiries amongst some of these distributors, and many other firms who represent in this trade a net turnover of no less a sum than ten millions a year. Now ten millions a year is a large sum of money to be taken from the public. I have made inquiries from these distributors as to whether any of them sell these mixtures, and not a single one of these firms, who are merchants of the highest eminence, admit that they sell mixtures, but on the con-

351
trary, they deny it altogether. They say that the demand for margarine is a definite demand, confined to a certain class by its low price, and between that price and the price of butter there is a large margin. These distributors inform me that if they were to sell mixtures at a price intermediate between margarine prices and butter prices the public would not buy them at all. It seems to me absolutely conclusive that there is no demand for this particular class of article if it is sold for what it really is, but if it is sold to represent butter there is no question that it commands a large sale. Therefore I am strongly in favour of denying the right of manufacturers of margarine to mix butter with margarine at all. The Government have seen fit to give power to admix to the extent of 10 per cent., but I suggest that that is too high, and I am supported in my contention by the authoritative declaration of a large manufacturer in this country of high repute, and who is well known. I asked him what was the percentage of butter fat that should be present in margarine, and he replied that butter fat in margarine would not exceed 3 per cent., and would, as a rule, be about 2 per cent. I hope I have made it clear that when an article is intended to be sold as margarine, 3 per cent. is the outside percentage of butter fat which should be present. Now, the right, honourable Gentleman proposes to make it legal at 10 per cent., but I think he has an open mind on that question, and perhaps he may be able to come down to 5 per cent., which would be about fair. The question of colouring to my mind is very simple, and if you are going to prohibit it in one direction, you should prohibit it in all. Now I come to the question of warranty, and I think the right honourable Gentleman, before he has done with this Bill, will probably find that this will be the issue round which most of the conflict will be raised. At the present moment, under the Food and Drugs Act, section 25, a warranty is not valid unless it is a written warranty, but under the Margarine Act, passed 12 years later, an invoice is a warranty, so that it has been felt that an invoice should be a warranty in all cases. Some of us maintain that if a tradesman orders from his merchant certain articles, whatever they may be—take butter for in-
352
stance: if the invoice states that it is butter, without expressly saying "guaranteed pure butter," the invoice itself should be the warranty, and it should be producible against the man who gave the warranty. Now I think that should be the position of a merchant. If he invoices so many packages as "butter," that certainly should be a warranty, and it should not be left to a buyer to say, "the law will not recognise your statement without you put on the invoice "absolutely pure," or "guaranteed pure." The right honourable Gentleman will be wise, I think, if he gives way on this point, for there appears to be already a great amount of anxiety upon it in the country that this should be recognised. But I will ask him this question—if he refuses to recognise an invoice as a warranty under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, does he propose to retain the power under the Margarine Act, which does recognise the invoice as a warranty? Here, under the Margarine Act, section 5, as I have before stated, the invoice is a warranty, and that was provided for in an Act passed 12 years after the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Now, under the latter Act an invoice is not a warranty, and I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he proposes to repeal what appears to be an anomaly in the case of the Margarine Act?
*THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.): No.
*MR. KEARLEY: The right honourable Gentleman says "No," but it seems to me incomprehensible that you should admit an invoice as a warranty under one Act and not admit it under the other. Then there is a smaller point, which is that of claiming exemption when the tradesman can prove that he has exercised due diligence to have the article sold for what it really was, and that his employee was the offender. He should then be able to produce the defaulting employee, and let him bear the consequences of his dereliction of duty. Now here is an Act which again has a different bearing on this question. Under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act there is no exemption for the act of the servant, but under section 7 of the Margarine Act an employer is exempted if he can prove that he has exercised due diligence. I would ask the right honour-

353
able Gentleman to consider the claim of a tradesman to be exempted if he can prove that he has exercised due diligence, and that the adulteration is owing to the negligence of his assistants. Under one Act an employer can claim exemption, and under another he cannot. and I believe the magistrate is perfectly able to discriminate whether the defence when set up is a genuine one or not. If the right honourable Gentleman is anticipating that this will open a wide door to fraud, I do not think he need have any apprehensions in that direction, for I think the magistrate will be able to determine whether the defence is legitimate or otherwise. I have now criticised the various clauses in this Bill which I consider to be weak. There is one other defect which I will mention in a word. I think legislation would be more effective if there had been a consolidation and strengthening of the existing law. I would have liked to have seen every law upon this subject repealed, and a thoroughly good adulteration Act passed, framed on broad lines, so as to comprehend all the forms of adulteration that exist. What we want is really a consolidation, because this piecemeal legislation is only confusing to those who have to abide by the Act. There is one proposal in this very Bill which shows that the right honourable Gentleman who introduced it is not acquainted with its effect. Section 11 of this Bill makes provision for "skimmed" or "separated" milk, and for the contravention of this section a fine not exceeding £2 may be imposed. But this offence is already contemplated under the Food and Drugs Act, section 9, under which a penalty of £20 can be imposed, and I have known a case in which a fine of £10 has been inflicted. I think that that proves that the right honourable Gentleman is not acquainted with the multiplicity of details connected with these two Acts. It would be better, I think, to have had a consolidation Bill put before Parliament. However, we must take events as we find them, and I believe that although this Bill is defective in many respects, if the Government really mean business in this matter, and will afford an opportunity in Committee to honourable Members of giving them the benefit of their experience, I think
354
we shall be able to amend the Bill and alter it to such an extent that it will be acceptable to the country.
*MR. RUSSELL: Apart from the speeches of the two honourable Members who moved the rejection of the Bill, I do not think the Government have any right to complain of the reception accorded to their proposals. Most of those who have spoken have, indeed, criticised the proposals of the Bill. But it is sins of omission rather than of commission that have been charged against the Government. We have been told that we have erred in not following the precedents set as regards several matters in the Margarine Act of 1887, and that we have been guilty of grievous default in setting aside several of the recommendations of the Select Committee. But whilst this is the case the general tenour of the Debate has been that, so far as it goes, the Bill is a good Bill, and more than one speaker found to his satisfaction as the Debate proceeded that the Bill went further than he thought it did. Before, however, I proceed to answer the criticism upon detailed points, let me refer for a moment to the main objection urged by the honourable Member for West Islington as a reason why the Bill should be rejected. He declared, in so many words, that it was a Bill designed to protect the agricultural community, and to raise prices. This assertion was met, as it deserved to be, by the derisive cheers of honourable Gentlemen who sat immediately around him. It is true, indeed, that the Bill does propose to put difficulties in the way of the foreign merchant who sends adulterated or impoverished articles of food into this country. But I do not know that even the most ardent member of the Cobden Club would claim a right for the foreigner which is not conceded to the home trader. It has been left for the honourable Gentleman to say of a Bill that proposes most reasonably to prevent fraud by a foreign trader that it is a mere Measure of protection and calculated to raise prices. I am satisfied, and indeed my honourable Friend opposite the Member for Ilkeston agreed— that clause 1 is a most valuable provision. He has a right to speak on

355
this question, because he shared with me the labour of presiding over the Committee upstairs. I come now to other speakers. It was urged by my honourable Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, and repeated with emphasis to-night by the honourable Member for Devonport, that if the Bill was to be worth anything, the retail trader should be allowed to treat a mere invoice as the legal equivalent of a written warranty. He said that this was lawful under the Margarine and the Fertilizers Acts, and he pointed out that this constituted one of the recommendations of the Select Committee which the Government had rejected. The honourable Baronet is entirely right in saying all this, and the only question remaining is as to the decision of the Government. Is it right or wrong? Is it defensible or indefensible? Let us see how the case stands. Almost every speaker has admitted that one of the main difficulties in connection with this whole question is the lax administration of the law. Local authorities, in many cases, and for reasons that were made plain to the Committee, administer the various Acts in the most perfunctory manner. That is admitted on both sides of the House. Now, assuming the contention of honourable Members to be correct, and that a mere invoice should be equivalent in law to a written warranty, see what would happen. In every case the retail shopkeeper who had sold the adulterated article would produce his invoice, and the responsibility would be at once shifted to the wholesale dealer. This trader may carry on business in Ireland, in Scotland, or at a place hundreds of miles from where the summons is heard. When he is brought into Court what is to happen? He has, no doubt, an invoice from the manufacturer of the goods. Is he to plead this invoice and walk out of Court, shifting the responsibility on to the manufacturer? If not, why not? And, should the manufacturer reside outside the jurisdiction, what then? Nobody in that case could be made amenable, and you would be placing the home trader, who can be made amenable, at a great disadvantage with the foreign merchant who cannot be reached. But I ask what would the effect of all this be on the careless and unwilling local authority? They would probably say: "We have gone to great
356
expense in an attempt to carry out the law; the only result being that we have been driven from post to pillar, finding ourselves in the last resort unable to reach the original offender." Is it wise,. I ask, to run the risk of bringing the administration of the law to this pass? And all the while, be it remembered, the retail trader can enforce a warranty from the wholesale dealer, which will be a valid defence, if he chooses to do so. If he does not do it he ought to take the responsibility for the character of the goods he sells. I think that to make this change in the law would be to run the gravest risk of bringing the law into disrepute, and that the only safe method of procedure is to make the actual purveyor to the public responsible for what he sells. Then we have been told that we ought to have followed the precedent of the Margarine Act, and made the assistant responsible where the actual trader had taken all necessary and reasonable precautions against fraud. That was urged very strongly by the honourable Member for Devonport. There are traders, it is said, with scores of shops. How can a trader, it is asked, be responsible under such circumstances? This line of argument, if pursued, may carry us very far. And I hold that the owner of these places of business ought to be responsible for the goods he sells. If he chooses to have 100 shops in different parts of the country, there is nothing in the law to say him nay. But it is a wholly different thing for him to say you must frame the law so that I shall not be responsible for the acts of those I employ.
*MR. KEARLEY: The demand comes from the individual shopkeeper.
*MR. RUSSELL: And, assume the law to be changed, what would happen? A young man in one of these shops is brought up instead of his employer. The employer has taken all reasonable precautions, and let me say, by the way, that it is now in the power of the magistrates to acquit an employer if he is found to have taken all reasonable precautions. The young assistant may be a totally irresponsible person, sleeping, perhaps, in one of the cubicles we heard so much about yesterday. What about the penalties? How are they to be recovered in such a case? To enact a provision of this kind would be

357
to place such difficulties in the way of administration as to seriously imperil the working of the Act. A good deal has been said, and I am not surprised at it, about the regulation in the clause as regards the quantity of butter fat that may be used in the manufacture of margarine. It is a point of some importance, and I propose to examine into it with some care. What are the facts now? First, you have pure butter, which sells at 10d., 1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 4d. per lb., or even more. This article is not affected at all. It is butter, and is sold as such. Then, we have margarine of the ordinary type—which fetches in some of our great towns 5d., 6d., and up to 8d. per lb. Provided this is sold for what it is, namely, margarine, nobody objects. But it is in regard to the third article the difficulty arises. This article consists of a mixture of pure margarine and inferior butter. Now, under the Margarine Act this mixture ought to be sold as margarine. It is at this point the whole difficulty arises. This mixture is not usually sold as margarine. It is not even sold as a mixture. It is very generally sold as tenpenny butter. It is sold for what it is not, and up to the present it has been exceedingly difficult to deal with the fraud. Now, what the Government had to consider was how this fraud could be best prevented? The Select Committee considered the matter carefully. It came to a decision contrary to the view I had submitted in my Draft Report as Chairman. It decided that the mixture should be prohibited by law. My own view put before the Committee was simply this—that so long as no injury was done to the public health, and that the public were duly and fully apprised as to the nature of the article they were purchasing, these mixtures ought to be allowed. I was over-ruled. Now, after giving the fullest consideration to the point, my right honourable Friend has taken a line between the view I expressed and the view taken by the Committee. It is quite impossible to prevent the mixing of butter fat with margarine altogether, for the very good reason given before the Committee by experts-—that it could not be detected up to 5 or 6 per cent. My right honourable Friend practically says
358
in the Bill to the manufacturer of this article—
"Fraud frequently follows this practice of mixing. The fraud is not yours. But we must prevent it if we can. In future, margarine must be sold as margarine and not as butter. By using 10 per cent. of butter fat it will not be possible for those who sell the article to sell it as butter, and therefore we fix that limit."
The aim of the clause is to have two legitimate articles—butter and margarine—and to exclude from the market those mixtures that ought by law to be sold as margarine, but are in fact largely sold as butter. There is nothing sacred in 10 per cent., and it is a reasonable question for discussion in Committee. The next question of importance is that of food standards. The Committee gave great attention to the matter, and I am not quite sure that the House exactly realises how much is done by the Bill in the direction favoured by the Committee. As the proposal emerged from the Committee it involved the setting up of a Standing Committee of Experts, called a Board of Reference, to determine the question of what was and what was not food adulteration. The proposal covered every article that came under the definition of food as defined in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. The necessity for some action of this kind was clearly shown by the conflicts between Somerset House and various public analysts throughout the country, the result being that the Courts were often at a total loss to know what was and what was not adulteration.
DR. CLARK: The Courts have now determined that the standard must be put in the report of each analyst.
*MR. RUSSELL: I think it is very inconvenient that there should be different and conflicting standards all over the country. Now, in view of the determination of the Committee, I ask the House to examine clause 4. It is true that the clause does not set up a fixed standard for anything. It is true that what is proposed to be done covers only three articles. True; but looking at the enormous difficulty in fixing exact standards was it not wiser to arrange for a decision of experts that would establish a presumption as to purity, leaving a certain elasticity to cover

359
different cases? And was it not wiser to confine this delicate and difficult operation to three great staple articles of food —namely, milk, butter, and cheese? Entirely agreeing with the complaints of those who declared that the Courts were often puzzled by the conflicting testimony of analysts, I believe that clause 4 gives the thing contended for by the Committee in a safer and more effective form. Under that clause the undue admixture of water with butter is as much an adulteration as if the butter were adulterated with margarine.
*MR. KEARLEY: IS it definitely decided in that clause that the question of water will be dealt with?
*MR. RUSSELL: I quite agree. What the Committee suggested was the setting up of standards in respect of all classes of food, which I think would be almost impossible and might act unfairly. This clause covers all the necessities of the case. The honourable Member for Somerset said a good deal about the use of preservatives and colouring matters, and other honourable Members have dwelt upon the necessity of stopping the colouring of margarine to imitate butter. As to the first point, it must be remembered that the Committee arrived at no conclusion as to the use of preservatives. They were not satisfied, after hearing all the evidence, that these articles were prejudicial to health, and they certainly did not believe them to be used in a fraudulent sense. Why, then, should their use be prohibited? I entirely agree with my honourable Friend the Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex, who said that he would not like to say that a farmer sending milk from the South of England to London on a July or August day should be prohibited from using a preservative that would ensure its delivery in a state fit to be used. I know what is said. There are people who enter into minute and elaborate calculations as to the quantity of boracic acid and other articles of the kind we consume by reason of the use of these preservatives and colouring matters. We had it all out upstairs. I rose from the inquiry quite convinced that if we are going to eat and drink by rules of this kind we should end in eating nothing. I don't believe these preservatives used in
360
moderation do appreciable harm. I believe they are useful in carrying on legitimate trade, and we have seen no reason for prohibiting their use. Of course, if they are injurious to health, they come under the present law and can be dealt with. Then as to colouring. I admit that here, again, I was over-ruled on the Committee. My agricultural Friends behind me, aided by the agricultural Members on the other side, and backed by the Irish Nationalists, left me with a small band of supporters representing as I thought, and still think, the common-sense of the matter. I am of the same opinion still. You cannot stop the artificial colouring of butter. Most, if not the whole, of the foreign butter in the English market, and that is most of the butter used in this country, is artificially coloured. Can you prevent it? Ought you to prevent it? The colouring matter is not injurious to health. It is not used fraudulently. To attempt to prevent the colouring of butter would raise a storm of opposition, and would be most unfair. But if butter is to be coloured at will by the producer—you cannot make a different law for the producer of margarine. Both are legitimate articles of commerce. And so long as the colouring does not injure public health and is not fraudulent, the producer is entitled to make the article he produces as attractive as it can be made. The honourable Member for Pembrokeshire complained at some length that the penalties of this Bill were not sufficient, and the honourable Member for Devonport has reinforced that opinion. It is quite true that the Committee upstairs decided to recommend that for the second offence there should be a minimum penalty of £5, and that the magistrates might at their discretion imprison for a third offence. Now, I confess that this doctrine of a minimum penalty is exceedingly difficult. You complain—and properly complain—that magistrates will not now act and that they inflict totally inadequate penalties. But, supposing a person conies before a bench of magistrates who now hesitate about moderate penalties, and a hard and fast line is laid down that if you convict on the second occasion you must inflict a penalty of £5. the chances are that these unwilling magistrates will dismiss the case. That

361
is certain to happen. I think the Government have exercised a wise discretion in not fixing a minimum penalty. The same observation applies to the question of imprisonment. If you cannot get magistrates to enforce the law now and exact the present penalties, how can you get them to send people to gaol? Every speaker has referred to the difficulty of getting these penalties enforced, moderate as they are, and I do not see that by putting into an Act of Parliament a stronger penalty you will succeed in enforcing it. But so far as the question of penalties is concerned, I think it is a perfectly reasonable matter for the Committee to discuss. I am perfectly sure my right honourable Friend will keep an open mind upon all these questions of detail, and if the House chooses to take the responsibility of adding imprisonment for a third or a specially bad offence I say that that can be discussed upstairs with perfect freedom. The House will take the responsibility for it, but undoubtedly the Government have not seen their way to put stronger penalties into the Bill. With reference to detention of goods at the port of entry, the whole difficulty is that much of the goods are perishable, and you run the risk of detaining perishable goods that may be perfectly pure, but by the time your analysis is complete they may be injured or destroyed. I think clause 1 really meets the difficulty in question.
MR. G. WHITELEY: Are we to understand that this question of 10 per cent., which we thought was a fundamental part of the Bill, is to be subject of Debate upstairs? Is the Government going to adhere to it?
*MR. RUSSELL: Everything will be subject to debate upstairs. These are really matters for Committee, and not for Second Reading. The last thing I have to say is this. It was complained on the first night of this Debate that this was not heroic legislation. Why should it be? I never knew a question on which there was less room for heroics. All the speakers have declared that the present Acts are good Acts if they could only be tightened up and enforced a little better. The object of the Government has not been to produce heroic legislation. The
362
object has been, in the first place, to protect the public from adulteration; in the second place, not to interfere with legitimate commerce; and, in the third place, not to harass or annoy the honest trader. I believe the Bill clearly carries out that design, and I hope the House will consent to read it a second time.
MR. BRYCE (Aberdeenshire, S.): Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member who has just sat down, in his elaborate defence of the Bill, commented on the fact that only two Members have asked the House to reject it altogether; but, on the other hand, he has not been able to cite a single Member on the other side of the House who has expressed satisfaction with the Bill. One honourable Member, sitting for a Yorkshire constituency, did recommend the House to take it as the best they could get at present, but even he thought it a very unsatisfactory instalment of what was desired. It is a remarkable fact that the Bill has been criticised from so many points of view. Some have said that it does not go far enough. That complaint is made not only by agriculturists, who desire a much more severe restriction, and more stringent penalties, but it comes also from those who, like my honourable Friend the Member for Devonport, desire to see the whole subject of adulteration dealt with. I think there was great force in the observation of my honourable Friend, and it would be a great deal easier to administer the law and have a higher measure of certainty if the whole question of adulteration were put upon the same lines, without any privileges being given to agricultural produce. On the other side, it is said that the Bill itself is objectionable in many respects. Some Members have remarked that it is vexatious, and that particularly with regard to the registration clause, which has, I hear, excited very considerable annoyance in the country. And others again, like my honourable Friend the Member for Islington, scent in it a certain Measure of protection; We are always told when these Bills come up that there is danger of their being protective Measures. But I do not think there is very much of the element of protection in this particular Bill. It is not altogether unnatural, however, that that element should be suspected, because there was something in the

363
language of the President of the Board of Agriculture which tended to give that impression. He talked in his introductory speech not in the way I should have expected him to talk, about the desirability of preventing fraud and deceit, but he spoke of the importance of securing honest competition. Well, we are not here for the purpose of securing fair competition. We are here for the purpose of preventing deceit and detecting frauds upon consumers. If the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture had based his arguments upon the interests of the consumer, and had not thrown out this suggestion to his agricultural friends that this was a Measure intended for their special benefit, he would have done a good deal to disarm the suspicion with which the Measure was received by severe and stringent Free Traders of the type of the honourable Member for Islington. I cannot help regarding with great suspicion the words in clause 2 with regard to the functions of the Board of Agriculture. The clause says that—
"the Board of Agriculture may, in relation to any matter appearing to it to affect the general interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom,"
take samples of agricultural produce. Now, if the Bill is simply a Bill to prevent adulteration, these words are not in the least necessary. It would be sufficient to say that the Board should interfere to prevent fraud. The right honourable Gentleman said that they were only intended to define the scope of the action of the Board. For that purpose also I say that they are not necessary. It would have been sufficient to say that the Board may interfere in the ease of food products such as milk, butter, and cheese, but the words "general interests of agriculture" seem to suggest a motive and reason for intervention which is entirely apart from the interests of the consumer, which it ought to be the business of the Bill to protect. Furthermore, we have the bringing into this Bill of the Board of Agriculture instead of the Local Government Board. That is a very important change in the law, and it is a change which neither the right honourable Gentleman nor the Secretary to the Local Government Board have justified.
364
I have not heard in this Debate, and I have listened to it from the beginning, a single word to justify the substitution of a new Board for the Board which is in possession of the field, and which is not alleged in any way to have neglected its duties. I can only suppose either that the Board of Agriculture wishes to ingratiate itself with its agricultural supporters, or else it is an underworked Department, and is so anxious for fresh work that it has determined to take over this function, and thus to relieve the Local Government Board. The matter is really one of some importance. The Local Government Board is already the authority which is properly charged with the administration of the Adulteration Laws. It will retain its general administration of those laws after the passing of this Bill, if it passes, and it will remain the authority which spurs on and supervises the action of local authorities for every kind of adulteration except that referring to these particular three forms of food products. Is it not, then, very inconvenient and anomalous that, while the Local Government Board retains its general power, this particular duty should be entrusted to a new Board altogether. The mischief does not stop there. The reason why the Local Government Board has control of the matter is this: that the administration of these Acts rests in the hands of the local authorities. These local authorities appoint analysts, and these analysts have to be approved by the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board, therefore, is ultimately the master of the local authorities and of the analysts. It is not proposed to take away the approval of the appointment of analysts from the Local Government Board and give it to the Board of Agriculture. Why, then, introduce the Board of Agriculture at all? Surely all the arguments, both on the ground of symmetry and of convenience, are in favour of keeping those who have to execute the law under the control of those who have appointed them, and those who supervise their action in every other branch of their work. I think if the Government were going to give, as they have given in many respects, a laboured answer upon the criticisms on this Bill, they ought to have dealt with this, which is a change at first sight, and, so far as we

365
have heard, quite contrary to principle, and quite without justification on any ground of practical convenience. Now I have little to say with regard to the main provisions of this Bill. So far as they go to prevent fraud, we are heartily in favour of them. There is no relation at all between free trade and fraud, and our maxims ought to be "everything against fraud," and "nothing against freedom." There is no contradiction between the two, and nobody can say that legislation against fraud can in any way interfere with free trade. But I do think it is extremely desirable, when we are endeavouring to protect the consumer and to prevent fraud, that we should introduce any provision which can even be suspected of a different design. There is one provision which seems to have a design, as to which I am not satisfied with the explanations given by the Secretary of the Local Government Board, and that is the provision with regard to the manufacture of margarine containing more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. The defence made for this provision I understand to be this: that all butter which is not perfect and genuine butter, but which is in the main margarine, is prohibited by law, and it is an offence against the Adulteration Act to sell it.
*MR. RUSSELL: It must be sold as margarine.
MR. BRYCE: It must not be misdescribed; it must be sold for that which it is. I understand there is a good deal of stuff which is neither pure butter nor margarine, but it is a mixture between the two. That is one of the things which I have learned in the course of this discussion. I have learned also that this mixed substance is practically indistinguishable from inferior kinds of butter, and that one might have it served up at his table without knowing the difference. It would appear that already it is an offence to sell this article unless it is labelled margarine, and the present Bill contains a provision requiring the mark to be more complete and unmistakable than it now necessarily is. The Government say that, in spite of this provision of the law, the sale of this mixed stuff will go on, and that it will be sold for butter even if it is described as margarine, and they think
366
it is necessary for that purpose to stop the sale of it altogether. Surely the answer to that is, that you ought to enforce the law more strictly, and, if the law prohibits the sale of the article except as margarine, make it as stringent as you like. By why debar people who wish to pay 10d. for something which is much better than ordinary margarine, although it is not as good as perfect butter, from indulging in that wish?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: That is exactly where we do not agree. We say there is no merit in any mixture of margarine and butter, destined to be sold as margarine, over the best natural margarine produced under this limit of 10 per cent. We are assured by the best information we can get, such as that given by the honourable Member for Devonport, who is largely interested in this trade, as well as by other experts, that the very best margarine, so far as quality goes, can be produced within the limit of 10 per cent. Therefore, you do not gain anything, so far as margarine is concerned, by allowing any greater amount of butter to be mixed with the margarine.
MR. BRYCE: I am much obliged to the right honourable Gentleman for his explanation. I have been told that this considerable mixture of butter with margarine confers a more general flavour of the character of butter, and that, therefore, it is preferable. I understand it is not so, and that in point of fact this butter atmosphere, this persuasion that one is really eating butter, is attainable with something less than 10 per cent. of butter fat, and that, therefore, the consumer will not be in any way prejudiced, because he has a palatable and edible article under the law as formerly. If that is so, it to some extent removes my objection, but it is an additional piece of knowledge which this Debate has given me. Still I cannot help thinking that where you have a law in force which should be enough, you go dangerously near interference with trade if you prohibit an article when your law, if enforced, ought to be a sufficient protection to the consumer. I now come to the question of invoices, and here I desire to clear up one preliminary difficulty. The invoice question, upon which so much has been

367
said, arises upon clause 17, which provides that a warranty or invoice shall not be available as a defence in any proceedings under this Act unless the defendant gives seven days' notice of his intention to plead it. It appears to me that these words make an invoice substantially a warranty. I do not understand how it can be contended that it is not a substantial warranty if the clause provides that under certain circumstances it shall be a defence. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will explain that.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: The explanation is this: Clause 17 must be read with clause 23 of the Food and Drugs Act. If the right honourable Gentleman will look, he will see that that Act is to be read with the Margarine Act, 1887. Under the Margarine Act the invoice is a warranty, and, therefore, this clause merely provides that, where the defendant intends to claim the right to produce a warranty or invoice as a defence, he must give certain notice. This leaves the law with regard to the position of a warranty or invoice exactly as it is now, and this Bill only indicates that where it is produced and pleaded as a defence due notice shall be given of the intention to adopt that course.
MR. BRYCE: I understand that. It seems to me to be the natural explanation of the words. But I do not see why the right honourable Gentleman said that an invoice was not intended to operate as a warranty.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: Because under the Food and Drugs Act an invoice is not a warranty, whereas under the Margarine Act it is, and the Government propose to leave the law exactly as it is. It does not repeal the section of the Margarine Act nor change the law under the Food and Drugs Act.
MR. BRYCE: This is an admirable illustration of the extraordinary difficulty caused by incorporating other Acts in such a Bill as this. I think, if you read the Acts, it is doubtful whether you will get that construction out of them. Not only is it in the highest degree doubtful, but nothing can be
368
conceived more likely to give rise to litigation and to cause great difficulty in the administration of the Act. I earnestly hope that if this Bill goes to Committee (that we shall amend clause 17 so as to make it mean what it says and say what it means. That brings me to a question dealt with by the last speaker, as to whether invoices should or should not be accepted as a defence. One honourable Member said that it would be necessary if they were accepted as a defence to go against the foreign producer, but surely he omitted to notice the second part of section 17, which provides expressly for the case of the foreign producer. I should have thought when he spoke of the difficulty of securing a conviction that he would have remembered that in these cases the person one chiefly wanted to get at is the manufacturer or wholesale dealer. It is far more important to strike at him than at the local trader.
*MR. RUSSELL: May I point out that there is this difficulty in the matter? The question that would arise is whether the goods supplied to the public by the retail dealer were in the same condition as when they left the manufacturer. My contention was that the courts and the local authorities would be so discouraged that prosecutions would cease altogether.
MR. BRYCE: I should have thought that in that case the onus probandi of showing that there had been any change-in the goods would rest upon the manufacturer, and that difficulty would be completely met in this way. I should also have thought that in those cases which are tested by analysis any change in the character of goods not likely to-be caused by lapse of time would not be a change which affected the analysis. However, that is a highly technical question on which I, as a layman, will not dwell. In this case it is better to get at the large men—at the manufacturer or wholesale dealer—for by such means you secure more effective protection for the public. One difficulty in getting-a conviction against the local dealer arises from the fact that in many cases, even if, he is called upon to show that the article was pure, there is sympathy with him on the part of the court trying the case, and there is a disposition to let him off because he could not have known that

369
he had been imposed upon by the large dealer—a sympathy which would not exist if the large dealer himself were before the court. Therefore, the latter person is the better one to strike at. I cannot acquiesce as a matter of policy in the view stated by the Government that it is better to prosecute the retailer that the wholesale dealer. I think it is much better to get at the wholesale dealer if you can. These are the chief points in the Bill upon which I wish to remark. But I must say I think it is rather a pity that the Government should have brought forward the Bill so soon after it was printed. I have heard that there is a great deal of feeling in the country, and a great desire has been aroused to make representations in regard to the Measure, and it seems rather a pity, therefore, that the Government did not bring forward their Agricultural Holdings Bill first, and let this Bill come second, although the First Lord of the Treasury said, a few days ago, that he believed the agricultural community were more anxious to have this Bill first. I saw to-day a letter from the Secretary to the Scottish Chambers of Agriculture, expressing a strong desire that the Agricultural Holdings Bill should come before this Bill. I make this observation for the sake of suggesting to the Government that they ought not to send this Bill to the Committee at once, but should give full and ample time for representations regarding it to be received from the country. It touches a great many trades, and excites a good deal of interest, and it would be a mistake, I think, to hurry it forward until the feeling of the country was well ascertained as to the course which should be taken on the Bill. I must say, I think it rather a defective Measure, containing many points very much open to question. On the other hand, I cannot find that even the ingenuity of the honourable Members for Islington and Glasgow has succeeded in convincing me it is so bad that it ought not be read a second time. But it will require careful consideration, and I hope we shall be able, as suggested by the honourable Member for Devonport, to screw it up a little more tightly, and make it a more complete protection against fraud than it appears to be at present.
MR. LOPES: I think the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture may fairly congratulate himself upon the reception which the Bill has met with at the hands of the House, for, although there has been a considerable amount of criticism, everybody approves the principle contained in the Measure. For my own part, I believe the Bill is essentially a useful and practical one. It is an honest endeavour on the part of the Government, not merely to put an end to the unfair competition between adulterated produce and really genuine articles, but to put down, as far as possible, the whole system of adulteration which is so prevalent, and has done so much injury to the interests of the whole community. The adulteration of food has been reduced almost to an exact science, and it is owing to the blissful ignorance of the people as to the gross frauds to which they are subjected that they have in the past been so extremely apathetic and indifferent on this matter. I confess I was surprised to find any honourable Gentleman, even with the very keenest scent for the taint of protection, getting up in this House and suggesting he has been able to discover it in a Bill of this kind. But it was left to the honourable Member for Islington to make this somewhat startling and surprising discovery. He moved the rejection of this Bill mainly upon the ground that it was a protective Measure in the interests of agriculture. If it is a protective Measure at all, it is protection, not only in the interests of agriculturists, but also of the trader and general consumer. The producer of an article has a right to know that what he exposes for sale is not subjected to unfair competition, and, if that is conceded, then the consumer has an equal right to know that what he buys is a really genuine article, and something which is not prejudicial to his health. The honourable Member went on to say that the effect of this Bill would be to force the people of this country to consume bad butter made at home, instead of good butter imported from Normandy. But this Bill only subjects butter imported from abroad to the same analysis as the butter which we produce in this country, and if it is fair, right, and reasonable that home-produced butter should be subjected to inspecti6n, surely it is also just

371
and reasonable that butter imported from abroad should be inspected. If I may pass for a few moments to the more serious criticisms upon this Bill, I should like to point out that while some Members have said that it is not drastic enough, others have remarked that it is far too drastic, and I venture, therefore, to think that the reasonable presumption is that my right honourable Friend has been very wise in steering a middle course between the two extremes. He has in that way avoided many pitfalls and many difficulties, and I think he has taken the course which is most likely to secure the best result. While the Bill has taken every reasonable precaution that the trade of this country shall be conducted upon sound, honest, and upright principles, it does not unduly harass any legitimate interest, nor does it put an end to any lawful trade. Another criticism brought against this Bill is that the Board of Agriculture is not the proper authority for dealing with these matters. Why, Sir, there is no shifting of responsibility from the Local Government Board to the Board of Agriculture of any of the powers which the Local Government Board has hitherto exercised. I agree with my honourable Friend near me that in a Bill of this kind, which deals absolutely and solely with agricultural matters, we naturally look to the Board of Agriculture to safeguard those interests, and not to the Local Government Board. The farmers, I think, would naturally expect that the Minister of Agriculture should be the controlling authority, and I believe the consumer would be quite as ready to put his interests in the hands of my right honourable Friend. Now, Sir, there comes the question of margarine. To have heard many of the speeches, one would almost imagine that the Bill was intended to deal with margarine only. I know that there are many honourable Friends of mine sitting on this side of the House who may be naturally disappointed that the colouring of margarine has not been prohibited. I believe also that there is a strong feeling in this direction in the agricultural community, but when my right honourable Friend comes down to this House and tells us that, after the most careful examination, and after consulting expert authority, he is perfectly convinced that to prohibit the colouring of margarine
372
would destroy the margarine trade, I ask this House seriously whether it is prepared to take such a responsibility on its shoulders. I, for my part, would not associate myself with legislation of that kind. I believe it would be most unfair, most unwise, and most impolitic if we were to put down the legitimate trade in margarine, which, if it is not so nutritious as butter, is still wholesome and palatable, and does contain certain valuable nutritive properties, and is largely bought and consumed by the poorer part of the community. One honourable Member said that colouring meant fraud. I advise him to preach that doctrine to his agricultural. Friends. I am perfectly convinced of this, that if you are to permit the farmers to colour their butter, which they simply do in order to make it more saleable, more palatable, and more acceptable to the common taste, then it is impossible to prohibit the colouring of margarine. Some honourable Members seem to think that margarine competes with butter, and that if you were to destroy the trade in it you would very much enhance the sale of butter. I believe that that is an entire fallacy. I do not believe that margarine is competing against butter to-day. The price of butter as compared with margarine is so prohibitive that if you were to do away with the margarine trade to-morrow you would not increase the sale of butter, but you would simply take away from the poorer classes of the community a valuable commodity which they consume in very large quantities. One honourable Member on the other side said he regretted that the Bill had made no definite provision prohibiting the putting into milk of anything injurious to health. But I would remind him that at the present time, if it is shown that any preservatives are put into milk which are injurious to health, the case can be dealt with under the Sale of Foods Act, 1875. Not only that, the Act has done something to prevent the adulteration of these articles by very largely increasing the penalties under the Bill, and I confess that I, for one, should have no objection to see in it an additional penalty allowing imprisonment to be imposed in some cases. It is perfectly true that the Bill does not set up Courts of Reference in order to establish a fixed standard of purity. I believe it would

373
be almost impossible to establish such a fixed standard for every article. The composition of commodities which are sold under one and the same name varies so considerably. We know that the substance and quality of milk varies in different seasons, and it would be almost impossible to fix any definite standard so as to say where purity ends and where adulteration begins. There would be this additional danger, that there would be a tendency on the part of the manufacturer to level down his produce to the point which would satisfy the standard, and thus you might have levelling down instead of levelling up. The Bill goes a very long way indeed towards satisfying the requirements of agriculturists on this matter, because it authorises the Board of Agriculture to determine what deficiency or addition to milk would raise a fair presumption that the article was adulterated. Now, Sir, this Bill deals with articles which are very largely consumed, and which, I believe, are adulterated more than any other, and by shifting the responsibility of the proof of purity upon the seller, I think you are doing something which will act as a strong deterrent, and you are going very far to meet the wishes of agriculturists, as well as to safeguard the interests of consumers. So much for the criticisms which have been passed with respect to the Bill. I believe myself that this Measure has far more prospect of being a success than any other Bill owing to the power which the Board of Agriculture have taken to initiate proceedings themselves, and to take samples all over the country, as well as to exercise authority over defaulting local authorities. We know very well that the success of a Measure depends far more upon the spirit in which it is carried out than upon the actual measure of the law. Where these Acts have been properly administered, they have been proved to be most beneficial; in fact, instances were given before the Committee in which many forms of adulteration had altogether disappeared. We know that some authorities have for different reasons been extremely adverse to taking proceedings under these Acts, but I do think that the extra power which has been given to the Board of Agriculture to force local authorities to take action will prove extremely bene-
374
ficial and satisfactory in its results. I have only to thank the House for the patience with which it has listened to me, and to say that I support the Bill because I believe it is an honest, practical, and genuine attempt on the part of the Government to put down adulteration. It does not unduly harass or vex any industry, it is not class legislation, but it is legislation in the interests of the whole community.
MR. G. WHITELEY: While I have taken for many years great interest in this matter, as a Member of the Committee upstairs, which has been so often referred to, I desire to say a few words upon this Bill. I came down to the House to-day with the full intention to bless the Bill, and I desire to congratulate the President of the Board of Agriculture on the fact that under circumstances most difficult, and amid a variety of conflicting interests, some of which are almost irreconcilable, he has evolved a Bill which is an honest and fair attempt to steer an even keel between all interests surrounding this matter. But I am bound to say that I do look upon several phrases which fell from the Secretary to the Local Government Board with great alarm. An honourable Member on the other side of the House described this Bill as class legislation, and I believe he hinted that it was tinged with protection. Nobody in this House is more opposed to anything savouring of class legislation than I am, and I confess I cannot see in what sense or by what twist or turn of the imagination this Bill can be described as class legislation. It seems to me it may be better described as omnibus legislation—it is intended for all and to reconcile the differences of all. I have regarded this Bill throughout as a compromise—a compromise in which all the interests affected by it has had to surrender something in order to contribute to the solution of the difficult}'. I have looked upon the essential and fundamental parts of this compromise as these: Firstly, that the agricultural interest fail to obtain what they are striving for, namely, the prohibition of the colouring of margarine; whilst, secondly, the distributing and consuming classes has had taken from them the possibility of obtaining margarine of a better quality than that

375
which contains not more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. It seems to me that there are three interests affected. There is the agricultural—the butter producing interest, who have undoubtedly sought for years to obtain the prohibition of the colouring of margarine and the admixture of butter with it. My right honourable Friend has not gone to that extent, and, therefore, that is their contribution to the solution of this difficulty. Then I come to the distributing interest. This, perhaps, is best represented by the Federation of Grocers' Associations, which represents the whole of the grocers of England, and possibly of Great Britain. From that Federation I have from time to time introduced deputations to my right honourable Friend, as well as to the President of the Local Government Board. And, connected with these, are the margarine producers, and these two classes are naturally very much disappointed with the restriction as to the amount of butter fat to be allowed in margarine in the future. Gentlemen connected with the margarine trade, who have possibly a greater stake in this matter than any others, tell us that this Bill will cut"off those higher classes of margarine which have been produced, and which have been sold by the distributors at a grenter profit than is obtained for the lower classes. Some manufacturers say that it will seriously hamper their business. They have for years been accustomed to producing the better classes of margarine; they have built up a trade which is now to be destroyed, and they will practically have to begin business over again. But, while the Bill cuts off the production of the higher classes of margarine, I am assured by others that it will permit of their producing still an excellent and valuable article of food. I do not agree with the right honourable Gentleman that the higher classes of margarine which have contained 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of butter fat are not superior to those containing 10 per cent. I think the right honourable Gentleman has been misinformed on that point. I possibly have met as many margarine producers lately as he has. But I would ask him why has the public been willing to pay the higher price? The contribution of the distributing and margarine producing section to the compromise is that they
376
are prohibited from producing the higher class of margarine and can only produce a quality, which is undoubtedly a lower quality, although at the same time it is an excellent class of food. This I look upon as a fundamental part of the compromise, and if the Government were to propose to depart from it I should have to vote against them. I think it would be, if not a breach of faith, at least unkind treatment, on the part of the Government towards many of us who have taken a great deal of trouble to persuade those with whom we have been associated to accept the Bill. There are other points I had intended to speak upon, but I think they have been laboured sufficiently. With regard to the question of an invoice being a warranty, I do not think it would pass the wit of man to devise in Committee some superscription or foot note which would make an invoice equivalent to a warranty, and thus the difficulty could be disposed of without opening the door to fraud in any degree. It is merely a matter of machinery. I need not press that further. And then there is the consuming interest. The consuming class is not merely the poor class—it is the very poorest of the poor. Nobody buys margarine when he can purchase butter. Necessity is the mother of margarine, as much as she is the mother of invention. Are they to be prohibited from enjoying the better class of margarine? Is the House or the Committee going to take the very grave decision that the only class of margarine they shall be enabled to purchase is one which is as low as can be manufactured, and that the consumer must be content with that? Surely it would be a monstrous thing that the quality of margarine should be ground down to the lowest possible point, and that the poor should be told that they must have that or none. I want to press that strongly home to my right honourable Friend. Then there is the question of the colouring of margarine. Its prohibition has been suggested, and had it been received with favour by the Committee, it would have been recommended. One honourable Member—above all, a Radical and Liberal Member—has suggested that it ought to be coloured blue, and that the working classes of the country, if they cannot buy butter at 10d. 1s., or 1s. 2d. per lb. should be

377
compelled, as an alternative, to have their bread spread with this blue mixture. I can only suggest that the honourable Member who suggests that should himself have to eat blue butter. I am delighted that the right honourable Gentleman has taken a broad and statesmanlike view in refusing to lend an ear to any of these absurd suggestions that have been made. I believe that if he had acceded to the desire to prohibit the colouring of margarine or to enforce its colouring in any other shade, he would have raised a storm of indignation in the country. It would have been a most dangerous proceeding, and I am sure that many of us in this House would have vehemently and vigorously opposed it. Many of us who have taken an interest in this matter, and have recognised, or have thought we recognised, agricultural leanings on the part of the Government, have looked forward to the production of this Bill with some anxiety. I myself, a supporter of the Government, have done so with some degree of fear and perturbation. I am rejoiced and relieved, therefore, to find, now it has been produced, that it is an honest and fair attempt to reconcile all our differences. I hope that it will pass in the state practically in which it has been introduced. May I press this upon the House, that it should be looked upon as an honourable compromise, and that it is essential that the fundamental parts of that compromise should be retained in it. Speaking as I do for a large industrial population, and knowing as I do the feeling of the industrial classes, I am sure that if it is passed in the form in which it is now introduced, it will remove from the sphere of contention topics and matters which have agitated men's minds for many years past.
On the return of Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER after the usual interval,
MR. A. MOORE: Before this Debate ends I desire to say a few words upon this subject, having had the honour of seconding the first Resolution dealing with this subject 18 years ago. I find that since then we have had several changes on the question. At that time oleo, that is the crude oil from which margarine is made, was not distinguished from butter, and the whole of these oils and all the butter imports were imported into this country without any dis-
378
tinction being made in the Customs returns. We had to be thankful in those days for very small mercies, and after a good deal of pressure the Government granted us the concession that these Cleo margarine oils should be distinguished from butter. We had the greatest difficulty in getting that concession, notwithstanding the fact that almost every Government in Europe had taken action, and very strong action, upon this question. I have heard Members here to-night speaking in praise of Normandy butter, and recommending it to the consumers in this country. Well, Sir, I would recommend honourable Members who entertain this view to read the reports of the Debates in the French Assembly, and there they will learn how great were the difficulties, and how rife corruption and fraud was in France which necessitated legislation of a stringent character in later years. We have been told that this is legislation in favour of a particular class. I would, however, remind the House and the public of the fact that we paid during the year 1898 16 millions sterling to foreigners for our butter imports. Now, if We take the returns of the analyses made by the Hoard of Customs, we find that in one out, of every nine of those cases a conviction was obtained for fraud, and this gives us some idea of the amount of possible fraud that may exist in connection with our imports. Therefore, I say we are contending here not only for fair play to the agriculturists, but also to the citizens of all your populous districts, and I have now the honour myself to sit here as the representative of a large working class constituency. In addition to the 10 millions that you import from abroad, we send you from seven to nine millions from Ireland every year: but for all that I do not want to spare the Irish butter maker, because I want to bring him up to the full level and height of his duty, I have had the honour for some years to be connected with my right honourable Friend opposite in the noble efforts he has made on behalf of the Irish agriculturists, and I say that it is the desire of all intelligent men who have examined this question to raise the standard of the imports of Irish butter, and we do not want to spare fraud any more at home than we do abroad. I come now, Sir, to the question of the administration

379
of this Act, and I find that there is one extremely weak point in this Bill. We have had an exhaustive discussion—in fact a very prolonged and minute discussion—and I think much of what has been said might very well have been said on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Minute details have, been closely investigated, but there seems to me to be one point which has entirely escaped the notice of every speaker who has preceded me, and that is the question of registration. Now, this question is not altered by the present Bill, for registration under this Act goes back to clause 9 of the Act of 1887. which provides that the factories for the manufacture of margarine should be registered by the local authority, and the local authority is defined as being the authority which has the power to appoint an analyst. I must say that we never have had a thorough system of registration of factories, and we never shall have, unless some strong measures be taken to enforce this clause. This is part of the principle of your Bill, and if you shut one door and exclude fraudulent butter substitutes, by means of the Customs authorities, from coming into the country, you ought not to leave the door of the manufacturer open and allow him to put any amount that suits his convenience of fraudulent butter substitutes upon the market. If you adopt no means of detecting such practices, then your Bill, while it deals severely with the foreigner, allows the home manufacturer to go practically unpunished. This point, I think, requires to be very carefully considered. You must have some efficient system of registration, because it is useless to expect that the local authorities can be relied upon for carrying out this registration work. When the Committee were investigating this subject upstairs what were we told had taken place in London? We were told that an officer had initiated several prosecutions under the Act of 1887, but for doing that he was had up before the local authority and severely reprimanded; therefore I say that you cannot rely upon the local authorities in this matter. It must be remembered that you are dealing with a very profitable trade, which does not scruple to spend very large sums of money in its own defence. It is a trade which has been making from one time to another during the last 18 years profits varying from 50 to 100 per cent.
380
Under such circumstances to talk of lines is absurd, and I was astonished to find that the honourable Member for Devon-port did not know that these fines were paid by an association. Therefore, fines in these cases are useless, because if the retailer is condemned to pay a fine it is paid by the association out of a joint fund, and this fact is perfectly notorious. Therefore, I emphasise the point that lines are perfectly useless in such a profitable business; and it is hopeless to expect the local authority to put this law vigorously into force, because some of the members of those local bodies may be engaged in this profitable business themselves.
*MR. RUSSELL: I may point out that clause 3 provides that where a local authority fails to carry out the Act the Board of Agriculture can carry it out for them.
*MR. A. MOORE: This interruption like most interruptions, recoils upon the interrupter. The fact is that the central authority may do this when the local authority is in default, but if the right honourable Gentleman will turn back to the Act of 1887 he will find that the local authority, and that authority only, has the power to register these manufactories. No doubt the right honourable Gentleman and the Minister for Agriculture would never have allowed things to come to this pass but for the fact that their hands have been tied. You cannot move against a manufacturer unless he is declared to be one, and he cannot be declared to be one and known unless he is registered as such. My experience has been this—that, I have known these factories to exist, and I have gone to the Government authorities and searched the records of the Board of Trade, and yet I have been unable to find any record whatever of these factories which I have known myself to exist. I need not say that it is absolutely illogical to put heavy pressure upon the foreigner through the Board of Customs if you are not going to close the door by which these fraudulent butter substitutes might come from the manufacturers in this country. I want to ask-also is this Act going to be enforced? 1s it going to be worked? If anybody will take the trouble to read the Act of 1887 they will find that there is a perfect army of officials under that Act, and what is

381
the reason why none of them have done anything-? What guarantee have we that this Act is going to be worked? As regards these officials to whom I have referred, there are no less than five classes, numbering many thousands of officers. In the first place, you have all the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue; secondly, you have all the Customs officials; thirdly, the medical officers of health; fourthly, you have the inspectors of nuisances; and, fifthly, you have the police constables, authorised under the Pood and Drugs Act of Now, how is it that with all these officials nothing has been done under the Act of 1887, and what guarantee have we got that this Act will not be such a lamentable failure as the Act which has preceded it? Then I come to another point—and it has been alluded to by many other honourable Members; it is, however, one of extreme importance, and that is the power which the Board of Agriculture takes, for the first time, to fix standards. The feeling of the country is rather that this sweeping power should be delegated to a board of scientific experts. I am not, however, opposed to this provision, although it is one of very great importance, and will require very careful examination in Committee. Under this clause, however, it might be possible to do us a very great injury indeed in our Irish butter trade. Some honourable Members who have spoken alluded to the question of water in butter. Now, in the high-class fresh butter we have no reason to object to any standard which you may choose to fix, no matter how high you may fix it: but there is also the salt butter trade, so very well known in past years, and which is peculiar to Ireland, that is the system of producing and conserving butter which preserves all its high qualities and delicate aroma right into the early months of spring. I have tasted this sort of butter myself, five or six months after it has been made, and found that it possessed all the aroma and flavour of the finest butter. That was a special Irish trade in the days before the advent of steamers and before there were any refrigerators. I believe that in the north of England there is still a demand for that butter; therefore, speaking on behalf of the producers, I say that this butter cannot be made without added water, and that this is a matter which will
382
have to be very carefully considered I should just like to say one or two words about preservatives, for I think it a most serious thing that this country should tolerate the putting of these powerful drugs into butter and other produce, and by this means forcing them down the throats of the people twice and three times a day. These are very strong and potent drugs, and the question is, do you wish to have them forced upon you and upon your children at every meal. It seems to me that this is a question which requires immediate attention, and although the Board of Agriculture are taking upon themselves under this Bill very heavy responsibilities, I for one do not object, because we shall be able to control and follow their action in this House. I must say that I think it is very ill-timed to hear all these gibes and jeers on this side of the House directed against the Board of Agriculture. The whole of Europe is far in advance of this country. Only the other day a young man asked me where he could get a thorough agricultural training. I am sorry that I had to state that there was no thoroughly scientific agricultural education to be had in this country, and was obliged to advise him to go to Louvain, and now that you have established a Board of Agriculture? think that we ought to support it, and try and make i(what it-ought to be—a thoroughly efficient department. I was glad to hear the right honourable Gentleman on the Treasury Bench, and several others on this side, speak in favour of imprisonment as a penalty under this Bill, although I know-that it is a serious matter. I do not wish to take any extreme action on this question, as the representative of the producers, but I wish to say that many of the fines which are now imposed are neither here nor there, and they are absolutely useless. As I said at the beginning of this Debate, it is well known that margarine producers have an association which guarantees to see any shopkeeper through who gets into trouble through selling margarine. We should all deplore to see such a power used unnecessarily, but I do think such a provision ought to be inserted in the Bill, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will be prepared to strengthen the Measure on the point in accordance with the recommendations suggested from this side of the House.
MR, ASCROFT: In making the few remarks which I snail now address to the House I am not speaking in the interests of manufacturers, but in favour of protecting the health of the people of this country. The object of this Bill is, first of all, to stop the introduction into this country of adulterated produce, and that will be quite useless unless action is to be taken at the port of entry. If that is to be effectively achieved, you must strengthen your Bill in this way—that where analysis has been taken and where adulteration has been discovered you must have the power of detaining those goods until judgment has been delivered, and then if adulteration is proved let us have a confiscation of the whole goods. Then there are other points upon which I should like a distinct and clear under standing. I differ with the Secretary of the Local Government Board in the view which he takes as to how the Bill will affect the retailer. He tells us that he has studied the question, but I am perfectly certain that he is wrong. He tells us that the only way to stamp out adulteration is to punish the small retail shopkeepers. But that is not the way to do it. I have heard it said that if you want to get rid of thieves, the best way to do it is to get rid of the receivers. If you wish to get rid of this evil you must first get rid of these great syndicates who send over their filthy stuff into this country. It is almost impossible for small shopkeepers to have these things analysed, but if the law is altered, when the shopkeeper who is summoned hands to the court his invoice, the court will then know who to proceed against, and it will probably be the merchant over in Manchester or Liverpool. In scores of cases the merchant knows perfectly well when those goods are sent out that they are not goods of the quality which they ought to be, and that the invoice is a misrepresentation. The Under Secretary said that we can achieve this with the present Act, but in my experience that is not so. Thousands of these little shopkeepers in the country go to the merchant and ask him to trust them with the goods, and when the merchant knows that he will have to wait for the money the shopkeepers are in his hands, and it is utterly impossible for them to
384
force from him the guarantee which is provided for under this Act. Therefore, I say this is the greatest blot on this Act, and you are taking the wrong course if you only stop this practice in this country. If the merchant was made responsible he would soon give the foreigner notice that he would have no more of his rotten goods. Why is it that prosecutions under this Act are to be taken under the Food and Drugs Act? Margarine prosecutions are taken under the Margarine Act of 1887, and why should there be any alteration, because margarine and butter adulteration is pretty nearly the same? That is another ground of objection to this Bill. Then there is another point. In the Margarine Act of 1883, in the Factory Act, and in many other Acts which I could name, provision is made that where an employer can show that he has taken every precaution to prevent adulteration, and that those around him in authority have disobeyed his orders, then he is able to bring that servant before the court, the employer is released, and the servant is fined. Now, why was this left out of the present Act? There must be some reason for it. If you had this provision that the assistants in shops would be liable, they would constitute one of the greatest checks to prevent fraud, because it would turn every shopman all over the country into a sort of amateur policeman. You would have the shopman saying to his employer—
"Here I am liable to this penalty, and I cannot afford to pay it; therefore I decline to sell these adulterated goods, and you must get your goods from some place where they are not adulterated."
You would thus have a system of amateur police all over the country who would do very much to assist in carrying out the object of this Bill. I may say that I am speaking not only on behalf of my constituents, but also in accordance with the representations and request of an association which comprises nearly all the grocers and provision dealers in my own constituency, who welcome this Bill, which will do much to put a stop to fraud and adulteration. The shopkeepers are not able to protect themselves, and so we ask them to assist us in stamping out this fraudulent system which has been going on so long, and we say that the only way in which

385
it can be done effectually is in the way we suggest. You should be able in the easiest possible way to get at the man who is guilty of the fraud and who knows of it. How can a poor shopkeeper know, because he is entirely in the hands of the dealer? But if you will make him one of your friends he will be ready to help you to put an end to the fraud. Now on those three points I should like to have a little information from the right honourable Gentleman. First of all, in respect of the invoice as a warranty; secondly, as to the section by which the assistant who disobeys his employer's orders can be made liable as under the Margarine Act. That certainly ought not to be left out unless it has proved to be a failure. Can the right honourable Gentleman tell us of any case where a young man has set his employer at defiance and by that means evaded the Act or made the Act a nullity. We say that you have no right, unless you have good cause, to prosecute under the Food and Drugs Act when you have already an Act which deals with that particular question and meets the case, and which is perfeetly strong enough to meet this case if the Act is only put in force. There is no other point of any importance which I wish to detain the House upon. I am anxious and willing to sup port the Bill, and I welcome it. I believe that the Bill may be made strong enough if the instances I have alluded to can be inserted; and if I can have some assurance upon these points I shall feel that the Government are prepared to go to the Committee with an open mind, ready to discuss the matter fully and to do what is thought best in the interests of the whole country. Unless they are prepared to do this I shall be unfortunately compelled to go into the Lobby against the Bill.
CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): This Bill has been so deeply thrashed out and criticised by high authorities on both sides of the House that I only intend to occupy the time of the House for a very brief space. But as the representative of the very great butter producing province of Munster, I desire to say that I support this Bill, not because I consider that it is by any means a heroic Measure, but because I think that it is better to obtain an instalment of
386
justice than to obtain no justice at all. Probably no country is more deeply interested in the prevention of adulteration and spurious imitations of articles of food than Ireland, because—thanks chiefly, I regret to say, to what ought to have been the blessings of British rule —the production of articles of food is practically the only industry left in Ireland. Therefore, this Bill will certainly be regarded as a step in the right direction by the Irish people, although in their opinion, as in mine, it certainly does not go nearly far enough. Most of the objections which I have to the Bill have been already made. For instance, I consider that the punishment provided is altogether inadequate. The French system, I think, imprisons a man upon the second conviction, and I think that system should be adopted in this Bill. As has been already said, the wholesale dealers and manufacturers of fraudulent margarine can snap their fingers at the fines which are to be inflicted under this Bill, for they can pay the largest fine imposed, because, as the honourable Member for Londonderry has stated, the association pays the fines. A good deal has been said in reference to the fixing of the standard of water in butter, and my honourable friend the Member for Devonport implied that Irish butter contained rather an undue proportion of water. That may be the case or may not be, but I know that the Cork butter market have strict rules on the subject, and they do not permit butter in their market that contains over 18 per cent. of water. But be that as it may, I know that it is the general desire in Ireland that a water standard should be fixed, and I sincerely trust that something in that way may be done in Committee. Another blot in the Bill which has been pointed out in this Debate is the fact that no steps have been taken to prevent the colouring of margarine so as to imitate butter. It has been said that if prevention was made in that direction we should also require that the same laws must necessarily apply to butter. As far as I am concerned I really cannot see that there is any great analogy in the two cases. Butter is coloured simply because it is the custom and because it suits the present taste, and it is not coloured for the purpose of deception. Now, I venture to say that

387
margarine in nine cases out of ten is coloured for the purpose of deception. I think that the colouring of butter might be very well compared to the addition of a little rouge to improve a lady's complexion: the colouring of margarine might be very well compared to putting on a mask to hide the face. The whole aim of margarine manufacture, in my humble judgment, is to endeavour to produce as exact an imitation of butter as they possibly can, and when margarine is coloured to imitate rich grass-fed butter people are naturally inclined to buy it; they consume it, and if they are not poisoned altogether they are apparently satisfied. I think this Bill should also compel spurious imitations to be called by their proper names. Even if margarine is the palatable and the toothsome substance that some honourable Gentlemen have declared it to be, although I have very considerable doubts as to whether those honourable Gentle men are able to speak from experience as to what the taste of margarine really is—in fact one honourable Gentleman was kind enough to admit, while speaking favourably of margarine, that he had always avoided inflicting such an injustice upon his system as tasting it—it should be described as margarine. It is hard enough for Irish farmers to struggle against honest competition without having to fight against fraud. Therefore, Sir, the more stringent the provisions of the Bill are made in the direction of preventing adulteration or obvious imitation, the better Irish farmers will be pleased. The other reason why Irish farmers require protection is that they have not only to fight against fraud, but the whims of fashion. I suppose that Ireland is too near home to be fashionable, and therefore fashionable, but more especially would be fashionable people must go to Denmark and Normandy for their butter, just as they go to Norway for their scenery, although they might find a far superior quality of both the one and the other in Ireland. But notwithstanding this drawback, Irish farmers can very well hold their own if they get fair play. All they ask is fair play and no favour. For that reason I desire to support this Bill, and I have reason to hope, from what the honourable Member for Tyrone, South, says, the Bill will be improved in Committee.
MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.): The honourable Member for Aberdeen, East, has very severely criticised the Bill, as well as other honourable Members on the other side of the House. But he has probably forgotten that when he sat on this side of the House the Board of Agriculture never did anything in this matter. I did not rise, however to bring recriminations before the House, but simply to support, from an agriculture point of view, the Second Reading of the Bill. I think the Minister of Agriculture is entitled to the utmost consideration from the agricultural interest for having brought in this Bill, and for having done what he has done on this extremely difficult subject. It is the best Bill which has been laid on the Table of the House ever since I have been here. I do not go so far as to say that they are perfectly satisfied with it. Neither am I. As to the margarine question, my friends would have wished that margarine had been left in its natural stale, or else coloured blue, black, or green. I think the Minister of Agriculture sees also that it is practically impossible to do this, for if it were done it would practically kill the margarine trade. That is not what we want to do at all. The margarine trade is a very large trade in this country. Margarine itself is eaten by a very considerable section of the population, and practically there is very little harm in it. If we allow the people to drink what they are pleased to call British port and British sherry, to eat "fill" cheese, or drink milk fortified with boraeic acid, it would be hard to penalise people who desired to eat mar-garine as a cheap substitute for butter, and one which does no harm to health. I think the agricultural interest should be generous in this matter, and for two reasons: first, if you allow margarine to be rouged, as an honourable Member opposite suggested. I hardly see what the butter producers can do, for you would have to prevent them also from colouring their products. In the second place, if you kill the margarine trade—for this margarine sells at present at the rate of 4½d. to 7d. per lb.—I do not see how it would help the agricultural interests, because a very large class of the people who are at present able to buy margarine could not afford to buy pure butter. Under all these circumstances it is better

389
to reserve any of these details for the Committee upstairs. I would advise my agricultural friends in East Anglia to thankfully accept this Hill as a very considerable half loaf which the Minister of Agriculture has given them, and which is a good deal better than no bread at all.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfar): The speech of the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, coupled with many other speeches delivered in the course of the Debate, must have left on the House the impression that a large section of the House supports this Bill as a Measure intended to aid the agricultural industry. It seems to me that the first blot on the Bill is that it is so stamped with the Board of Agriculture. The Bill starts under very great disadvantages, as was pointed out early in the Debate by the honourable Gentleman who sits on this side of the House. The honourable Member for Londonderry reproached Members on this side of the House for taking no interest in agriculture. I do not think that is a fair reproach. There is work which the Board of"Agriculture has to do in connection with agriculture, but it should have nothing to do with he province of administration, and no justification has been laid before the House for the departure from the proposals made the year before last. The administration of all previous Adulteration Acts has always lain with the Local Government Board, and it was from the Reports of the Local Government Board that we could judge of tin-progress made in cheeking adulteration.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I beg the honourable and gallant Member's pardon. The work which it is proposed that the Board of Agriculture should do under this Bill is work which ii has done for several years, and which was commenced at the instance of the right honourable Member for Monmouth West, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: That is not so very long ago. The Board of Agriculture has been established since the last Adulteration Act was passed, and if you want to look at the progress of this country in checking adulteration it is 10 the Reports of the Local Government Board that you have to go. In Scotland
390
the administration of the Adulteration Acts is not with the Board of Agriculture, hut with the Local Government Board. Everyone who approves of this Bill has done so from the point of view that it is a protective Measure. Even the honourable Gentleman behind me, before he sat down, said that Irish Agriculture badly needs protection, and that Irish farmers badly want protection.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Only from adulteration.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: There is no mention in this Bill except protection from! fraud. I do not want to take advantage of the honourable and gallant Member's extreme sensitiveness on the question of protection. The Bill is a Measure designed chiefly for securing protection from fraud. But let me suggest that in regard to protection from fraud this Bill is an entire departure from previous Adulteration Acts. It is perfectly true that if a substance—a compound substance—was found to be injurious, it was ipso farto a criminal act to sell it; but if the article was not injurious to health, all that the previous Acts insisted upon was that such a substance should be labelled what it is, so that the man who buys it shall know what he is getting. In this Bill you go a great deal further in laying down that the sale of a substance which can be consumed without injury to health shall be prohibited. It should be remembered that we are legislating, not only for the present, but for the future, and how do you know that scientific research and chemical experiment may not bring a much fuller knowledge in regard to foods than we possess now? Now, a great deal has been said about margarine. Well, there are lots of people—there are even some in this House, who have eaten margarine, and there is no one who will maintain for a moment that margarine is injurious to health. I cannot for the life of me see how the Government is justified, no matter what knowledge they may have on the subject, in taking this departure from the lines adopted in previous legislation on adulteration. Will the right honourable Gentleman explain?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: What we propose doing now in regard to imported milk etc., is what has already been done by the Board

391
of Agriculture, but only doing it in a somewhat different way. The honourable and gallant Member is also mistaken in saying that we propose in the future to follow a different course in Scotland than in the past.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I hold the view very strongly that the clause dealing with the 10 per cent. addition of butter to margarine is a bad clause, and a departure from the principles of previous Adulteration Acts. The first principle was that if an article of food was injurious to health it was ipso facto a criminal act to sell that article. And the second principle was that if the article was not injurious to health and was sold, it should only be labelled with a description of what it really was. This Bill goes beyond both these principles. The Government conceive themselves justified in doing so, but I cannot agree with them. They do not limit themselves to saying that it shall be labelled margarine, but that it shall not contain more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. The Secretary of the Local Government Board says that he bases his figures on information given him by manufacturers of margarine, and that the ground of their taking this step was that it is impossible if you mix butter with margarine to prevent fraud. In fact, they wish to shut the door against all trade in a mixture of butter with margarine, which is perfectly wholesome, because they say there will be no guarantee that it had been manufactured as margarine and not as butter. That is limiting the supply of what is a valuable food of the people without sufficient reason. They tell us that they wish to protect against fraud, but I say that if you would have behind you the sympathy of the people the protection must be reasonable, and I maintain that it is not reasonable for, the Legislature to step in and prevent the sale of an article which is perfectly wholesome, and which is really wanted by hundreds of thousands of poor families throughout the country. I hope we shall have more information from the Government as to the three points mentioned in his speech by the honourable Member for Oldham, namely, the question of warranty, the question of the shop assistants, and the question of the prosecutions being made under the Margarine Act. Another objection which I have to this Bill is that it makes a
392
very serious interference with the work of the local authorities. I agree with the honourable Member for Devonport, that by good administration you could cure 90 per cent. of the evils now complained of, but that would not be done at all under this Bill. How are you going to get good administration if you propose to carry out what was deliberately rejected by the Committee which sat on this question, namely, the constitution of a great central authority to over-ride the local authorities. I quite agree that the local authorities may have been apathetic and slow in the administration of the existing Adulteration Acts. But local authorities have been apathetic about the administration of other Acts. The figures which the President of the Board of Agriculture gave us last night seemed to show that in London, at any rate, the administration of the local authorities had very largely diminished the evils. Then as to the examinations at ports, it is said that these were diminishing. But is not that an indication to the Government that they should not, without further consideration, enact the provisions giving them a title to over-ride the local authorities? It is said that this is a very short cut towards improvement in a matter like this, but probably it will be found to be the longest way round in the end. Local authorities have been apathetic hitherto in administration in regard to education, but I do not see that that affords ground for this House acting in such a way as will inevitably paralyse altogether the action of the local authorities. You have got two courses open. You should provide better information on the subject of adulteration to the local authorities in all parts of the country, when they would assuredly recognise their responsibilities in the matter, and work more actively to repress adulteration. You cannot expect people to move unless they feel what is complained of. The evils are far more acute in the large towns, where the catering for the necessities of life are in the hands of large contractors, than in the country districts, and I therefore deplore altogether the very stringent proposals of the Bill giving power to the central authority to over-ride the local authorities. It deprives the local authorities of responsibility, and centralises the administration to a degree that

393
is not justifiable. As a matter of fact, the country does not know what the provisions of the Bill really mean. The Bill was only introduced on Monday last, and discussed for the first time on Thursday. The great number of telegrams which have been received by a large number of Members on both sides of the House in regard to many of the provisions in the Bill is sufficient proof that traders, manufacturers, and retail dealers have not yet realised what the provisions of the Bill really mean. There is great misapprehension as to the Clause dealing with warranty, and in regard to that and many other points there is a great want of information and knowledge. I must confess that if the President of the Board of Agriculture is satisfied with the reception given to the Bill he must be a very sanguine man, for there is no Member of the House who has not taken one objection or another to its provisions. I am certain if my honourable Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill has not a large following, he, at any rate, has the sympathy of many honourable Members on both sides of the House. I object to the proposed over-riding of the local authorities to the Clause which prevents the mixing of butter with margarine, and also to the fact that the Bill from first to last is a Bill dealing with the interests of agriculture and not with the interests of the general consumer—as all previous Adulteration Acts have done—and the general consumer, it should be remembered, includes the agriculturist.
*GENERAL LAURIE: I think that the object of the Bill was very aptly described by the honourable Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire. The policy of the Bill, he said, was inspection, detection, and punishment. In regard to the first two of these—inspection and detection— I think that the local authorities have distinctly their work to do. And the question is whether they have fairly done it or not. Now, I have in my hand a return from the whole of the local authorities in London, showing how they have tried to put the Adulteration Acts in force and how utterly impossible it has been for them to do so satisfactorily owing to their inability to obtain the
394
fruits of the third object of the Acts— namely, the punishment. Local authority after local authority has spent large sums in obtaining convictions, but the penalties inflicted were trifling. Take the case of Rotherhithe. They spent £124 in prosecutions but only obtained £31 in penalties. St. Mary's, Newington, spent £250 besides analyst's fees, and only obtained penalties of £134. It is absolutely impossible for local authorities to carry out the provisions of the Acts if the magistrates infliet such small fines. The vestry in which I have the honour of a seat carried case after case into court at an average cost of £5 each, and in many cases they only obtained a 5s. fine against the adulterator. In my experience it is not merely a question of margarine, it is not merely a question of dealing with imported articles, it is a question of adulteration producer and get into the hands of the after the goods leave the hands of the distributors. Some honourable Members have taken up the case of the shopkeepers, and some the case of the farmers. I take up the case of the consumer. It is the consumer that ought to be protected, and not until we are able to get the laws enforced—it may be by the strength of the public opinion— shall we get the magistrates to inflict adequate penalties. From 1893 to 1895 it is true the fines have increased occasionally above 5s., but they have often been much less. It is absurd to ask a local body to go into court and spend £5n in obtaining a judgment if the magistrate only inflicts a fine of 1s. or even 5s. Why in one case where it was proved that the so-called butter was adulterated with 60 per cent. of margarine, the fine imposed was only 1s., while the solicitor's costs alone were £2 10s., without reckoning all the other costs. If the local bodies are not enabled to obtain support from the magistrates they will, after a time, give up attempting to enforce the law. After the charges brought against the local authorities in this House I felt that it was only right that I should, on their behalf, show that they had done the best in their power to attempt to enforce the law, and that the failure in the successful enforcement of the law has not been on their side, but has rested

395
on the magistrates over whom they have no control whatever. I am very doubtful in regard to the Clause with regard to the warranty. Action must be taken within 28 days. By the time the sample is taken, and the analysis is made, and action is taken against the original seller, a week has passed probably. Within seven days the seller has the right of pleading that the warranty is a sufficient defence. You then have to go, in the case of milk, to the shipper out in the country, and serve notice on him. He has again seven days privilege before he produces the warranty of the original seller, and, in fact, the 28 days are gone and the local authority is left absolutely helpless. This warranty Clause should be changed, and the person who sells the adulterated article should be held responsible. And the remedy should be against the person who has given the warranty. I hope that the warranty Clause will be amended in Committee.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I appeal to the House to bring the discussion to a close. I have followed this Debate, and I gather the general impression that the view of the House, whatever the opinion of the honourable Members may be as to the particular Clauses, is strongly in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. Of all the speeches made I have heard not one which has been directed against the main principle of the Measure, unless I except the speech of the honourable Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow. Under these circumstances, I think it is not unreasonable that the Debate, which has been carried on for the best part of two nights, should be brought to a close, and the Bill read a Second Time, and allowed to go to the Grand Committee.
HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, No!
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I do not prejudge that now; but to go to Committee. An appeal was made by the honourable Member for Aberdeen, who said, with great force, that it was only right that the country should have a chance of seeing what the provisions of the Bill are. Sympathising with the full strength of that feeling the Government are willing that the Committee stage—whether in Grand Committee or Committee of the
396
whole House—should not be unduly pressed; but I think that it is generally agreed that the Second Reading of the Bill should now be taken. But inasmuch as after all the objections that have been raised to this Bill there seems to be a general desire upon the part of the House that it should be proceeded with, I ask you now to allow us to proceed with an important, though not a very controversial, Measure, by letting us get the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. DILLON: This Bill is one which I confess I am certainly in favour of myself, though I do not think it goes far enough. It is a contentious Bill, and one upon which I certainly do think a great many of the Members of the Committee would like to have a say, both those in favour and those who are opposed to it.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That is a matter for the Committee.
MR. DILLON: Yes, no doubt, but then we may not be upon the Committee. But I do not intend to delay the progress of the Bill, because, as I have before remarked. I am myself in favour of it. I only rise for the purpose of pointing out to the House two, in my opinion, important points. The first point is as to the objection to the colouring which is put into margarine in order to make it look like butter. I perfectly agree with the honourable Gentleman the Member for Cork in the views he put forward to the House upon this particular point. The real point is whether margarine should be allowed to be coloured to look like butter for the purposes of fraud. There is nothing aesthetic or particularly beautiful in the colour of butter, and red or pink or blue are just as good as the colour of butter. Then, why should people who sell margarine desire to colour it like butter. It is in order that they should sell it under the fraudulent name of butter. We do not object to their colouring margarine in any way which they think will be aesthetic or beautiful in itself, and which is not distasteful to those who purchase it, but we do object to their colouring it in such a way as to enable them to sell it at a larger price and in a fraudulent manner. But when it is said that if you prohibit the colouring of margarine you must also prohibit the colouring of

397
butter, that is an argument which, I confess, I do not follow. Butter is not coloured to conceal its real essence: it is butter, and it is sold as butter. But margarine is so coloured as to be sold as butter, which it really is not. Now, there is another point to which we in Ireland attach very great importance, which, in my opinion, is not fully or satisfactorily dealt with in this Bill, and that is the question of adulteration by water. Of course, everybody knows there is a class of butter coming from Ireland, largely sold in this country, and particularly in the North of England, which is butter of a very excellent quality, and owing to the diverse opinions of the magistrates upon the law it has been condemned in some districts, whilst in others it has been approved by those magistrates who take a different view. This Irish salt butter, as it is called, is a well-known article of commerce; but in addition to salt, it contains a large proportion of water. But everybody knows that, and this butter is bought upon its merits. Now, what we in Ireland want to know is, how-much water will be allowed in butter? and then we shall be prepared to meet the standard laid down by the statute. It certainly docs seem to me to be a very great injustice to the people of Ireland that they should be called upon to send their butter over to England, not knowing if it is going to be condemned in Manchester and approved in Liverpool. If there is to be allowed so much water in butter—and it must be larger in salt butter than in fresh—the Irish people can meet that fact accordingly. That is a point which, in the opinion of the Irish representatives in this House, ought to be attended to. I do not desire to increase the difficulties of the promoters of this Bill, but what I do earnestly press upon the Government is this—that it is most desirable that this Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee. Now, if they do send it to a Grand Committee, they ought to add to the Committee a full representation of the classes interested in this very important matter.
MR. ALLEN: This is a Bill which very greatly affects the wholesale manufacturers of margarine, and therefore I would ask the House to allow me to say just a few words upon a Measure which so much affects that interest. In the
398
first place, I wish most emphatically to protest against the wholesale allegations of fraud that have been levelled at the manufacturers of margarine by honourable Gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject from both sides of the House. The manufacturers take every possible precaution to insure that this article shall be sold for nothing else but what it is, and if it is sold in a fraudulent way, as butter or anything else, they always very strongly condemn and resent it. Now, I do not believe that the House really knows what a very great industry it will kill if it passes the 8th Clause of this Bill, which provides that margarine can only be sold with 10 per cent. of butter in it. A very large quantity of margarine sold in this country contains 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of butter in it, and the company with which I am connected opened a large margarine manufactory in Yorks, and all the margarine manufactured in the manufactory contains a very much larger amount of butter than 10 per cent. The margarine brought to England from abroad contains less than 10 per cent. So that if this Bill is passed; the English industry of margarine is destroyed. It will be killed, whilst the foreign manufacture of margarine will be fostered and encouraged. What you are going to do by this Bill, if it becomes law, is to encourage the manufacture of the poorer class of magarine and kill the better class article altogether. We have heard from honourable Gentlemen in various parts of the House that butter is very much more nutritious and wholesome than margarine, and if that is the case we are going, by this Bill, to prevent people who cannot always afford to buy butter from buying good margarine which contains 40 or 50 per cent. of the more nutritious and wholesome article, butter, in it. There are three classes of people in this country. There are the rich, who wholly confine themselves to butter; the artisan class, who cannot always afford to buy butter in the dearer seasons of the year, and who buy the better class margarine—they cannot always afford butter, but they can always afford margarine of the better grade at 10d. a pound; and there are the poorer classes, who buy inferior margarine. Now, by this Bill, you are going to allow us to sell this poor class of margarine, and going to prevent us

399
from selling the better class article altogether. You are going, if this Bill passes into law, to destroy a very great industry, in which in this country a' very large amount of capital is invested. And if I can find anybody to tell with me, I shall certainly divide the House upon this question, and oppose the Bill so far as lies in my power.
*SIR J. LENG: Having sat on the Committee which inquired into this matter upstairs, and having taken some interest in the proceedings, I should now like, if I might trespass upon the patience of the House for a short time, to say a few words upon this subject. My doing so might be avoided if there were an understanding arrived at that a Bill of this great importance should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. The observation made recently by the honourable Gentleman the Member for Mayo that there was a distinct grievance upon a very important point forms the crux of the whole question. How is margarine to be dealt with? In the Committee upstairs an effort was made—and to some extent the idea was adopted in the Report of the Committee, very much against the views of a strong minority of the Committee —that margarine, which it was admitted was a nutritious, wholesome, and useful article of food, should be either entirely discoloured and sold in the same way as lard, or it should be coloured in some distinctive manner so as to distinguish it from anything else, and be coloured pink or blue. We have even heard during the discussion to-night proposals which in some respects may be thought to be of a loyal character that we should have it coloured red, white, and blue. The idea of all these proposals is to make this nutritious article of food distasteful in appearance; in fact, to rule it out as an article of food altogether. The only justification that there can possibly be for introducing any Measure of this kind is that it shall protect the public health and that it shall enforce individual honesty. Now, none of those who sit upon this side of the House wish the public, and especially the poor, either to be poisoned or robbed. We are in favour of honest dealing, and we will support any Measure for which necessity can be shown to secure the honest dealing. But many of us think that, under the Margarine Act as it exists, very ample protection is secured
400
for the poor in this matter. Margarine can only be sold in parcels which have upon the package the word Margarine printed in large letters, and it has been admitted during the Debate that the fault is not so much in the state of the law that at present exists as it is in the administration of it, and a very large number of us would be very glad to support any Measure which would give more power to the agents of the authorities to enforce the law. I must say, with regard to Scotland, with which I am more particularly familiar, that if an attempt were made to override and coerce the local authorities, it would be stoutly resisted. The proposed limitation as to the colouring of margarine and butter, as has been pointed out in the course of the Debate, is an innovation in our legislation. There is no precedent which I know of and upon which it can be based. You are under these proposals about to interfere with the carrying on of a legitimate business. Why do you not attempt the same thing in other directions? Why do you not apply it to beer? Will the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture venture to introduce any Measure fixing the proportion of hops and malt to be used in the manufacture of beer? Much less will he attempt to prevent other admixtures, though some of them are known to be manifestly injurious and deleterious. If you adopt this proposal you will establish a precedent for all kinds of mischievous and meddlesome interference with the carrying on of legitimate businesses. As far as regards the admixture of margarine and butter is concerned, I think at present any such admixture can be sold as margarine providing you give notice to the purchaser. The poor can frequently have the means to purchase an honest and fair mixture of these two articles when they could not afford the means to purchase butter itself. No doubt, in many cases the love of cheapness conies into play; in some respects that is a curse. Hut you have to deal with human nature as you find it, and many prefer a cheap article if they can get it, and so long as it is not harmful and mischievous they are entitled to purchase it. We know how women especially love to purchase a bargain, and you have no right to interfere with them in doing so. It is for the persons

401
themselves to exorcise their own judgment as to what they shall purchase. I must congratulate the honourable Gentleman who introduced this Bill, in so far that it is a much less mischievous and meddlesome Measure than I was prepared to expect, and I am very thankful for small mercies. It is a comparatively small Measure, and is neither complicated nor intricate; but it contains elements of great importance, and we are entitled, as there appears to be a great divergence of opinion on the different sides of the House, to discuss it in Committee of the whole House, and not to send it to a Committee where we shall lose all control over it in the future. Therefore, unless the right honourable
Gentleman is prepared to signify his willingness that it shall be discussed in the manner in which I suggest, I shall certainly oppose it.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I move that the Question be now put.
MR. CALDWELL,: Upon a point of order, may I ask whether the Question can be put, having regard to the fact that the Deputy Speaker is in the Chair.
Question put—
"That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 164; Noes, 55.—(Division List No. 36.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Flower, Ernest

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

Fry, Lewis

Macdona, John Gumming

Allsopp, Hon. George

Garfit, William

Maclure, Sir John William

Archdale Edward Mervyn

Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(City of Lon.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

M'Killop, James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Balcarres, Lord

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

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

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Middlemore, John T.

Balfour.RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Monk, Charles James

Banbury, Frederick George

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Graham, Henry Robert

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

More, Robt. J. (Shropshire)

Beach, Rt.Hn. SirM. H. (Brstl.)

Gretton, John

Morrell, George Herbert

Beckett, Ernest William

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford

Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

Gull, Sir Cameron

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W

Myers, William Henry

Bethell, Commander

Hardy, Laurence

Newark, Viscount

Bigwood, James

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Bill, Charles

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Nicholson, William Graham

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Heath, James

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Boulnois, Edmund

Helder, Augustus

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafforc

Bowles, T. (J. (King's Lynn)

Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houston, R. P.

O'Connor Arthur (Donegal)

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

Howell, William Tudor

O'Kelly, James

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Parkes, Ebenezer

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Pierpoint. Robert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

Pretyman, Ernest George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Colston, Charles E. H. Athol

Kenyon, James

Purvis, Robert

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Keswick, William

Pym, C. Guy

Cranborne, Viscount

Kimber, Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Curzon, Viscount

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Lafone, Alfred

Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas. Thomson

Dalkeith, Karl of

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Sir E.Durning- (Corn

Round, James

Denny, Colonel

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D

Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Doughty, George

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leigh Rennett, Henry Currie

Seely, Charles Hilton

Dyke, Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

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

Loder. Gerald W alter Erskine

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Long, Col. Ghas. W. (Evesham)

Smith. Abel H (Christchurch)

Finch, George H.

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Stanley, Edwd. Jas (Somerset'

Fisher, William Hayes

Lowe, Francis William

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Stewart, Sir M. J. M ' Taggart

Strauss, Arthur

Webster, Sir R. E (I. of W.)

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

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Wylie, Alexander

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Thorburn. Walter

Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

Valentia, Viscount

Willox, Sir John Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sir William Walrond and

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

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

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allen, W. (Newe.-under-Lyme)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ascroft, Robert

Lambert, George

Randall, David

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Leng, Sir John

Roberts. John Bryn (Eifion)

Barlow, John Emmott

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Bilson. Alfred

Lough, Thomas

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Burt, Thomas

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Maddison, Fred.

Thomas, Alfd. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr

Clough, Walter Owen

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Colville, John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay

Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan

Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark'

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Govan)

Ellis, Thos. Ed. (Merionethsh.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woods, Samuel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Oldroyd, Mark

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Palmer, George W. (Reading

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

Harwood, George

Philipps, John Wynford

Caldwell and Sir Charles

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Cameron.

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw

Pirie, Duncan V.

Question put accordingly—
"That the word 'now stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes, 212; Noes, 18.—(Division List No. 37.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F

Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cranborne, Viscount

Gosehen, George J. (Sussex)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Crilly, Daniel

Graham, Henry Robert

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Curzon, Viscount

Gretton, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gull, Sir Cameron

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Balcarres, Lord

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hanbury, Rt, Hon. Robert W

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

Denny, Colonel

Hardy, Laurence

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

Dillon, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Banbury, Frederick George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Barlow, John Emmott

Donelan, Captain A.

Heath, James

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Doughty, George

Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Helder, Augustus

Beach, Rt. Hn.SirM.H.(Brstl.)

Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

Hill, Sir EdwardS. (Bristol)

Beckett, Ernest William

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

Houston, R. P.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Howell, William Tudor

Bethell, Commander

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Bigwood, James

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bill, Charles

Fenwick, Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Billson, Alfred

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Boulnois, Edmund

Finch, George H.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lyn

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex

Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

Fisher, William Hayes

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burt, Thomas

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Kenyon, James

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh

Flower, Ernest

Keswick, William

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East

Foster, Sir Waller (Derby Co

Kilbride, Denis

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

Fry, Lewis

Kimber, Henry

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Garfit, William

Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r

Gedge, Sydney

Lafone, Alfred

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(City of Lon

Lambert, George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Lawrence, SirE.Duruing-(Corr

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

Lea, Sir Thomas (Londondeiry

Moulton, John Fletcher

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos Myles

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Seely, Charles Hilton

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sidebottom,William(Derbysh.)

Leng, Sir John

Myers, William Henry

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Lockwood, Lieut.Col. A. R.

Newark, Viscount

Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

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

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Stanley, Ed. Jas. (Somerset)

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Northcote, Hon.Sir H.Stafford

Stewart, Sir M. J. M ' Taggart

Lowe, Francis William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strauss, Arthur

Lowles, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

Lucas-Shadwell, William

O'Kelly, James

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Macaleese, Daniel

O'Malley, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Macdona, John Cumming

Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

Thorburn, Walter

Maclure, Sir John William

Parkes, Ebenezer

Valentia, Viscount

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Philipps, John Wynford

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Fhillpotts, Captain Arthur

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pierpoint, Robert

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

M'Killop, James

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Maddison, Fred.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W.E.

Pretyman. Ernest George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Purvis, Robert

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Middlemore, John T.

Pym, C. Guy

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

Molloy, Bernard Charles

Randell, David

Woods, Samuel

Monk, Charles James

Rasch. Major Frederic Carne

Wylie, Alexander

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Wyndham, George

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas.Thomson

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

Round James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

Morrell, George Herbert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

William Walrond and Mr.

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Anstruther.

NOES.

Allen, W. (Newe.-under-Lyme)

Oldroyd, Mark

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Ascroft, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Caldwell, James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Clough, Walter Owen

Spicer, Albert

Yoxall, James Henry

Colville, John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Harwood, George

Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan,E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Lewis, John Herbert

Thomas,David Alfd.(Merthyr)

Lough and Sir C. Cameron.

Question put. and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc."
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
On the Motion—
"That this Bill be now read a Second time,"
MR. STUART: When this Bill was introduced I refrained from making any remarks upon it, feeling that we should know exactly the details of the Bill before we should trust ourselves to comment upon it. I must to some extent complain, Sir, that this Bill should be brought forward so late in the evening as this, when it affects
406
such very large interests as this Bill undoubtedly does affect. More particularly I wish to make complaint of the bringing forward of the Bill now, because of the way in which the Bill has been brought before the House. The House will observe that at the top of the Bill are the words, "To be substituted for the Bill previously delivered."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): The honourable Member is perfectly right, and perhaps he will allow me to make an explanation. It is perfectly true that on the top of the Bill are the words, "To be substituted for the Bill previously delivered." The substitution occurs in the sub-section of clause 2, in a proviso. What I have to say is this. As the Bill left my hands, as authorised to go to the printer, it contained that proviso, and the mistake is entirely the printers. How it has arisen I do not know. That proviso-

407
embodies a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and, though I am speaking from memory only, I am pretty certain I am right when I say that that proviso has been in every draft of the Bill from the first time it was drawn.
MR. STUART: Of course, as a private Member of the House I cannot be aware what was the case in the previous drafts, but let me say that I thoroughly accept the explanation of the origin of this paragraph that the right honourable Gentleman gives. But, while that is the explanation, which I frankly accept, of the origin of this paragraph, yet, Sir, it does not diminish the effect of the paragraph, and the enormous difference to the whole Bill that is made by the introduction of this paragraph. As the Bill was first printed. I obtained early copies of it. as many other Members of this House must have done. I took my copy and I looked at it with some of my Friends, and, when I looked down to clause 2, which anyone acquainted with the London Water Question would immediately see was a very important clause in the Bill, and read that clause, I said, "I do not think there is any further need to discuss the Bill, because the Sinking Fund is in it." Now, Sir, you may imagine my surprise or discomfiture—I entirely clear the right honourable Gentleman of any of the fault in the matter—when, after having taken that decision, I found that there was a clause which excluded the operation of the Sinking Fund. Now, Sir, departing for a, moment from the entrance of this particular clause, I may say that the whole Bill in its progress through this House up till now has been somewhat unfortunate, because its introduction as a public Bill, without due notice, helped it to pass through the Standing Orders Committee, and the Standing Orders Committee clearly by their decision were not satisfied with the steps which had been taken in the promotion of the Bill; and, as the House knows, an order was made that certain steps should be taken, or else the Bill should not be proceeded with. The House knows that in connection with a Bill affecting private interests notice would have to be given to those private interests concerned, and that that notice has not been given in respect to this Bill. I am sorry that the Government had not known what they were to do in this
408
matter at an earlier date, but, at the same time, I must admit that they probably did not receive in time to give this notice the Report of the Royal Commission upon which this Bill is founded, but all that proves is that that method of legislation whereby the Government refers to a Royal Commission a vital and important point, and does not itself make up its mind upon that point, is not a method of legislation which is conducive to the good order of proceedings in this House. As I have raised that question of the paragraph on the Sinking Fund, let me ask the House for a moment to look at what that matter means. Now, Sir, it would be quite impossible to discuss the Sinking Fund in the House itself or in a full Committee of this House. Everybody who is connected with, and who has been acquainted with, the extremely complicated conditions of the Sinking Fund, which have been established by degrees and gradually made clear and intelligible to the expert— everybody who knows the conditions and circumstances of that Sinking Fund must know this, that it is impossible for it to be properly considered, and it is impossible for the bearings of its inclusion or its omission front this Bill to be properly considered, without referring this Bill to a Select Committee, and I trust I may hope that that Select Committee will be one which can call for persons and documents, and hear counsel as in the form of an ordinary Private Bill.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Yes.
MR. STUART: I am glad to hear that, and so far that will be an orderly and proper proceeding. I will not, therefore, endeavour for one moment to delay the House by any exposition of what the Sinking Fund is, but I will point out this, that for many years every Bill that has been passed into an Act connected with the London Water Companies has had introduced into it a clause which practically makes the public of London sharers in the profits which arise in connection with the new capital raised. That is the effect of the Sinking Fund, and that has never been excluded, in the end from any Bill which has become an Act of late years, and I cannot see on what ground it can be excluded from the present Bill, excepting that the Royal Commission seems to have made a statement about it. Well, but I have followed, as no

409
doubt Members on the other side of the House have done, the proceedings of the Royal Commission with very great care and attention, and I cannot say that they have at any point investigated the bearings of the Sinking Fund upon any such Measure as this. Nov, they have not gone into the Sinking Fund at any length at all. The consequence is that, however that portion of the Report may have come to be made, it has never been based upon an inquiry into the effect of that fund, and the clauses connected with it. Now, before I pass from that point of the Bill; which I venture to say is an extremely important point of the Bill, let me say this, that the water companies have in many instances, and in all the instances in the present year before the House, introduced their Bills without the Sinking Fund, and when they complain of opposition to these Bills, and to expense incurred thereby, let me remind them, and remind the House, that a large portion of the expense which they have had to incur has been because they have not introduced that Sinking Fund clause, which has invariably been introduced by Committees before whom the Bills were contested. Well, now, it seems to me that this Bill bears the same character as the Bills which of late have been introduced by the water companies, and I should hope that before a Select Committee this question of the Sinking Fund would bear the same fate. But look a little earlier into the clause; look at the last wording of this clause. That refers to this very matter before the Sinking Fund itself is excluded. There is a provision which says—clause 2, about line 25—"That they shall make it a condition of their assent." That is, the Local Government Board should make it a, condition of their assent
"that the stock be raised in accordance with the provisions contained in the most recent Acts for the time being with reference to the issue of debenture stock by a metropolitan water company."
What are the most recent Acts for the time being, since these Acts differ amongst themselves? Is it to be the most recent Act, because then we could understand it; or is it to be any definite Act? That clause, which is the most vital clause in the Bill, seems to me not only to have been essentially altered from its first appearance, but it also appears to me to be exceedingly loose
410
in its conception. Passing from that question, I want to look for one moment —and I can assure the House that I shall not delay them long, but this matter is very important for those for whom I speak—at the general spirit of the Bill. What is to be done by this Bill? Connections are to be made under the authority and direction of the Local Government Board between the various water companies for the purpose of supplying temporary deficiencies. Well, Sir, look at what one of the most immediate results of that is. It is that in respect to the vast water famine that may occur in London, the responsibility will attach to the Local Government Board, and not to the water companies. Now, I must say that I think that the right honourable Gentleman is adopting a responsibility for his Department which he will be sorry some day at having adopted, and I do say that he is liberating the companies, who have the right and are bound to supply the districts which they do supply, or part of the districts which they do supply—he is liberating them from a very proper responsibility. It is not that they do not come to Parliament for many facilities. They come to Parliament for many facilities, and they generally get those facilities. Now, as to connections of all these companies. There is only one company about which there has been any real difficulty in this matter, that is to say, the East London Water Company; and the East London Water Company has already, largely by the assistance of the London County Council, which gave it leave to take the first supplies from the Black-wall Tunnel—I presume this from What their reports say—got as much water as its directors believe they require. Well, if you look at the evidence upon which this Bill is founded, you will see the most diverse views of the various water companies as to what should be done, and what is necessary to be done; but at the same time, generally, you will see this expression on their behalf before the Royal Commission,' that what they would do on this account would only be to meet the demands of public opinion, rather than the demands of any essential public necessity. Well, what is the principle upon which this Bill proceeds? It proceeds on the principle of supplying the East London Water Company—for that is what you must

411
focus your eyes upon—with water which is to be given to it from other water companies. Now, what I want to know, in the first place, is, if those water companies are to be allowed to draw more water than they are at present drawing from the Thames, or what sanction is to be given to them? Is the sanction given in this Bill, or is it not? Well, it will be obvious that it is open to contention, and is contended—
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No!
MR. STUART: Stop a moment; you do not know what I am going to say. And is contended that the water companies, although having, some of them, statutory rights to draw a certain amount, are yet not at liberty to draw those amounts unless it is for their own requirements. Now, if that be so, where is the surplus that they can legally give the one to the other? I want an answer to that question, because it is upon the proposition that they have a surplus which they can supply that this Bill is founded. Now, in the claim that was made by the water companies, and is made, I believe, in the Bill which they are introducing, if I am not mistaken—they claim to have an absolute right to draw from the Thames for any purposes a certain statutory amount—or an amount claimed to be statutory— which they at present, in many instances, fall short of. I say again that this is not a clear matter at all—that they have a right to draw any water at all more than they need each for its own requirements. But passing from that, I want to point out that I believe this Bill has taken up a wholly erroneous method of putting the matter right. The East London Water Company has too little water to serve those people whom it at present supplies, but it is at present supplying no fewer than a quarter of a million of persons who, if they did not supply them, could call upon the New River Company to supply them. That is so. There is a district in East London—as indeed is the case in almost all the areas served by the water companies—wherein these two water companies, the New River and the East London, overlap, and in which the inhabitants, if not supplied by the one, could be supplied by the other. The House must know very well that almost every area in London —almost every area—is within the
412
limits of supply of at least two, in some cases three, and in one case four, water companies. If in the case where there are two water companies one was not supplying them, the inhabitants would have the right to call upon the other to supply them. The water companies, as I understand the matter, after looking into their origin, were established for the most part—at any rate the more recent ones were established—as competitive undertakings against the older ones, and they were therefore placed in areas which over-hipped those of the older ones. But the House will observe that in the course of years they have come to terms with one another, each retiring within a more limited district than that which they had the power to serve. But which has retired? The company in all cases has retired which was at liberty to charge rates which had a less maximum than the other, and the company which has been left to supply the district is the company which has leave to charge the highest maximum; and then the consequence is that that area of London which might be supplied by the New River Company, or might be sun olied by the East London Company, is now wholly supplied by the East London Company, and a quarter of a million of persons are being supplied by the East London Water Company who, if it did not supply them, would have leave to call upon the New River Company. And what is the result? The result is that a quarter of a million of persons pay £11,000 a year at the present moment more for their water than they would have if they had been allowed to be supplied by the New River Company— pay, more, they get a much worse water, because everybody knows that the New River Company is one of the very best companies in London—it is probably the best in London. It is a very fine undertaking, supplying good water, and treating its customers exceedingly well; and in a very large number of cases it is not reaching or levying the highest rate of charge that it might levy, although, as far as I know, the East London Water Company does so in practically every instance. I know very few other instances of water companies in London who are either so good in their supply or are so generous in their charges as the New River Company.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Does the honourable Member say that the East London Water Company supplies bad water?
MR. STUART: The people in this large area are prevented from having the advantage of the New River Company's supply; and I think anybody who has the choice of getting the New River supply or the East London supply, even leaving the charges out of account, would not hesitate as to which he would take.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Why?
MR. STUART: That is my opinion. The consumer gets better treatment. Now, Sir, what are we going to do by this Bill? The East London Water Company, having taken on its back the quarter of a million persons who might be supplied by the New River Company, what does it now do? It goes to the New River Company, and it gets New River Company's water under this arrangement to supply indirect to these persons, and it supplies it at a higher price than that at which the New River Company would supply it direct. And what does this Bill do? This Bill stereotypes that position. The proper method of dealing with this matter would have been to confine the area which the East London Water Company supplies within the limit of the powers of that company to supply, and if these portions which might be supplied by the New River Company were cut off from the East London Company it would be a far better and more sensible and more just method of procedure. Then take the case of this Bill—-for this Bill, as I pointed out. accepts the position that the East London Water Company shall supply people in areas which the New River Company would have to supply if the East London Water Company were not there, and then it arranges for the New River Company to supply the water, which it might supply direct, to the East London Company, and thereby charges the inhabitants £11,000 a year more than would be charged if they got that water direct. I say, therefore, that the whole idea of this Bill in dealing with this temporary difficulty is wrong— that the idea should not be to supply water from a cheap company to a company which can charge dear for it, and can collect more from the inhabitants, but it should be to rectify the boundaries of these various water companies' areas of supply, limiting them in their own areas
414
to those districts which they can supply with their water, and not permitting them to go into other areas where a cheaper supply might be given direct. After having first pointed out in this Bill the immense question of the Sinking. Fund, I have now pointed out what I believe to be the fundamental error in the whole Bill. But there is a point in the Bill where it says that—
"If the undertaking of any of the Metropolitan Water Companies is purchased within seven years from the passing of this Act, otherwise than by agreement, by any public body or trustee, nothing in this Act shall authorise the company to bring into account or make any claim in respect of any advantages conferred upon it by, or resulting from, the passing of this Act."
Well, that is, in other words, to prevent this Act increasing the saleable value of these companies. But, Sir, I remember very well when, two years ago, the South-wark and Vauxhall Water Company brought in a Bill which was introduced in this House for gaining access to larger supplies of water, I pointed out that that would increase their saleable value, and when I pointed that out it was stated that a clause of this kind would be introduced, and I pointed out then to the House that, even in respect of that clause, there would be a very large increase in the purchasable value of the company. I pointed out at that time that if the clause was not introduced there would be something like a million of money added to the value of the shares of that company. I found that, of course, that clause had had some effect in reducing that large sum, but whereas the shares of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company stood at something like 166 before that Act was passed, they stand at something like 200 at the present time. In other words, more than £300,000 has been added to the value of the shares of that company in the market by that procedure. Now, although that may, perhaps, enable any purchasing body to plead that the market value in these shares is in no sense a sign of what their purchasable or saleable value ought to be, still it is quite clear that the public believe in purchasing these shares, that the value of that company has permanently increased, and I venture to say that, even with this clause, such a Measure as this will raise the purchasable price of these companies. Sir that is only one of the many proofs that we have had in the

415
last few years of the extraordinary disadvantage to the ratepayers of London that the delays in the carrying through of a purchase scheme have created. As we have pointed out, if the water supply of London was in one hand, then all that this Bill contains would be done, and perfectly easily done, without the necessity of an Act of Parliament. This Bill is an endeavour to ride two horses at once: in the one case, to continue the authorities that at present exist—namely, the water companies, for the supply of London: and, in the other case, to introduce some system of unity or amalgamation. Sir, you have before you only two methods really of dealing with the water supply of London. One is amalgamation, and the other is purchase. So far as this Bill goes, it is an effort in the direction of amalgamation. I have endeavoured to show that it is faulty in the most important details, and that it is wrong entirely in the concention of how to remedy the difficulty.
*SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Sir the honourable Gentleman who has spoken last has entirely missed the grand principle of this Bill.' It is a Bill which it is difficult to attack by the special pleading to which he has given expression. The Bill is one which has been most carefully considered by the Thames Conservancy: it affects them very closely, and it is one to which they have given their most urgent attention. I can only say that the principle of this Bill is not to increase the powers of the water companies, but only to amalgamate them. Last year I brought in a Bill, myself in this House which had a similar clause to the Government Bill—to allow the various companies to amalgamate during a certain time. That Bill was killed by the London County Council, which objected to it because they said that it did not agree with the Standing Orders. I am only too delighted to see this Bill brought before Parliament this year by the Government. The real object of this Bill is this: We are to take a step which is to make it impossible in future that a water famine should occur in any' part of London, such as has existed, unfortunately, of late in East London. But if we look back upon the question of water famines in East London, we cannot forget this one point. that the East London Water Company applied—in
416
1893 I think it was—for leave to increase their storage capacity, and that Bill was thrown out at the instance of the London County Council, and if that storage had been allowed, that year the water famine which has lately existed in the East London district, if it had existed at all, would have been very much curtailed to what it has been lately, and which we all so much deplore. I do think that this Bill is a grand Bill in this way, that it will prevent in future any feeling that one company which has more storage than another is unable to help the other company that wants water. I have no hesitation in saying that in the Thames there is enough water to supply London for a great number of years to come, if only it is taken in the proper way—-that is, in the way of storage. What we object to is that the river should be run low in dry times. What we want is that navigation shall not be interfered with—as that is the primary interest and duty of the Conservancy—by having water drawn off when the river is at its lowest point, but that all the companies should take into large reservoirs the water which is running away to waste at other times of the year, and that those reservoirs should be used in times of drought, so as to supply London without diminishing the water required for the navigation of the River Thames. This Bill certainly has that effect. Enormous loss was incurred in East London in consequence of the water famine last year, but that loss would not again be incurred if this Bill became law, because the companies would have the power of helping one another. We think that this is a Bill which thoroughly deserves the attention of the House of Commons, and we understand that the rights of the Thames Conservancy are not in any way interfered with. These companies have a right to draw 130,000.000 gallons a day out of the Thames, but some of them draw considerably less than they are allowed to The difference can be utilised in the way suggested, and if this Bill passes there is no doubt it would be used in that way, to the great benefit of London generally. What the London County Council think about the matter is nothing to us. We do not care two straws whether the passing of this Bill would increase the purchase value of the com-

417
panics or not. What we have to look to is the benefit of London, and to see that there is no recurrence of the recent water famine. It has been proved before the Royal Commission that the Thames water is the finest water that can be supplied by any means whatever to this city, and there is no doubt that if this Bill is passed every part of London will have the advantage of that water. On behalf of the Conservancy, I strongly support this Bill, and I hope it will be passed into law.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I apologise to the House for rising so early in the Debate, but the object of this Bill is so simple, time is of so much importance, the question is of such considerable urgency, and, moreover, the scope of the Bill is so strictly limited to one branch, and one branch alone, of what is called the London Water Question, that I shall not detain the House except at very short length. I hope, therefore, the House will allow me to make an appeal to them to pass a Second Reading of this Bill. My honourable Friend opposite, who spoke first in this Debate, complained, in the first place, that we should take this Bill at so late an hour. We are obliged to cut our coat according to our cloth, and if was not within my power to do what I should have liked to have done—namely, to have taken the Bill earlier. The honourable Member said the Bill was introduced without the due notices that ought to have been given with regard to a Bill of this kind. I frankly acknowledge that that is true, but it was impossible for the Government to give the necessary notice on this occasion, and for this reason—which I think the honourable Member will admit is conclusive—that the Bill is founded and based upon the Report and recommendations of the Royal Commission, and the Report of the Royal Commission was not issued until a period after the date on which these notices ought to have been delivered. It was, therefore, absolutely impossible for me to comply with that rule which usually holds good in these cases. Then the honourable Member complained of that provision in the Bill which exempts the companies for these particular works from the operation of what is known as
418
the provisions with regard to the Sinking Fund. The honourable Member said—
"Every Bill of late years has contained a clause which makes the public sharers in the profits which are to be provided by this investment of capital."
But in this particular case, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there are going to be no profits in which the public can share. The honourable Member threw some doubt upon the opinions of the Royal Commission, but still the Royal Commission has had the opportunity of hearing everything that can be said for and against this particular provision, and the conclusion which they came to was a very simple one. It was this—
"It was contended before us, on behalf of the companies, that, inasmuch as the money raised by the issue of debenture stock could not yield revenue or profit to the companies, the Sinking Fund clauses, which are founded on the assumption that the debenture capital is expended so as to produce revenue and profit, were not applicable in this case. We think that there is force in this contention, and that this debenture stock might be exempted from the application of the sinking fund clauses."
On this point it is really a question between the opinion of the honourable Member opposite and the opinion of the Royal Commission. Though I value the opinion of the honourable Member, I prefer, without any disrespect to him, to rely upon the information of the Royal Commission. Then the honourable Member said the Local Government Board were taking a very great responsibility upon themselves. Well, Sir, that may be the case, and if it is so I am quite ready to take it, having regard to the great object which we have in view. What is that object? That object is to prevent, so far as it is possible for us to do so, any recurrence of the curtailment of the water supply in the East End of London, which inflicted so much hardship and suffering during the prolonged summer upon thousands of the poorer inhabitants. Nobody who has witnessed the results of water famine in the East End of London, as I have done myself, can fail to sympathise strongly with the objects of this Bill. The honourable Member also asks whether the Bill sanctions the taking of more water from the Thames, and he contends that without that provision the Bill would be practically useless. There is no provision of the kind in the Bill, and I am of opinion that it would be improper for

419
me to introduce it into a Measure of this description. But there is surplus water available at the present time, and the purpose of this Bill is to establish connection between the works of the different companies, so as to enable the surplus water of one company to supply the 'deficiency of the other. There is nothing, I think, very surprising in a proposal of this kind being made. The honourable Gentleman says he finds some difficulty in respect to the price to be charged for a supply of water by the New River Company, whose charge is lower than that of the East London Water Company. On that ground he takes some objection to the Measure, but that question will depend entirely upon the price which the New River Company may demand from the East London Company. If there is any difference of opinion between them, it is provided that the whole question shall be settled by arbitration. The consumers will pay no more than they do at present, because the price which the consumers in East London have to pay is settled by Statute. Therefore, their interests will not be prejudiced in the least, but by the passing of this Bill the position of these people in East London will be improved, and the short supply of water to which they are now constantly liable will become a thing of the past. The honourable Member has contended that what is wanted is to rectify the boundaries of the different companies, and then to allow each to supply its own district. But if that were done, the position of affairs would be no better than it is at the present moment, for there is not water enough within the resources of the East London Water Company to supply their customers during a period of drought like that of last year, while there would be no water famine if this Bill passes. This really is a matter of very considerable urgency. The object of the Bill is to prevent the poor people of East London from again enduring all the troubles, hardships, and difficulties they have undergone in the past, and there are no other means, in my opinion, of accomplishing this object than those proposed in the Bill. The Bill in no way affects the larger questions of the future water authority of London, the purchasing value, or the interests of ratepayers and consumers. The question of the water authority is
420
left absolutely untouched by this Bill. On that question I preserve an entirely open mind until the Report of the Royal Commission is furnished, when it will be my duty, if I am still a Member of Her Majesty's Government, to come to a decision upon it. With regard to the second question, the purchase value, there is a special clause in the Bill which provides that it shall not in any way authorise the companies to bring into account, or make any claim in respect to, any advantages conferred by or resulting from the passing of this Measure. Upon the third point, the object and the effect of the Bill is quite certain to be an improved water supply. Honourable Gentlemen need be under no fear whatever on these grounds. With regard to the fourth point, I think I have said enough to show that it is directly to the interest of the ratepayers, and of consumers in particular, that this Bill should be passed. The details to which honourable Members may take exception can be threshed out before the Committee, and, in the interests of the hundreds of thousands of the poorer classes in East London, I appeal to the House to allow this Bill to be read a second time, so that it may proceed on its course, and become law at the earliest possible moment.
MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I certainly am not going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill nor to talk it out, but I should like an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman that, so far as this particular Measure is concerned, he looks upon it as temporary, and that it will not be allowed to prejudice the question of the best means of inter-communication between all the companies. This Bill, as I understand the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman, is only intended for an emergency. I cordially sympathise with the object the right honourable Gentleman has in view, and I think he can be trusted to see that the Bill will not be allowed to prejudice the ques-tion of the best means of inter-communication between the companies.
*MR SINCLAIR: Mr. Lowther—Sir, representing, as I do a very large constituency, portions of which suffered very much indeed in con-sequence of the very limited supply of

421
water afforded by the East London Water Company, I hope, at this very late hour, I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject in question. I first of all wish to assure the House that it is not my intention to talk this Debate out. I see that I have exactly seven minutes before me, and in that short time I hope I may express my satisfaction that this matter has been found of such importance that it has moved the Government to adopt some Measure to remedy the great evil occasioned by the drought and the non-fulfilment by Water Company of its obligations. I would like to point out that I do not think the Bill adequate enough for the needs of the case, but it is a step in the right direction, and that is the reason that I will not throw any impediment in the way of the Second Reading, and will reserve to myself, on a future occasion, the privilege of going into the various and many grievances my constituents underwent through the want of that most necessary article to our very existence. I will only mention one point, and that is that the East London Company said that the suffering, in a great measure, resulted from the action of consumers in not having cisterns to store their water. Now, Mr. Lowther, I wish to point out that it is not the duty of consumers to store the Company's water. It is the duty of a water company to give a good and ample supply to the persons who pay for it, and I hold that these cisterns which they advocate have been proved to be a source of the greatest danger to those who have them. They are death traps to those who do not have them cleaned frequently, and in small houses, often inhabited by a number of people, it is most important that the water should be pure, and that they should have enough of it. I am glad. Sir for more reasons than those I have time to show, that the Government is alive to the exigencies of the case, and shall hope that the sufferings of many of my constituents have endured will, thanks to this Bill, be greatly mitigated in the future.
Question put.

COLONIAL LOANS FUND BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
Resolution reported—
"That it is expedient—(A) TO authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum not exceeding £2,000,000 for making further provision for the improvement of telephonic communication; (a) to enable local authorities to raise or apply money for telephonic purposes."
Resolution agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and
Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

TELEGRAPHS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, ETC.) BILL.
"To make further provision for the improvement of Telephonic Communication, and otherwise with respect to Telegraphs," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 118.)
SUPPLY (3rd MARCH).
Report deferred till Monday next.
LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
CHARITABLE LOANS (IRELAND) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
INEBRIATES ACT (1898) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
IMPROVEMENT OF LAND BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.): I protest that a Bill of this importance should be brought forward at this time.
And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Second Heading (23rd February) further adjourned till Monday next.

METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANIES.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (20th February)—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers of charge conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and to report as to the method in which those powers have been exercised, having regard to the differences of price charged by the various companies."—(Mr. Cohen.)
*MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I heartily welcome this inquiry. Indeed, I first suggested to the House a Committee, and the honourable Member for East Islington has annexed my suggestion, but has, unfortunately, spoilt it in the terms of his Motion. It is clear that the value of such an inquiry depends upon the verms of the reference, and I desire, in addition to the terms of reference which the honourable Member has placed on the Paper, that the Committee should inquire whether or not the statutory conditions with regard to the price of gas and the dividend should be reconsidered. The Government, however, the other night objected to my Amendment, and as it is clear that I have no possible chance of carrying it, in these circumstances I shall not press my Amendment, but shall throw upon the Government the responsibility of declining to take such steps as would have made the inquiry really beneficial.
SIR W. WALROND: As I was the Member of the Government who objected to the terms
424
of the reference of my honourable Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, I desire to say that I did so because I believed the reference in the Motion of the honourable Member for East Islington was quite wide enough for the purpose, and I am glad to hear that the honourable Member for Bethnal Green has withdrawn his Amendment.
Ordered—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the powers of charge conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and to report as to the method in which those powers have been exercised, having regard to the differences of price charged by the various companies."

SERVICE FRANCHISE BILL.
Considered in Committee: —
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1—Committee report progress: to sit again upon Wednesday 7th June.

RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL.
Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Second Reading (8th March) further adjourned till Wednesday next.
PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL [H.L.]
Read the first time: to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 119.)
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. (Bill 120.)

NAVY ESTIMATES.
MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Navy Estimates will be taken on Monday, and whether he contemplates getting any Votes on that day.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The discussion on the Navy Estimates will occupy Monday's Sitting, and I hope Vote A will be agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat upon the Woolsack at fifteen minutes past Four of the clock.
NEW PEER.
The Earl of Strafford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted 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—
Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts Acts Amendment.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BRISTOL FLOODS PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Thursday next.
NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
SOUTH HANTS WATER BILL [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESinformed the House, that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill: Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
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 Earl of Stamford and the Lord Wimborne be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Radnor and the Lord Carew; read, and agreed to.

WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [H.L.]
Standing Order No. 92 considered (according to order), and dispensed with, with respect to a Petition of the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Wick; Leave given to present the said Petition.
CATHCARTS DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: the Report of Amendment to be received to-morrow.

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered—
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second finite after Tuesday the 27th day of June next.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill originating in this House shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 2nd day of May next.
That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next.
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill later than Tuesday the 25th day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the High Court of Justice after Friday the 5th day of May next.
That this House will not receive any Report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 5th day of May next.
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 21.)

STANDING COMMITTEE.
To meet on Tuesday next, at a quarter before Four of the clock.
HOUSES OF LORDS AND COMMONS PERMANENT STAFF.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Select Committee of Five Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' message of the 27th of February last, to consider and report on the subject of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—MISCELLANEOUS SERIES: No. 499.
  Suggestions for development of British trade with Italy.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  HIGH SHERIFFS (IRELAND) (EXPENSES OF OFFICE).
  Circular addressed by the Lord Lieutenant to High Sheriffs with regard to the expenses of their office; together with letter of 2nd November 1898 from Her Majesty's Treasury upon which the circular was based.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Forty-eighth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMMERCIAL, No. 1 (1899).
  Reports respecting the telephone service in various foreign countries.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (IRELAND).
  Presentments made by grand juries in Ireland and flatted by the Court of Assize during the year 1898: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petitions against the sale of, on Sundays; of Inhabitants of Chatteris—Linton—Lister Hills—Bradford—Newhaven —and Sheerness—Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  LINCOLNSHIRE CORONERS RILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to constitute the divisions of Lincolnshire separate counties for all the purposes of the Coroners Acts—was presented by the Lord Heneage; read the first time; to be printed; and to be read a second time on Monday the 20th instant. (No. 20.)
PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  PARTRIDGE SHOOTING (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought form the Commons; read the first time; and to be printed. (No. 19.)
  MONEY-LENDING BILL [H.L.]
  To be read second time on Thursday next.

PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order for Second Heading read.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That this Bill be read a second time."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is practically the same Measure that passed your Lordships' House during last Session, but failed to become law mainly owing- to the pressure of business at the conclusion of the Session in another place. The principal object of the Bill is to adapt the ecclesiastical arrangements of the Church of Scotland in certain parishes to the present needs both of those parishes and of the Church. As your Lordships are aware, towns and cities have extended their boundaries, and the population have migrated from one district to another, and are consequently, in many places, now dwelling at an inconvenient distance from the sites of the old parish churches which they attend. The Bill in its structure is entirely domestic to the Church of Scotland, and is not intended as an attack upon any other religious community. We have this year carefully revised it, and have done so with a view of meeting many of the objections which were raised by political friends of the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord (Lord Tweedmouth) warned me last year most courteously that this was a Bill which would probably be opposed in another place, and that. my Lords, is one of those prophecies which those associated with the noble Lord are, of course, able to fulfil. I have carefully studied the report of the discussion on this Bill in
250
another place, and, as I say, we have endeavoured to meet all the objections which we possibly could. I am afraid we shall never be able to meet the objection of some of those who took part in the discussion and who said that nothing-would satisfy them except the disestablishment of the Church altogether. But, my Lords, apart from objections of that class, I think your Lordships will see, and those who take an interest in the Bill in another place will see, that every effort has been made to give effect to the objections which were then made. We largely, but by no means exclusively, rested the case for this Bill upon the present state of matters in the City of Edinburgh, and it was alleged that so far as Edinburgh was concerned the case for the Bill had entirely broken down. Statistics were produced showing that in all the city churches there was such a large number of communicants that it was ridiculous to suggest that the site of any one of the churches could be changed with advantage. Now, my Lords, that was not an objection which it was easy beforehand to anticipate, but the explanation is simple in the extreme. There is no doubt that there are communicants upon the rolls of these churches. But the explanation is this, that only an infinitesimal minority of those communicants reside within the bounds of the parishes and districts attached to the various parish churches. I do not wish to go at length into the figures, but the whole of that branch of the subject has been carefully examined, and with this result. Taking the eight city churches of the old town of Edinburgh, it is the case that there are on the rolls of those churches 6,500 communicants. That does not give an average of 1,200, which was stated last year, but it gives an average of 806 communicants to each church. But out of the whole of those 6,500 communicants there are only 193 resident in the districts attached to the respective churches. That is an average of about 24 to each, or about 3 per cent. of the whole. The object of this Bill is to give power, on proper cause shown, and on a proper consideration in detail of the circumstances of any one of those churches which it might be thought desirable to remove, to consider the cause and to give a power which does not now exist to remove the church to a district which would be more convenient for the population

251
I should be the last to suggest that all, or even a majority, of those churches should be removed. But surely this is a power which ought to be possessed, and one which is for the benefit not only of the churches, but of the population of the City of Edinburgh. One clause to which some exception was taken last year was the clause dealing with the endowments of quoad sacra churches. These churches are omitted from this Bill. I do not say this is not a power which, in some cases, it would be desirable to have, but it is not nearly so urgent as the other matter, and as objection has been taken to it I have omitted that clause in the hope that it will diminish the opposition to the Bill. There are some minor changes in drafting of the Bill, but I should not allude to them in detail at this stage. In case the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite (Lord Tweedmouth) thinks I have broken faith with him in regard to one amendment I excepted last year, I will point out that the drafting of the clause has been changed, and the heritors, whose cause the noble Lord championed, are now included in the general term "persons interested." That term will not only include heritors, but magistrates and town councils. For the sake of simplifying the Bill we have deleted the detailed description of persons interested, and have described them in the one term, "persons interested," which is wide enough to cover both classes to which I have referred. There are one or two other changes in the Bill, but I hope it will be more for the convenience of the House that any detailed explanation of them should be delayed till a further stage, and explanation be asked for. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord who has just spoken has made a gratuitous attack upon myself. I stirred up no opposition to this Bill. I told him I thought opposition might arise in another place, but I can assure him I was in no way responsible for it. On the contrary, with the object of this Bill I am entirely in sympathy. Whilst I frankly confess that I think the Church is much better untrammelled by the State, and that the State is much better relieved from the responsibility of the Church, at the same
252
time I have never been one of those who attempted to frustrate legislative effort to improve the condition of the Established Church. As a matter of fact, I have always thought that as long as we have an Established Church it is our duty to make that Church as valuable an instrument for the benefit of religion and the people as possible. I thoroughly support this Bill, which is to give power in certain circumstances to move churches from one place to another within the same presbytery, to give power to sell the sites of the churches for the benefit of the new churches that are to be erected, and to alter the bounds of parishes. But I would ask your Lordships to consider whether in this Bill the interests of the different parishes are sufficiently safeguarded. There are three bodies who-are principally inter-concerned in the churches of Scotland. There are the heritors, there is the congregation, and there are the poor of the parish. Now, last year the noble Lord was good enough,. at my instigation, to accept an Amendment on the Bill which made the heritors the consenting party to any change proposed under the Bill. Not only was the consent of the presbytery of the bounds necessary, but also the consent of the heritors. The heritors are, as your Lordships know, the persons in whom are vested the property both of the church and the manse, and the land on which those fabrics stand. They are also the persons who provide the friends for the support of the church. They are the defenders of the interests of the lay portion' of the parish, and I do think that they should be consulted, and that they should give their consent to any proposal to change the site of a church or to apply the proceeds from the sale of the site of a church to a church in another part of the parish. Then there comes the question of the congregation. The noble Lord last year pointed out that in the eight city churches in Edinburgh, and in the five churches in Glasgow, the congregations were very small. He, himself, to-day has admitted that the congregations are very large in the Edinburgh churches, and that they have an average of 806 communicants. A church that has a congregation of so large a number of communicants has a very much larger congregation than 806 people, so that these churches are, therefore, used by a considerable number of people. Since

253
the passing of the Patronage Act the congregations have become more important than they were before, for they have assigned to them now the right of choosing a minister, and I do say the congregations of these churches should have the opportunity of being consulted and of putting forward their case and their views before such a question as this is decided, whether it be done through the votes of the congregation, or by the Kirk-Session of the congregation consisting of the elders and the minister of the particular church. I now come to the question of the poor of the parish. The poor have always been considered in Scotland to be especially the care of the Established Church. It has always been recognised that one of the first duties of the Established Church was to take care of the poor of the parish, whether they belong to the congregation or not; and whatever may be said about these parishes in the great cities of Scotland one thing-is practically certain. There has been no such denudation of population in the great cities of Scotland as there has been in certain areas within, say, the City of London. We should carefully consider if sufficient attention has been given to the poor persons who dwell within the limits of the parishes to be affected by this Bill, whether they belong to the congregation of the Church of Scotland or not. In either case they should be under the care of the minister of the Established Church. Then, my Lords, there are other matters to which I do not think any attention has been paid. What, for instance, are you going to do with the site of the church and the manse when you have pulled the buildings down? These churches and manses are within crowded parts of the city. Are you to allow the sites to be used for any purpose whatever? Are they to be put up and sold to the highest bidder, and used for the purpose of warehouses, manufactories, and so on? Are not open spaces greatly needed in these crowded districts? And are the claims for open spaces to be thoroughly set aside in this matter? No provision is made in this Bill with regard to this question at all. Then there comes the question of the preservation of the architectural beauties and historical interests connected with these important churches. Are any provisions to be made for securing that these interests shall be cared for and preserved for the benefit of
254
the inhabitants of the city? I have no doubt the noble Lord will say that all these are matters which will be dealt with by the Court of Tiends. Well, that to me is not sufficient! It seems to me that the questions which I have raised should be dealt with by Parliament itself, and not be left to anybody outside the Houses of Parliament. I have not got the least intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do most earnestly hope that the noble lord will give his attention to the points I have raised, and himself endeavour to amend the Bill in the direction I have indicated in Committee.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND: If I gave the noble Lord the impression that I had intended to make any attack upon him, I must say that I expressed myself very badly. I certainly had no such intention, and I hope that when he sees my words in print, as possibly he may, he will see that there was no real attack made.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Lord said that the prophecy I made was one which I and my friends could secure the fulfilment of in another place. I deny having done anything to secure the fulfilment of that prophecy.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND: The noble Lord has stated that the interests of the poor populations in these parishes have not been sufficiently present in my mind. I think it is sufficient to remind him that even if one or two of these churches were removed the population would not have far to go, and that the districts would not be too large for the care of the ministers that would remain. There is not one of these eight city churches which is half a mile away from any other, and it is a fact that there have been large changes of population in Edinburgh, notably by the reconstruction of the Waverley Station, and by the number of buildings which were formerly dwelling-houses, but which are now warehouses in the central part of the city. I will carefully consider the points which my noble Friend has raised, but I can hold out no hope of meeting his suggestions. I will certainly do my best to meet those of them for which I think a reasonable case can be advanced.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION DECISIONS.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, in accordance with the notice which I have placed on the Paper. I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government—(1) Whether Patrick Markey purchased in 1889, for £180, which included auction fees, the tenancy in a farm of 10A. 0R. 10p. held under the Earl of Gosford at the yearly rent of £9 4s. 8d., the Poor Law valuation being £9 10s.; and whether in 1897 the Irish Land Commission on re-hearing reduced the rent to £6 10s.; (2) Whether Mr. Justice Bewley in announcing this decision laid it down as the lav, that a deduction should be made on account of what he described as "the occupation interest" of the tenant, although the two other members of the court who had heard the case, one of whom, though a barrister, has no legal status as a member of the court, and the other is a layman, dissented from the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, but concurred with him as to the amount of reduction; (3) Whether it has been recently decided by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in other cases, that Mr. Justice Bewley's view of the law, as decided in Markey's case, was erroneous, and that any deduction for ' occupation interest" is illegal: and having regard to the fact that Markey purchased the holding so recently for £180, and that it is assessed for income tax under Schedules A. and B. at the annual value of £12 13s. 4d., will not Her Majesty's Government take the matter into their consideration; (4) Whether any and what steps are intended to be taken as to the illegal deductions that have been made by the Land Commission in the past, and to prevent such a possibility in the future.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, in reply to the Question which has been put down by the noble Viscount, I have to inform him that it appears to be the fact that Patrick Markey purchased the farm in question in 1888 or 1889 for £175. The Land Commission, on rehearing, by order of 31st May 1897, unanimously fixed the fair rent of the holding at the sum of £0 10s. It is not, however, the fact that no improvements were claimed by the tenant or allowed by the court. One of the grounds of appeal stated in the landlord's notice of rehearing was that the deduction made by the Sub-Commissioners in respect of im-
256
provements was excessive. The Land Commission confirmed the (hiding of the Sub-Commission that all the buildings and fences upon the holding were tenants' improvements, but reduced the allowance made by the Sub-Commission in respect thereof.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: The noble Earl will see that in the Question, as it appears on the Paper to-day, the reference to improvements has been omitted.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: With regard to the second Question, the judgments of Mr. Justice Bewley and the other members of the court on the question of "occupation interest" are reported in the Irish Law Times Beports,-Vol. 31, p. 97. The Irish Land Commission is a judicial tribunal established and constituted pursuant to the Land Act of 1881, which Act defines the status of the judicial and other Commissioners. The majority of the Commissioners who heard the case, although they concurred as to the amount of fair rent, dissented from the view of Mr. Justice Bewley as to the "occupation interest," and the present Judicial Commissioner has expressed his concurrence with and acted upon the decision of the majority. The Commissioners do not know to what particular decision or decisions of the Court of Appeal the third paragraph refers. There is no reported decision to the effect indicated, but individual members of the Court of Appeal, in the course of their judgments, have expressed approval of the views so expressed by the majority of the Land Commission, and it is not considered that there is anything in the matter calling for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Does the noble Earl give any answer to the fourth Question?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: If the noble Viscount presses for an answer to the fourth Question, I am bound to say I think the suggestion contained in the Question is open to almost as much objection as the suggestion which was contained in the Questions first of all put down by the noble Viscount, and upon which I remarked the other day; and I can only tell him that no admission at all can be made by Her Majesty's Government, and that suitors must proceed as

257
they may be advised in reference to litigation in which they may happen to be involved.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: The noble Earl referred me last Session to the Irish Law Times Reports, which I had then examined, and which I have since carefully gone through, but I have failed to find the information which I require. Further, I am informed that there are no public published Reports which will give the information. With reference to Question four, there was no intention on my part, or on the part of those who requested me to put this Question, to ask anything improper of Her Majesty's Government. I express no opinion upon the answers which have been given by the noble Earl on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, because I feel they require very careful consideration.
House adjourned at fifty-five minutes after Four of the clock.