Sitting of 31 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

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, and of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Whereupon Mr. JEFFREYS, the Deputy Chairman, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Northern and City Railway Bill reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.
1. "That, in the case of the Maidstone Gas Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
2. "That, in the case of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Petition, for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
4. "That, in the case of the Birmingham District Tramways Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Tramways Nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 be
674
struck out of the Bill, unless the consent of the County Councils of Warwickshire and Worcestershire be proved before the Committee on the Bill; that the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
Resolutions agreed to.

WATFORD AND EDGWARE RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Dublin, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Hedon; Peterborough; Exeter; York; Wolverhampton; Middlesbrough; Tynemouth; Halifax; Glossop; Preston; Bradford; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dallas, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION IN THE METROPOLIS.
  Petitions for legislation: from Camber well; and London; to lie upon the Table.
  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Petition of the British Temperance League, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Kirkcudbright, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: from Middlesbrough; Settle; Benwell and Fenham; and Ryton; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against Establishment: from Strathpeffer; Kilmarnock; Thornhill; Forres; Alva; Huntly; and Linlithgow; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Melton Mowbray (two); Sheffield; Deptford; Portsmouth; Southend; Barry Dock; Pockham; Clacton-on-Sea; Cardiff; Chelmsford; Birmingham (two); Bethnal Green; Brixton; Loughborough; Stoke Newington (three); Lavender Hill; Herne Bay; Canterbury; Hammersmith; Mexborough; Cheltenham; Boston; Chelsea; Bristol (three); Eastville; Ilkeston; Kingswood; Bedminster; Victoria Dock; Custom House; Stratford; Walthamstow; Shepherds Bush; Gainsborough; Harringay; Edmonton; High Wycombe; Alfreton; Tottenham; Queen's Park; Faversham; Edmonton Green; Leyton; Basingstoke; West Green; and Leicester; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Pontypool; Wandsworth; Seaford; Leek; Godmanchester; Newcastle-under-Lyme; and Heywood; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 4, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for the adjustment of the boundary between the Dominion of Canada and the territory of Alaska. Signed at Washington 24th January, 1903. Ratifications exchanged at Washington 3rd March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill and the
  676
  objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  ILLICIT DISTILLATION.
  Return ordered, "by Districts and Counties for the years ended 31st March, 1900, 1901, and 1902, respectively, showing the number of seizures and detections of illicit plant, materials, etc., in Ireland by members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; the number of persons prosecuted; the number convicted; the number committed to prison; the amount of fines imposed; the amount of fines recovered; and the amount of rewards paid to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary; also similar information as to seizures and detections by Inland Revenue Officers in England, Scotland, and Ireland during the same periods."—(Mr. O'Mara.)
  ARMY EXPENDITURE.
  Address for "Return showing, approximately, the classification of Army Expenditure provided for in the current Estimates (1903–4), excluding non-effective charges, under the following heads and sub-heads: I. on provision for field services (a) available for Imperial and general service, (b) for Home service only; II. on provision for fortress service (c) Abroad, (d) at Home; and III. on provision for aquatic and submarine services."—(Sir John Colomb.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Scottish National Gallery—Supplementary Estimate.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed to issue a Supplementary Estimate for a purchase grant for the Scottish National Gallery during the coming financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Until a Report is received from the Committee appointed to make inquiries with regard to the Board of Manufactures, it would be premature to make any statement on the subject.

  Wireless Telegraphic Communication between Dover and the East Goodwin Lightship.
  MR. DOUGHTY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that Dover is now a wireless telegraph station under the coastguard, he will take steps to have the East Goodwin Light-vessel fitted up with the necessary apparatus for life-saving information, in view of the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour). The Board of Trade are fully alive to the importance of this question, and they have made efforts to bring about an arrangement for the transmission of information by wireless telegraphy from the East Goodwin Lightship. Their efforts have not so far been successful, however, as the terms upon which the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus should be allowed have not yet been settled between His Majesty's Government and those interested in the invention.

  Wrecks off the Irish Coast.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps have been taken to ascertain the positions of the wreck of the "Marlay," off Dublin Bay, and the "Upupa," off Ballycottin; and whether any, and what, notices to mariners warning them of these dangers were issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that attempts, extending over several days, have been made to ascertain the positions of these wrecks. Further investigations will be continued as soon as the weather permits. As these attempts have proved unsuccessful it has not been possible to issue any notices to mariners.

  Opening of Picture Galleries on Sundays.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Victoria and Albert Museum, the British Museum, and the Natural History Museum are open on Sundays throughout the year,
  678
  while the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Wallace Collection are not open on Sundays during the winter months; and, if so, will he state whether there is any special reason for this difference; and, if not, whether he can arrange for the opening of all these public galleries on all Sundays throughout the year.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Owing to the frequent deficiency of daylight in winter afternoons, and the fact that, in any case, the time during which pictures could be seen is very short, it is not considered worth while, in the absence of artificial light, to keep the galleries open on Sunday afternoons all the year round. As regards the question of introducing artificial light, I understand that at all events, in the case of the National Gallery and the National Gallery of British Art, the Trustees entertain a strong objection, apart altogether from the question of expense; and I am not prepared to press them or the Trustees of the other Galleries upon the point.

  Improved Postal Facilities in Essex.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is no second delivery of letters in the parishes of Pebmarsh, Lamarsh, and Alphamstone in Essex, whilst the neighbouring parishes possess such a delivery; and whether, seeing that these parishes are within fifty miles of the General Post Office, and in view of the commercial needs of the population, he will endeavour to establish a second delivery and thus enable them to receive the London daily newspapers on the day of issue.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have recently given careful consideration to the question of affording a second delivery of letters at Pebmarsh, Lamarsh, and Alphamstone, but I regret to find that the circumstances do not warrant the additional expense involved.

  French Fishing-Boats off the Cornish Coast.
  MR. HAIN: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for

  679
  Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the injury done to Cornish fisheries by French fishing-boats engaged in crab and lobster fishing near the Seven Stones, and seeing that the Seven Stones Lightship is maintained by the Trinity Board, he will state upon what grounds the Foreign Office have refused to take steps for the protection of the Cornish fishermen.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I need not say that His Majesty's Government greatly regret any injury which may have befallen the Cornish fisheries in the matter to which my hon. friend refers; but the Foreign Office has been unable to take any steps to prevent it. We are advised that the fishing off the Seven Stones is not within British territorial waters, and the right of foreign boats to fish there cannot therefore be contested.

  Irish National Education—Resolution of Catholic Managers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education will give effect to the resolutions of the Association of Catholic Managers of the Ecclesiastical Province of Armagh; and if the Commissioners will consider the advisability of reverting to the old regulation that an average attendance of thirty-five pupils qualified for the salary of the highest grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The resolutions were considered by the Commissioners. One of the resolutions recommended a reduction to fifty of the average required for an assistant teacher. This proposal would involve an additional charge of £24,000 per annum on the Estimates for Public Education. Additions of so large a character should, in the opinion of the Irish Government, be considered in relation to all other demands that may be made in respect of education in Ireland. The resolution relating to the supply of requisites has been carried out so far as manual instruction and elementary science are concerned. Other resolutions had relation to the teaching of Irish, the historical and geographical readers, and these
  680
  matters have since been dealt with. The resolutions in respect to the promotion and initial salaries of teachers could not be given effect to on the ground of cost. The average of thirty-five under the old regulations did not warrant salary of the highest grade. It merely warranted first-class salary, which is different from salary of the highest grade under the new regulations.

  Delay in Erection of Labourers' Cottages in County Armagh.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a sum of over £2,000 has been allocated by the Local Government Board towards the building of labourers' cottages in the vicinity of Newtownhamilton, County Armagh, that the sites have been approved by the Local Government Board inspector, and the scheme passed by the District Council, he will explain the cause of the delay in commencing the work.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member has been misinformed on some points. The District Council proposes to erect a number of cottages in the neighbourhood, but the scheme was only forwarded to the Local Government Board on the 13th instant. The estimated cost of carrying out the scheme is £2,200. No money has been allocated by the Board towards building the cottages, and it is premature at the present stage to say what will be the amount of the loan ultimately required by the Council. The inspector has not approved of any sites for the cottages; the necessary local inquiry into the scheme has not yet been held.

  R.A.M.C.—Allowances to Officers undergoing professional course.
  DR THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the captains of the Royal Army Medical Corps now attending a professional course in London, and residing at the temporary college in the Hotel Belgravia, receive an allowance at the rate of 5s. 6d., although lieutenants on probation receive an allowance at the rate of 9s.; and if he will give directions to remove this difference.

  681
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Lieutenants on probation receive allowances for servants, lodgings, and fuel and light, amounting to about 4s., and also draw a mess allowance of 4s. Captains draw the former class of allowances, amounting to about 5s. The question of the grant of the 4s. mess allowance to them is under consideration.

  Established rank for Gun Wharf Employees.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange for a proportion of the men employed in His Majesty's gun wharves being granted established rank, with pension, as in the case of His Majesty's dockyards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Pension rights have been granted to principal foremen and others of corresponding rank in all sections of the Ordnance Department at home stations, and will shortly be granted to 35 per cent. of the foremen. As regards labourers and mechanics it is considered better, in the interests of efficiency and economy, to pay such rates of wages as are found necessary to secure the services of good workmen, without pension.

  Crimean and Indian Mutiny Pensioners.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the numbers of pensioners who served in the Crimean campaign and the Indian Mutiny, stating the rates per day and the number receiving each rate.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The number of men drawing special campaign pensions is as follows:—2,800 at 9d; 280 at 10d.; and 221 at 1s. There are also a number of men who received special increases of pension, and whose pensions are now as follows: 79 at 1s.; 170 at 1s. 3d.; 626 at 1s. 6d.; and 44 at 2s. Among the ordinary pensioners are also a large number of men who served in the Crimean campaign and Indian Mutiny. As a list of these would involve an examination of each individual case it is impossible to sanction its preparation.

  Royal Commission on Volunteer Service—Representation of Volunteer Medical Officers.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the advisability of including a Volunteer medical officer among the members of the Royal Commission to be appointed to consider the Volunteer Service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I fear I cannot promise to include officers of the various departmental corps on the Commission.

  Metropolitan Asylums Board—Treatment of Imbecile Children.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Metropolitan Asylums Board to remove the improvable imbecile children back to the Darenth Asylum, where unimprovable children are retained; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received from the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums District a proposal with regard to imbecile accommodation and classification at Darenth. Their proposal seems to be that the present schools should be used as a training school for improvable children; that the present adult asylum should be used as an industrial colony for improvable adults; and that the pavilions should be utilised for the quite unimprovable younger patients until such time as these buildings would be needed for the extension of the industrial colony. The Managers propose that the Brighton Load Schools at Sutton should be used for the accommodation of unimprovable imbeciles. It is necessary for me to obtain further information before I can form a definite opinion with regard to the proposal, and I am at present in communication with the Managers on the subject.

  Local Education Schemes—Suggestions by the Board of Education.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will state

  683
  what steps the Board have taken, or will take, to make it clear to local education authorities that suggestions made by the Board or any of its officers before formal publication of draft schemes to local education authorities, or to any persons acting on behalf of such authorities, are hortatory only and not mandatory.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board, at the commencement of this year, sent a Memorandum to the local education authorities stating what were the requirements of the Act, and what were the duties of the Board in respect of schemes. Later, in response to various applications, the Board sent to the local education authorities a Memorandum containing suggestions as to the various modes in which Education Committees might be formed and constituted. The Board do not think that there is any opening for the sort of misconstruction suggested in the Question.

  Board of Education Typewriting Department—Age of Superintendent.
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain why it is proposed to appoint as superintendent of the Type-writing Department to be formed at the Board of Education a lady who is over the age prescribed by the Treasury Minute of 17th March, 1894.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) In forming a new section of women typists, the Board of Education think it advisable to place in charge a lady of experience. The Treasury have expressed their agreement with this view, and have given their consent to the appointment.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Volunteer Artillery Armaments.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the City of London First Volunteer Artillery Regiment is still drilled with muzzle-loading guns; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to supply them with more modern weapons.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): This corps has had one 5-inch breech-loading gun since October last. Four 6-inch breech-loading guns have been ordered for issue to the corps. Similar ordnance are available for the corps at the Tower of London.
    MR. BROADHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gun now in the possession of the corps is useless; that many of its parts and carriage are defective, and that it is, therefore, of no use whatever?
    MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of that, but I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member puts another Question on the Paper.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new regulations on fire discipline recently issued to the Volunteer Artillery are rendered nugatory and impracticable by reason of the obsolete guns?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not know whether my hon. friend realises the number of Volunteer Artillery in this country, and that it would be impossible, except at enormous cost, to give modern weapons of heavy type to all of them. If we were to do so, we should have a far larger quantity of heavy artillery than we could use in time of war.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: But two years ago the right hon. Gentleman promised that the whole of the Volunteer Artillery should have modern armament.
    MR. BRODRICK: No; I never made any such promise. What I said was that 200 4·7 guns should be distributed as soon as they were available. That is being done.

    Army Expenditure.
    SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relative to Army Expenditure standing on the Notice Paper to-day.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Return will be granted, but it will take some little time to prepare.

    Service in the Army.
    COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many of the 210,600 effectives, estimated for Regular Forces (Regimental), Home and Colonial, had more than one year's service; and how many were twenty years old and upwards on 1st January, or at the last convenient date when service and age re turns were rendered.
    MR. BRODRICK: On the 1st January there were 41,586 rank and file with less than one year's service, excluding drafts on board ship, and there were 41,199 rank and file under twenty years of age. These figures are inclusive, as most of those under one year's service are also under twenty years of age.

    Age of Troop Horses.
    COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many of the 9,022 troop horses on the establishments of Household and Line Cavalry at home were six years old and upwards on 1st January, or at the last convenient date on which returns of age were rendered.
    MR. BRODRICK: The figures 9,022 include regiments abroad other than in India. The number of horses on the strength at home on 1st March was 6,207, of which 5,008 were six years of age and upwards.

    Royal Garrison Regiment and the Recruiting Returns.
    LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the men enrolled for the Royal Garrison Regiment are reckoned among the recruits raised during the past year; and, if so, whether in any calculation of age or physical qualification these men, who have already completed a period of service in the Army, are brought into account.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. The men enrolled for the Garrison Regiment are not reckoned as recruits or included in any calculation as to the age or qualifications of recruits.

    Army Discipline on Active Service.
    LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of calling upon officers who have commanded regiments in the field to furnish reports as to the efficiency of the methods now available for the maintenance and enforcement of discipline in the Army when on active service before the enemy.
    MR. BRODRICK: The question of the maintenance and enforcement of discipline on active service is at present being dealt with by a Special Military Committee.

    Dublin Fusiliers—Private Meehan's Case.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any unpaid gratuities are due to Mrs. Meehan, of Longford, in respect of the death of her son, Private James Meehan, late of the Dublin Fusiliers, who was killed in South Africa; and whether, in view of this woman's circumstances, he will direct a grant to be made to her out of the funds available for that purpose.
    MR. BRODRICK: No unpaid gratuities are due in respect of this estate. There are no funds at my disposal from which a grant could be made to Mrs. Meehan.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: He was only a common soldier.

    2nd Battalion King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment.
    LIEUTENANT-GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the detachment of the 2nd Battalion of the King's Own Royal Lancaster Regiment, which has taken part in the war and is now on passage from South Africa in the "Ionian," and which is to be transhipped at Gibraltar to join the 1st Battalion, to return

    687
    home with the regiment, and obtain furlough to visit their friends before being sent out to join the linked battalion.
    MR. BRODRICK: I should be very glad to accede to this request, but I am afraid that I cannot consent to treat the men of this regiment preferentially to those of other regiments in this respect, or to throw upon the public the extra cost of conveying these men home and back again.
    LIEUTENANT - GENERAL LAURIE: Could not the ship in which they are coming from South Africa bring them home without extra cost?
    No answer was returned.

    Water-tube Boiler Royalties.
    SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the amount that has been paid as royalty to De Launay, Belleville, and Co., from and including H.M.S. "Powerful," and "Terrible," to the latest ship fitted with Belleville boilers; and whether he will explain why half the royalty was paid on the water-tube boilers intended for His Majesty's vessels "Queen," "Berwick," and "Cornwall," although the boilers were never manufactured by Belleville and Co. for these ships; and what was the amount of the half-royalty paid.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The total amount which has been paid in royalties is £169,282 5s. 1d. The conditions as regards payment of the royalty for the boilers of the three ships in question provided for an instalment of one-half the royalty being paid upon the orders being placed for the construction of the machinery. Payment was accordingly made as soon as the orders were placed. Upon the receipt of the preliminary report of the Boiler Committee the Board decided to replace the boilers by those of other types, and the orders for the Belleville boilers were accordingly cancelled. The Admiralty was advised that Messrs. De Launay, Belleville and Co. were under no liability to repay the amounts paid. No other
    688
    action was possible. The total amount of the half-royalties in question was £4,582 13s. 4d.

    Taxation on South African Natives.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say when the Return on the rates of taxation paid by natives in British South Africa, ordered on 24th February, will be presented to the House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The information required has been in part received, and the return will be laid when it is complete. I have telegraphed to inquire when I may expect the complete information.

    Lendy Estate, Rhodesia.
    MR J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any report has been made to him as to the sale of the Lendy Estate in Rhodesia, a portion of which belonged to the late Mr. James Murray, who was a trooper in the colony, and purchased under the name of M'Gowan or M'Gavan; whether the Executor Dative has been able to dispose of the estate; and, if so, whether he can state the amount likely to be available for the representatives of the deceased.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Master of the High Court of Southern Rhodesia states that Murray's one-tenth undivided interest in Lendy's Estate is practically valueless, owing to the heavy accumulation of unpaid quit rent and other charges, and the fact that the terms of the title regarding bonâ fide occupation of the Lendy Estate have not been complied with, and that transfer cannot be passed to any purchaser owing to the whereabouts of many of the remaining joint owners not being known. A full report is on its way and I will communicate with the hon. Member on its receipt.

    Butter Adulteration.
    MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in respect of the persons prosecuted for selling butter containing more than 16 per cent. of water, he will say whether

    689
    any farmers were so prosecuted; and, if so, in what counties and in what month of the year the offences were committed.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): No complete information is available as to the number of prosecutions instituted in respect of the sale of adulterated butter since the 15th May last, when the Sale of Butter Regulations came into operation. In only one out of the thirty-five cases which have come under our notice has the defendant been described as a farmer. In that case the butter was sold in Lancaster on the 31st May last.

    Education Act.
    MR. ELLIOT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, if he can state what steps he proposes to take in view of the refusal of the County Council of Durham to put the Education Act in force in that county before April 1904.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The County Council of Durham, in common with some other councils, are desirous of making inquiries and preparations which may occupy a considerable time before bringing the Act into operation. In view of the possibility that the difficulty anticipated by these councils may have been over-estimated, the Board of Education have declined in any case to fix a later day than the 30th September; but a further postponement can be granted, and will be granted, if necessary.

    Lehud Harbour, County Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the entrance to Lehud Harbour, County Kerry, has been inspected by any official of the Congested Districts Board; and whether it is proposed to remove the rocks, in view of their danger to fishermen and the loss of life that they have caused within the last few years.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Board has, at present, so many works in hand, or in respect of which contributions have been promised, that it cannot undertake to incur expenditure at Lehud in the financial year commencing to-morrow. In these circumstances the local inspection has been postponed.

    Ireland—Industries at Sneem.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what assistance the Congested District; Board is prepared to give in order that a carding factory may be set up in the neighbourhood of Sneem, County Kerry, to deal with the local wool and encourage home spinning and local weaving.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Since this Question was placed on the Paper, the hon. Member has been supplied, I understand, with a copy of the Report made to the Board on this subject by its Inspector. That Report explains the difficulties to be met in undertaking a project of the kind suggested. Any further representations which the hon. Member may wish to make in the matter will be duly considered by the Board.

    Irish Crimes Act Disqualifications.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that fourteen persons have been disqualified from sitting or acting as county and district councillors in Ireland by reason of sentences imposed on them under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, the Government will propose legislation to remove this disqualification, or give facilities to enable private Members to pass such a Bill.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; I do not contemplate introducing any such legislation.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: As several Members of Parliament are among those thus disqualified, are the Govern-

    691
    ment prepared to give us a day to discuss the policy which brought about the disqualification?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That Question should be addressed to the Leader of the House. The disqualification depends on a statutory enactment.
    MR. CULLINANwas understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman had not embodied in his Land Bill the very principles for advocating which these men were sent to gaol.
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied that he had made his position on that point perfectly clear in his speech. He had no power to go behind the law.
    MR. CULLINAN: But if you have power to send men to gaol you can also remove this disqualification.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The power of dispensing the prerogative of mercy is a very different thing to that of instituting proceedings when we believe the law is being broken.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will you give a Return of the number of persons disqualified, and the reasons for disqualification?
    No answer was returned.

    Land Purchase at Rathcline.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds upon which the Land Commission have refused to complete the transfer to John Farrell, of Carrowstraley, Barony of Rathcline, of his farm, the advance of the purchase money, £124, of which they had previously sanctioned; whether, seeing that the tenant had been actually paying the instalments, he will explain why Farrell was put back to the position of a tenant to whom the Court will not sanction a sale; and whether, having regard to the fact that only four tenancies now remain unsold on this estate, he will represent to the Commission the desirability of letting this sale go through immediately.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commission has not refused to complete the sale to this tenant. The application for the loan of £124 was provisionally sanctioned by the Commission in February, 1901, but the advance cannot be made until the Land Judge has declared him to be the purchaser. The Receiver has now been asked to report whether Farrell has paid his arrears of rent and interest on the purchase money to last gale day. If the reply is in the affirmative the sale of the holding will be completed without further delay.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: There has been long delay. Will you press for a speedy termination of the case?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I anticipate a speedy termination.

    Irish Land Bill.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, following the precedent of the last Bill, he will lay on the Table a series of calculations showing how the proposed term under the Land Purchase Bill will work out as regards the purchasing tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I shall be glad to give all the information I can.

  LICENCE RENEWALS.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to give notice for next Tuesday to introduce a Bill to restrict the refusal of justices to renew or transfer licences solely because they are not required in a locality, until some equitable scheme of compensation is enacted by the Legislature.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make as to the course of business?
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Orders for Wednesday will include the Municipal Trading Motion, the Army (Annual) Bill, and other matters not disposed of on the Orders of to-day. On Thursday,

693
if the Speaker can be got out of the Chair before midnight, the Civil Service Estimates will be proceeded with, but I propose to take uncontroversial Votes as far as possible. On Monday I hope to take the Scotch Licensing Bill and the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill. On Tuesday, contrary to what I led the House to expect, I propose to have the London Education Bill, and to take the Third Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill. On Wednesday next week I shall propose a Motion for the holidays of such a character as, when carried, will prevent other business, either Government or private, being taken.
COLONEL WELBY: When will the Army (Annual) Bill be printed?
MR. BRODRICK: I hope in the course of to-day or to-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure the following fifteen members in respect of the County Councils (Bills in Parliament) Bill: Mr. Brigg, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Shepherd Cross, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Joseph Howard, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Llewellyn, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Peel, Colonel Sackville, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Tomkinson, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham).
Mr. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen members in respect of the Employment of Children Bill: Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas, Mr. Asquith, Sir George Bartley, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir Walter Foster, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Gray, Mr. T. M. Healy, Sir John Leng, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Pirie, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Crawford Smith, Mr. Parker Smith, and Mr. Spear.
MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee of Selection: That they
694
had discharged the following Member from the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899: Mr. Abel Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Sir John Tuke.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO WILD ANIMALS BILL.
  "To provide for the Prevention of Cruelty to Wild Animals," presented by Mr. Corrie Grant; supported by Dr. Shipman; to be read a second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
  FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
  "To amend the law relating to Fisheries in Ireland, and for the better protection thereof," presented by Sir Henry Seton-Karr; supported by Sir William Tomlinson, Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Colonel Nolan, and Mr. Yerburgh; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 26th May, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
  COAL MINES (CERTIFICATES) BILL.
  "To amend the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," presented by Mr. Samuel Evans; supported by Mr. Burt, Sir James Joicey, Sir William Tomlinson, Sir Alfred Thomas, and Mr. Abraham (Rhondda); to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No, 99.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No 99.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into considera-

  695
  tion upon Friday, 12th June, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a Grant for the development of Ireland (King's Recommendation Signified), tomorrow.—(Mr. Wyndham.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  [REPORTS OF MONEY COMMITTEES.]
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In moving the Resolution as to Ways and Means which stands in my name, I may say I do not think it requires much explanation. With one exception it is in the form in which it has been passed for many years without discussion or Amendment. The object is to enable Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means to be taken after twelve o'clock, and the only difference between this Motion and its predecessors is that it restricts its operation to Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means, and does not cover Reports of Supply as formerly. Owing to the recent reform of our Rules of Procedure, the House will not in future be asked to spend weary, and often, I fear, unprofitable hours after midnight in discussing Reports of Supply. But it would sometimes be extremely inconvenient if we could not take Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means, and I may cite as an illustration that last week, had any Member objected to its being taken, the whole business of Parliament would have been upset, and we should have had to interfere with a Private Members' day or take a Saturday sitting. Therefore it is with great confidence I ask the House to reaffirm the Sessional Order.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I only rise to express my gratification that the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to explain the change that has taken place in the form of this Sessional Order.
  Ordered, that the Proceedings on the Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means and other Committees authorising the Expenditure of Public Money may
  696
  be entered upon at any hour after midnight though opposed, and shall not be interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  SALE OF ADULTERATED BUTTER BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he rose with some regret to move practically the rejection of the Bill, with the main object of which he was in sympathy. The Measure professed to be a scheme to protect the honest producer and trader and the poor consumer; but that, he contended, was not a legitimate description. He considered that it was a Bill to legalise the sale of adulterated butter and to encourage the making of butter, by obsolete and inefficient methods. He proposed to verify that statement by a quotation from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. The President of the Board of Agriculture, in introducing the Bill a few weeks ago, said he was at a loss to understand the grounds of opposition to the Measure. He made the extraordinary statement—
  "I really do not know where the opposition is to come from, except from those interested in the sale of an adulterated article."†
  He did not know whether that cheer was supposed to signify that he (Mr. Kearley) was one of those, but he would remind the hon. Member who cheered, that ever since he had had the honour of a seat in the House, he had taken an active part in promoting legislation in the direction of purity of food. He took it, therefore, that the President of the Board of Agriculture excepted present company from his observations. He would endeavour to show that the opposition did not proceed from those who had an interest in the sale of adulterated articles, but that the President of the Board of Agriculture was really the friend of the adulterator. The necessity for having a standard of the percentage of water in butter,
  †See (4) Debates, cxviii, 1409.

  697
  had forced itself on the attention of the Government, and he was glad that the Government had realised it. What was needed was a definite standard and not the kind of standard set up by the Bill. The standard should be binding upon all. Some Members might take exception to setting up a standard at all; they might maintain that it would be a greater evil to have a standard than to leave the law as at present, because with a standard it would be necessary to have a reasonable margin so that the honest makers of butter might not be subjected to prosecutions. The right hon. Gentleman had recognised that and had pointed out that the standard of 16 per cent. was a very lenient one, because the average was nearer 11 or 12 per cent. If, therefore, the Board of Agriculture had made the standard of 16 per cent. a definite one it would not be onerous upon butter producers. There was always connected with standards the tendency to level up to them, but he was of opinion that the setting up of a standard was more beneficial than leaving the matter in a haphazard condition. If the Bill stopped at the setting up of a standard of 16 per cent. he should support it heartily; but it did not stop there. The Bill gave all sorts of extraordinary exemptions. In the first place it legalised for the first time the sale of an adulterated article. It would be legal in the future to sell an article called adulterated butter. That was entirely contrary to the spirit of all food legislation in the past. In the next place he took exception to the exemption from the standard of what was known as Irish firkin butter. Further, any butter which contained more than 16 per cent. of water, if it could be proved that the excess moisture was due to the ordinary processes of manufacture, was to be exempt from any penalty. He maintained that those three exemptions would be detrimental to the interests of the country, of the producer, the trader, and assuredly of the consumer. In regard to the first of these exemptions he pointed out that the avowed intention of the President of the Board of Agriculture was to kill the sale of an article known as milk-blended butter. But his contention was that by
  698
  fixing a definite standard of 16 per cent. the right hon. Gentleman would arrive at his desire in a much more practical and assured manner. The only way to kill that nefarious trade was to prohibit the sale of that doctored article altogether. In point of fact the clause of the Bill which was intended to kill the sale of adulterated butter would not have that effect at all. It would be perfectly possible to continue the sale of that article, either by calling it something else—say "So-and-so's solid cream," or by boldly calling it adulterated butter, but adding "adulterated with pure, rich, English milk, churned daily, drawn from the celebrated herds of prize-winning Alderney cows."
  MR. HANBURY: No words but adulterated butter would be permitted on the label.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would show him any clause in the Bill in which that was set out.
  MR. HANBURY: It is exactly the same as margarine. Nothing but margarine may appear on the label.
  MR. KEARLEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman was right. Nobody denied that there was a certain demand for this kind of article on account of the low price at which it was sold; but the effect of the legalisation of the sale of this adulterated article would be to stimulate competition in the supply of it, and genuine butter would be displaced in the market. If the sale of this article was to be legalised by Act of Parliament it would necessarily have a detrimental effect upon the production of pure butter, and so injure the interests of agriculture not only in this country but throughout the whole world.
  What was the position of Irish butter to-day compared with twelve years ago? Its reputation stood higher than it had ever done before, and it was able to hold its own with the finest productions from the rest of the world. Twelve years ago the case was very different. The industry was in a parlous state, owing to the competition of other countries,

  699
  particularly of Denmark; Irish butter had lost its reputation, and other butters had taken its place. The trade in Ireland had never been more prosperous or progressive than now. The creameries system was spreading throughout the land. But all the creameries and factories would be subject to the limitation of 16 per cent., and, so far from protesting, there was a disposition on their part to resent the exemption of any particular grade of Irish butter. According to a circular he had received, the out-turn of this particular butter was not large; it was described as a declining manufacture, and it was stated that the characteristics claimed for it were ceasing to find favour. The House was in this curious position—that exceptional treatment was claimed for the smallest section of Irish butter, because it was made by small hillside farmers, who, with their faulty methods and lack of practical knowledge, could not bring themselves into line with the standard being set up for the rest of the world. But Ireland was not the only country in which there were small hillside farmers. The small farmers of North Wales were probably in the same position as those of Ireland, but in their case no exemption was proposed. The value of the butter imported into this country amounted to £20,000,000 per year; the total production in Ireland was £8,000,000. The £20,000,000 worth of butter came from almost every country in Europe, from Asia, Western Siberia, North and South America, and every part of Australasia, and the whole of it would be subject to the 16 per cent. limitation. He contended that the proposed exemption would be injurious to Ireland itself. Ireland, the oldest butter-producing country in the world, would have her reputation disparaged by this treatment, because every dishonest vendor of butter in the British Isles who desired to sell the adulterated article would declare it to be Irish firkin butter. It would be the easiest thing in the world to connive with some one in Ireland to send over an invoice every week of a single firkin of Irish butter, which could be produced when the inspector of the local authority sampled the butter and found the percentage
  700
  exceeded. In every police court the fair fame of Irish butter would be dragged in the mire, and he appealed to those Irish Members who had the reputation of Irish butter at heart not to lend themselves to this exceptional treatment.
  What were the views of those who had the management of the largest butter market in Ireland? The Trustees of the Cork Butter Market, in their circular, pointed out that in 1880 there passed through that market 380,000 firkins of firkin butter, which quantity had fallen in 1902 to 52,000 firkins, and they estimated the total value of the firkin butter as being not higher than £960,000 per year out of a total Irish production of £8,000,000. Of the firkin butter which passed through Cork market in 1902, coming from Limerick, Clare, Waterford, Tipperary, and Kerry, as well as from Cork, 93 per cent. showed less than 16 per cent. of moisture and would, therefore, require no exemption, while of the remaining 7 per cent. the greater portion contained between 16 and 18 per cent. of moisture. The value of the butter with more than 16 per cent. of moisture was only £96,000 per year. Was it reasonable to ask the House to grant this exemption for so small a quantity? He did not agree with those Members who urged that unless this 20 per cent. was allowed the industry would be ruined. He believed the makers would accommodate themselves to the new condition of affairs. If the suggestion of a time limit would meet the views of those who held the contrary view, he would cordially support it. He was opposed to the Bill, in the first place, because it legalised for the first time the sale of an adulterated article, contrary to the spirit of the Adulteration Acts; secondly, because in so doing it would depreciate the value of the pure article, and be hurtful to the interests of the producer, distributor and consumer; and, thirdly, because it was only by setting up a definite standard, with no exemptions whatever, that this manipulation would be made impossible, because it would not be profitable to continue it. He hoped Irish Members who supported the exemption would

  701
  believe that he was not actuated by any feeling of hostility to their country in the course he was taking. He knew their country very well and he asked them to consider whether the advantages they would gain by this exemption would not be altogether overwhelmed by the disadvantages which must inevitably accrue to Ireland.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that this Bill had been brought before the notice of the House by the wrong Minister. The President of the Board of Agriculture was asking them to pass a new and most drastic law affecting one of the largest articles of commerce in this country, and in doing this he thought the right hon. Gentleman was out of place. Such a measure should be brought forward by the President of the Board of Trade, who would be able to look at the question from a broader standpoint. His hon. friend the Member for Devonport had pointed out the vast amount of commerce that would be affected by this Bill. He had told them that the imports of butter from abroad amounted to £20,000,000, and from Ireland the total amount was about £8,000,000 sterling. If they added to this the huge production of butter in this country, they would be driven to the conclusion that this was one of the largest articles of commerce handled by business men in this kingdom. The first objection he would urge against this measure was that it was not a simple Bill. It was one of the most pernicious examples of legislation by reference that they had ever had before the House. No one who read this Bill would be able to make head or tail of it unless he read the whole code of laws passed from the year 1875 down to the present year. Finally, after reading these Acts he would not get at the bottom of the position. A standard had been spoken of, fixed at 16 per cent. of water, but this was not clear on the face of the Bill. They would not find that 16 per cent. was fixed in the Bill of 1889. In that measure there was a clause empowering the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to fix the standard. In the ever fluctuating Government which he hoped
  702
  they would have in the future the next Minister might fix a different standard, and there would be no knowledge as to what the standard really was, because it might be constantly changed. For that reason they ought to throw out this Bill, and demand a more simple measure. They should demand that this Bill should be simplified, and a much plainer proposal made to the House.
  The Bill was a great deal too severe; when they looked through this measure and referred to the other Acts of Parliament they would find it was a most drastic Bill. It proceeded to say that if any breach occurred of the rule laid down in the first clause of the Bill the penalties embodied as amended should apply. Was the House aware that the Amendment thus included was three months imprisonment with hard labour for a breach of the rule laid down in the first clause of the Bill. The House ought to consider whether in regard to a great article of commerce like butter it was right to expose all classes in this country who might happen to touch this trade to this draconic punishment of three months hard labour. All the provision merchants, and grocers, and people engaged in the distribution of food of every kind in this country would be affected. It would be very hard for any honest trader to be dealt with in this way, and they ought to consider how it would affect the customs of the country to impose such a severe penalty for an offence which it might be very easy to make. The crime imposed by this Bill was a perfectly new one. Great improvements had taken place in the manufacture of butter, and one of the main improvements was that they had reduced the quantity of water. If through any inadequate manufacture, for which no one could be at all to blame, the quantity of water got above 16 per cent. then people were liable to be haled off to prison for three months hard labour. This was a very serious thing to do. He suggested that too much severity in these matters defeated its own object. It might be said that if a man sold something which was not as represented he was a scoundrel and ought to be punished. In a matter of this kind,

  703
  however, he thought it was much better to have a moderate penalty, and he ventured to suggest that this penalty was too severe, and would tend to defeat the object of the Bill.
  The introduction of Ireland into this Bill in regard to the butter industry was really one of the most pitiful cases that could be brought before the House. They got more butter from Ireland than from any other country, and if Ireland only had a decent Government he was sure they would get twice as much butter from Ireland. Nobody could tell exactly how much butter they got from Ireland, and that fundamental fact was one of the features of the Irish situation. His hon. friend read out the story of the destruction of the great Cork Market. That brought a great deal of misery to those who supplied the market, and led to an extraordinary and lamentable emigration. They could not speak of the Irish butter industry without a feeling of remorse that this House treated Ireland as it did. Denmark was a great rival to Ireland in the butter trade, but the Danish Government took steps to have its butter placed properly on the market. They knew exactly the amount of butter that came from Denmark and Australia, and other places, but they did not know what amount came from Ireland. What they did know was that it cost as much to bring a tub of butter from Ireland as from Denmark. He thought the House ought to hesitate before giving another blow to Ireland by passing a Bill of this kind. No doubt the President of the Board of Agriculture meant to be kind and considerate to Ireland when he put in this provision that a little more water should be allowed in Irish butter than that of any other country. His own belief was that Ireland suffered as much from legislation conceived in a spirit of kindness, but without knowledge, as it did from coercion imposed by this House. If this Bill passed at all they should go a little further than his hon. friend had suggested in order to protect Ireland. He agreed with his hon. friend's principle. But when his hon. friend came to suggest what he would do in view of the exceptional position of Ireland, he simply said that he would give a time limit of a few months before the strict
  704
  standard set up by the Bill would apply. He himself thought that should be enlarged. If they were to proceed at all let them take a somewhat lower standard. Let them take a standard of, say, 18 per cent. instead of 16 and 20, and lot that be set up equally for Ireland and for every other part of the country. He did not mean to say that that would be the quantity of water to sanction in the first qualities of butter, but when they were drawing the line they ought to give as much width to manufacturers and sellers as possible. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should withdraw the present Bill because it was too severe, and that he should bring in a simple Bill making the standard 18 per cent. If they were to draw a, line they should draw it somewhat broadly and leave an ample margin, and even then he would suggest that the penalties should be less than they were.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six month's.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid this Bill had his cordial support, because he believed that if it passed into law as it now stood it would be very much in the interest of pure butter. Clause I. of the Bill was as follows—
  "It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, expose for sale or import any butter mixture containing more than 20 per cent. of water, and every person who manufactures, sells, exposes for sale, or imports any butter or butter mixture which contains more than that percentage shall be liable on summary conviction to the penalties imposed by Section 4 of the Margarine Act, 1887, as amended by Section 17, Sub-section 2, of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899."
  He had taken the trouble to read the sections of the Acts mentioned, and he found that for the first offence it was a fine not exceeding £20; for the second offence a fine not exceeding £50; and for the third offence a fine not exceeding £100, or, if the Court were of opinion that a fine would not meet the circumstances of the case, the offenders might

  705
  be committed to prison with or without hard labour for a period not exceeding three months. He thought that would make for pure butter. Clause III. of the Bill provided that it would be held that any water in butter in excess of the prescribed limit was due to the addition of some substance unless it was proved to be due in the ordinary process of butter making. From these clauses it would be seen that butter could not lawfully contain more than 20 per cent. of water, and if it contained more than 16 per cent., which was fixed as the standard, the presumption would be that the butter was not pure until the contrary was proved. He considered that these clauses were very much in the public interest. They threw the onus on the defendant in the case of a prosecution, when the percentage was over 16 per cent., of proving that the butter was pure, and in that way they made it exceedingly difficult for any person to practice fraud in connection with this industry.
  Referring to the manner in which the question of Irish firkin butter was being treated in this Bill he said he must disagree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devonport regarding it. This butter was made in certain districts in the south of Ireland. It was sound-keeping butter. It was made to keep for six or eight months. Being brine-cured butter it necessarily contained a larger percentage of water than butter that was made for immediate consumption. That was an important point, and therefore he contended that it would be most unfair to fix the same standard for that class of butter as for butter which was made in a creamery for immediate consumption. The brine-cured butter had a large market in the manufacturing towns in the north of England. Its output, according to the evidence given before the Departmental Committee on butter regulations, being between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling annually. He held a letter in his hand from a commission agent in Manchester, who gave as one reason why this butter was popular in Lancashire and Yorkshire the fact that it could be taken by workers to the cotton mills because it stood the temperature better than creamery butter. That, of course, was very likely to make Irish salt butter a popular food with the
  706
  working classes in these counties. Did hon. Gentlemen who disagreed with the 20 per cent. standard for this class of butter contend that it could be made with the same percentage of water as creamery butter? If they did he had expert evidence against their opinion. But if they admitted that it could not be made with the same percentage of water as creamery butter, then why fix the same standard for it? Professor Tichborne gave evidence before the Departmental Committee as an expert in this matter. He said he was in favour of a dual standard of water in butter. He suggested a limit of 16 per cent. for creamery and 20 per cent. for salt butter. He stated that if a limit of 16 per cent. were fixed for the article, the trade in Ireland in it would be extinguished in five years, because two thirds of the producers could not make it at that limit, and everybody who sold the butter would be subject to prosecution. Professor Tichborne did not think any administrative difficulty would arise from the fact that there was a dual standard. In his evidence the hon. Secretary of the South of Ireland Butter Merchants Association stated that since 1895 there had practically been a 20 per cent. standard prevailing in Munster for salt firkin butter, and that the magistrates would not convict on anything under that percentage. Salt firkin butter made with brine could be kept for six months. The chief advantage of brining was that the butter would keep sweet and good for six months without becoming mottled or streaky, as butter made with dry salt sometimes did. He had received resolutions bearing out what he said which were passed by a number of public bodies in the South of Ireland, where the butter was made. The public bodies included Limerick Board of Guardians, Limerick County Council, Corporation of Limerick, Newcastle West District Council, and Newcastle West Town Commissioners. A resolution was passed in North Kerry to the same effect as the others. The South of Ireland Butter Merchants Association had also passed a resolution with similar purport.
  Now he came to what he considered an important resolution, in view of

  707
  the fact that a deputation from Cork waited on the President of the Board of Agriculture recently and stated, on behalf of the farmers of Munster, that firkin butter could be made with 16 per cent. of water, and that outside Cork only about 4,000 firkins of this butter were sold. The Cork butter merchants last year passed a resolution. The resolution set forth that having intimate trade connections and otherwise with large numbers of producers of butter under the firkin system, they were unanimously of opinion that the water in cured or salt butter should not be less than 18 per cent., and that any less would operate injuriously to the producers of and dealers in these butters, and would be detrimental to the general interests. From experience they were satisfied that dairy farmers could not in most cases after exercising the greatest diligence and care produce salt firkin butter with less than 18 per cent. of water. They considered that the industry would be greatly imperilled if a hard and fast standard of 16 per cent. were adopted. He had been informed that the deputation which waited on the Minister of Agriculture stated that outside of Cork only 4,000 firkins of this butter were sold. To that statement, if made, he was in a position to give the most positive contradiction. Mr. Gibson, Public Creamery Market, Limerick, one of the best authorities on the butter trade, in a recent letter to the Limerick Leader said that the total number of firkins sold in six of the firkin markets outside Cork during 1902 was 33,164; and he had only that morning received a letter from Mr. Gibson which stated that in seventeen butter markets outside Cork 93,539 packages of firkin butter were sold last year. The Listowel Urban Council in North Kerry also passed a resolution in condemnation of the action of the Cork Butter Market Trustees, and stating that there was the best practical proof that salt butter could not be manufactured under the standard fixed by Mr. Hanbury—20 per cent. They branded the statement that only 4,000 firkins of salt butter were sold outside Cork as misleading. The amount in
  708
  their district alone last year was 13,000 firkins. The Tipperary Board of Guardians passed a resolution since the First Reading of the Bill thanking the Irish Parliamentary Party for supporting Mr. Hanbury in fixing 20 per cent. as the standard amount of water in Irish firkin butter, and he had similar resolutions from many other public bodies. The only public body in Ireland which passed a resolution against the 20 per cent. standard was the Cork County Council. They said that the Irish salt butter was placed in the same category as margarine. That statement was ridiculous. Under the Bill there was nothing of the kind done. The Cork County Council also said that the Bill, if passed into law, would have a disastrous effect on the Irish butter trade. He disagreed with that statement. He considered that if the standard were fixed below 20 per cent. there would be numerous prosecutions, which would do far more to injure the butter trade than a 20 per cent. standard.
  He now came to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Butter Regulations, which was appointed in 1901. That Report, which was signed by the hon. Member for Devonport, who now objected to a higher percentage of water than 16, set forth that the real difficulty which the Committee felt in arriving at a decision arose from the existence in the market of a particular article which would be injuriously affected by a low standard. The evidence went to show that the manufacture of the salt firkin butter had materially decreased, and was now confined to the south-west of Ireland, though there was still a definite demand for it in Lancashire. Yorkshire, and Wales, on account of its low price, distinctive flavour, and long keeping qualities. It was a peculiarity of this butter, owing to the particular method of its manufacture, carried on for many generations, that it contained a higher percentage of moisture than any other butter coming into the market. This difficulty, the report continued, would be met by fixing two distinct limits—16 per cent. for ordinary butter, and another limit

  709
  for Irish firkin butter 20 per cent. The purchaser would be legally protected, provided sufficient disclosure as to the amount of moisture over 16 per cent. in the butter were made by the vendor. He wondered how the hon. Member for Devonport after signing that Report could object to a standard of 20 per cent. for Irish firkin butter. All the evidence adduced, and all the resolutions passed by public bodies, proved that this class of butter required special treatment; and if it were stated by the producers that it contained more than 16 per cent. of water, and we know it could not lawfully contain more than 20 per cent., it would comply with the provisions of the Bill. There could be no deception, neither could there be fraud, because the vendors to protect themselves would get a warrant in writing from the makers as to its genuineness. He supported the Bill also because it would go a long way—he hoped the full way—to stop the practice, which amounted to a fraud on the public, of blending milk with butter by means of a mechanical process in order to increase its weight and bulk. Anything which stopped the sale of milk-blended butter had his support. Under this Bill, if it was sold at all, it would be labelled "adulterated butter," and it should be stated that it contained more than 16 per cent. of moisture. Under these conditions he considered the article would not have a large sale, which would be no loss to the public. For all these reasons he supported the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman deserved the thanks of the public for bringing in this Bill, which was clearly in their interest. The Bill aimed at, and he had no doubt it would succeed, in putting a stop to fraudulent practices in the trade which had existed for along time. He heartily supported it; and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the clause exempting Irish salt firkin butter.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he presided over the Select Committee on the Sale of Food and Drugs which dealt with this question, and made recommendations with regard to it. It was largely an Irish question, and he would consider it from that standpoint. He agreed with one observation of the
  710
  hon. Member for West Islington, namely that the Bill was not a model of precision. It was a specimen of legislation by reference, and no one taking up the Bill could find out very well what its intention was. The history of the matter was as follows. The Committee which sat on the Sale of Food and Drugs recommended the setting up of a standard for milk and butter. A Departmental Committee sat afterwards to recommend a standard; and did recommend a standard of 16 per cent. of water in butter. That was to say that butter containing only 16 per cent. of water should be regarded as pure butter. The hon. Gentleman said he would prefer a general standard of 18 per cent. He objected to that, because the danger of all standardising was that the dishonest manufacturer worked up to the standard. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman amounted to this, that while it was admitted that ordinary butters could be made perfectly well with a percentage of water even less than 16 per cent., he would offer the dishonest manufacturer an inducement to work up to 18 per cent.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that that would not necessarily be dishonest.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that was a matter of casuistry.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the whole argument in support of this particular sort of butter showed that a higher standard should be admitted.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that if the hon. Gentleman had proposed a dual standard he could have understood it; but to have a general standard of 18 per cent., where 16 per cent. was admitted to be enough for ordinary purposes, would give the dishonest manufacturer an inducement to work to the higher standard. The Select Committee recommended a standard, the Departmental Committee recommended it, and for good or evil it had been adopted. The hon. Member for Devonport complained of the exemption of Irish salt butter; but the hon. Member was a member of the Select Committee on the Sale of Food and Drugs. He heard all

  711
  the evidence in favour of the exemption of Irish salt butter; and yet the Committee unanimously recommended as follows:
  "The weight of evidence is clearly to the effect that any standard for water under 20 per cent. would be unfair to the producers of the butter referred to."
  That recommendation was passed unanimously, and that was the basis on which the Bill was founded. The Departmental Committee came to the same conclusion, and adopted a standard of 16 per cent. for ordinary butter; recommending, however, the exemption of Irish salt butter. Surely it was therefore now too late for the Cork butter merchants to make a protest. It was true that the trade in this butter had diminished. Why? Because of the extraordinary increase in the creamery system in Ireland. That was to be expected; but the fact remained that Irish salt butter was a great article of commerce in the North of England, and had special qualities. It was proved in evidence that it was largely used in bakeries, where no other butter could stand the temperature. Why, for mere uniformity, should they run the risk of crushing out this trade? The Cork butter merchants were heard before the Select Committee, and their evidence did not substantially differ from the evidence of experts. The Bill was not a model of lucidity, but read in connection with the Act of 1889, it was perfectly plain. It meant that all butter with more than 16 per cent. of water was to be regarded as adulterated, with the exemption of this small class of butter; and that exemption he would support.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid he would support the Bill, especially the clause with reference to Irish salt butter. He lived in a district which was practically the centre of Ireland; even now there was a considerable trade in salt firkin butter there, and he should be sorry to see any legislation passed which would cripple that industry. There could be no greater misfortune than to leave the farmers absolutely in the hands of the creamery owners. He was not by any means inimical to the creamery system; but it was by no means an unmixed blessing, and it
  712
  contained many evils which, he was afraid, would in the future very seriously affect the industrial development of Ireland. Near Longford was the headquarters of a large butter factory which collected the cream of four or five counties, and exported large quantities of butter to England. But although that factory existed in the County of Longford, it did not make an appreciable inroad on the salt firkin butter industry; and salt butter to the value of £16,000 to £20,000 was still sold in the open market in the town of Longford. He thought, therefore, that to deprive the farmers of what he might call free trade in butter by reducing the percentage of water to 16 per cent., would be a very serious thing indeed; and would leave the farmers absolutely at the mercy of the creamery system. He looked with suspicion on the creameries, because they were merely gigantic frauds worked for personal gain, and not in the interests of either the farmer or the butter industry. He regarded the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with very great favour. He believed it would keep an open market for butter in Ireland and give the farmers a chance of competing with the creameries. For that reason, he cordially supported the Bill.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he took a very great interest in this matter having, as Chairman of the Select Committee which inquired into it, heard a good deal of evidence upon the subject. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman desired to improve the quality of butter in these islands, and keep bad butter out of the market, the proper course to adopt was to make a standard and stick to it, because by so doing he would benefit the public by insuring that they had a proper and wholesome article of food. Therefore he had not much affection for the first Clause of the Bill, which allowed the limit to be extended to 20 per cent., and did not stick to the original 16 per cent. limit. Any expansion of the 16 per cent. limit was a direct injury to the consumer. He had great sympathy with the Irish salt firkin butter industry. He knew that butter, which was a wholesome article of diet, and he should

  713
  be very sorry indeed to see it squeezed out of the market, but he thought the difficulty would be met by having a time limit for the introduction of the strict regulations with regard to Irish firkin butter. If, say, two or three years were given as a time limit, Irish firkin butter could be gradually brought up to the required standard, so that it would not come at once under the strict standard of the law. And if by those means Irish firkin butter could be improved it would be a benefit to the country; if it could not be improved the industry would gradually die away without causing any great hardships on those engaged in it. He wished to see Irish manufactures lifted up to the highest standard.
  One of the greatest difficulties in both this country and Ireland was that the slow and sluggish individual action of the farmers had been beaten by the co-operative enterprise of the farmers of other nations; that co-operative enterprise should be introduced more and more into this country, in order that the farmers should be stimulated up to a higher standard. He was still less in favour of the second Clause of the Bill, because it introduced a new principle altogether. In all their efforts at legislation in these matters their first object had been to prevent deleterious adjuncts being added to articles consumed by the people. They wanted to take care that any artificial provision of food should be in the direction of not injuring the health of the consumers. The right hon. Gentleman's object in the second clause was to do away with milk-blended butter. Although he (Sir Walter Foster) had no sympathy with the man who wished to sell it as pure butter he had no sympathy with those who would stop the people buying a cheap article of food when they could not afford the dearer one, so long as the article was a wholesome one and contained only the constituents of milk and cream. Milk-blended butter was a wholesome and pleasant article to take and was better, in his opinion, than margarine, which in itself was by no means unpleasant. That being so he did not see why there should be any special clause put into any Bill for the purpose of stamping out this article of
  714
  commerce. If it contained a larger quantity of moisture than butter should contain it could easily be dealt with under the section of the law which dealt with the matter. If it contained no more water than butter should contain then it was a benefit to the public because it came at a cheaper price. If these were not useful and wholesome articles of food sooner or later they would go to the wall in favour of better articles. He did not want, anything which the right hon. Gentleman might do to prevent adulteration of butter to interfere with a proper and wholesome article of food being supplied to the people. While he generally approved of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman in endeavouring to make butter as pure as possible he did not think he should interfere with articles of food which were not unwholesome in themselves. The second clause had raised a good deal of opposition in the country, and if it could be either dropped or modified in such a way as to allow milk-blended butter to come within the Act, and if the right hon. Gentleman could also do something in the way of a time limit or give a dual standard, so as not to interfere with one of the national industries of Ireland, he would receive his support to the Bill.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had condemned every proposal in the Bill while apparently giving some approval to it. He hoped on this side of the House, at any rate, some encouragement would be given to the honest producer and that the consumer would be protected against fraud. That was the object of this Bill No consumer required a large proportion of water in his butter when he bought it; he was quite content with the 16 per cent. There seemed to be some misapprehension in the minds of dairy farmers with regard to the proposed 20 per cent., but in his opinion they were misled by the involved character of the Bill. The important part of the Bill was contained in the second clause. The standard limit was 16 per cent. though good butter could be made with only 11 per cent., but in making a standard it was necessary to leave a considerable margin; when in the forefront of the Bill however they met with

  715
  a clause which forbade the sale of butter containing more than 20 per cent. of water, everybody jumped to the conclusion a new standard had been made for English butter. Irish butter was quite a different article, and the proper way to deal with the matter would have been to put down two standards for the two different articles. He admitted that the first clause laid down the standard not for butter, but for adulterated butter. Everything containing more than 16 per cent. of moisture was to be called adulterated butter, and it was not to be sold if it contained more than 20 per cent. That, however, was not generally understood, and it was doubtful whether, having drawn the line between butter and adulterated butter, the Government should not go further and forbid altogether the sale of butter coming within the term "adulterated."
  MR. FLYNNsaid there was a general consensus of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill, and most of the points which had been raised could be more adequately dealt with in Committee. He believed the standard of 16 per cent. of moisture was not too strict, and although he had urged that view on a former occasion he had had no protests from his constituents. The proposed exemption would brand with the mark of inferiority the great bulk of Irish butter. But he did not intend to vote against the Second Reading, because he believed protection was necessary for the honest trader and buttermaker. It was not possible for the Cork Butter Market Trustees to place their figures before the Committee of last year, because it was not until the beginning of the year that they began to take careful analyses of every package of butter. Most of the speeches in favour of the higher limit ought to have been made a quarter of a century ago. If in County Cork it was possible to keep within the 16 per cent., why could it not be done in Limerick? It certainly could be done if an effort were made, and to enable it to be done a time limit might be given.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): I agree with the hon. Mem-
  716
  ber opposite that most of the points which have been raised could be better dealt with in Committee than on the Second Reading of the Bill. The speeches of the mover and seconder of the Amendment were most contradictory, but I confess that of the two I agree a great deal more with the hon. Member for Devonport, because for the life of me, I could not gather whether the hon. Member for West Islington was in favour of, or opposed to adulteration. I rather thought he had a sneaking feeling in its favour, but the hon. Member for Devonport opposed the Bill, not because it is too drastic, but because it is not drastic enough. If the Bill is to be opposed on any ground, that certainly is the ground which would be most acceptable to me. I am as strongly in favour of doing everything that can be done to put a stop to adulteration, consistently with public opinion, as the hon. Member for Devonport himself, and my only fear with regard to this Bill has been that of going ahead of public opinion. If I have made a mistake in the matter, it is probably, as the hon. Member for Devonport thinks, because the measure is not stringent enough.
  The criticisms made by the hon. Member for Devonport really embody all the objections raised to the Bill. He said he would support a hard and fast 16 per cent. from which no departures whatever were allowed, and pointed out that the cause of butter containing a greater percentage than 16 per cent. of moisture was frequently careless making. In so doing he attacked the idea of having any presumptive standard, and declared that the standard must be fixed, and that all butter containing moisture above the standard, whatever might be the cause of the excess, ought to be condemned. That is not the view that Parliament has taken. Parliament has not enabled me to fix anything but a presumptive standard. The only authority given to me is to fix a standard implying that butter or milk is not genuine if it contains water above the standard fixed. That is true of all the articles in regard to which I am allowed by Act of Parliament to fix a standard, and I think it would be very hard for the honest man, especially for a poor or ignorant man, who, through poverty or ignorance—with every

  717
  intention of making a genuine article—makes a butter slightly above the standard, to be condemned without being given an opportunity of proving that the article is genuinely made. That brings me to the second objection which the hon. Member raises to the Bill. He complains that butter or butter mixture which contains more than 16 per cent. of water, and which, moreover, contains added water deliberately worked into it, up to 20 per cent., should be allowed to be sold, and says that this is a new departure. It is not, however, a new departure, because margarine is very much on the same footing. Hon. Members are aware of the kind of butter which was the main cause of this Bill being brought in, but I shall be perfectly willing to consider in Committee whether the suggestion of the hon. Member on this point can be met. The facts of the case are these: Colonial butter containing only 9 or 10 per cent. of water is bought by manufacturers of this milk-blended butter because that kind of butter is so dry that it lends itself to the addition of a large amount of water, and a large amount is added, sometimes up to as much as 25 per cent. This article is sold to the public not as adulterated butter, which it really is, but, on the contrary, as butter blended with milk, and it is represented as being very much better than the proper butter. That is a thing which this Bill will put a stop to. The hon. Member opposite is quite mistaken in saving that it will be possible for this particular firm, or those who make this milk-blended butter in the future, to describe it in the same terms which they have hitherto used with regard to it. That will be quite impossible. The Bill follows the analogy of the Margarine Act.
  The hon. Member for Ilkeston argued that adding a large volume of water to butter did not constitute adulteration. I thought that was one of the strangest arguments from a gentleman in the position of the hon. Member that I ever heard, and he put it forward in the interests of the consumer. If there is one consumer who ought to be protected it is the poorest class of people who buy this butter, and the doctrine of caveat emptor is a very dangerous
  718
  doctrine indeed. Even if the poor consumer is told what the percentage of water is he does not understand it, and therefore it is absolutely necessary if the consumer is to be protected against an adulterated article that it should be called by its true name, and that name is, adulterated butter. I agree with a good, deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Devonport on this matter, and I shall be perfectly prepared to consider in Committee amendments which will get rid of what seems to him to be a, somewhat cumbrous matter in the Bill, namely, this distinction between 16 and 20 per cent.; it is not a new standard, but simply a provision that butter may be adulterated up to 20 per cent. Possibly as the Bill stands, the compulsory term of adulterated butter might kill the trade. I am not so sure that that would be the case, but it will be well to consider in Committee whether, in the interests of the honest producer and the poorest consumer, it is not better to kill a trade of this kind by not allowing any adulteration of butter at all.
  Then comes the question of the Irish salt firkin butter. This is a matter more for the Committee than for the present stage, but I think it ought to be remembered that this is by no means so small a trade as has been represented. I think the Committee of the Cork butter market have understated the amount of salt butter of this kind which is sold outside the Cork butter market. If it be true that only 7 per cent. of this butter coming to that market contains over 16 per cent of water. I was very much struck by finding what a large trade there was outside the Cork butter market. It is not only a large trade, but it is one in which many of the poor farmers in the south of Ireland are interested. It is a trade not only of importance in Ireland but of considerable importance in our own manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire; and it would be a very wrong thing to kill by one blow a large and old-established trade like this. At the same time I should like those hon. Members from Ireland who are interested in this trade, and who are interested, as I am sure they are, in

  719
  raising the standard of butter making generally in Ireland, to consider whether, as this is a diminishing trade, it would not be reasonable to put a stop to it by fixing some kind of a time limit. I am open to suggestions on that point. Meanwhile I shall have a good deal more definite information placed before me.
  The authorities of the Cork Butter Market promised to send me suggestions in support of the evidence they put before me through their deputation, but I have not yet had that information. When I receive it I shall be glad to see whether it is possible to verify some of the statements made before me, which, I must confess, very much astonish me. I am glad that, on the whole, the principle of the Bill is accepted, but I shall keep an open mind with a view to strengthening it in Committee in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Devonport. These are, however, matters more for the Committee stage than for the Second Reading. I am glad that the House is in favour generally of the principle of the Bill, and I hope that any further criticism will be reserved for the Committee stage.
  SIR EDWARD STRAGHEYcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon an improved Bill. He was one of those who desired to see this measure strengthened, and he acknowledged that 20 per cent. of water might be high in some cases. He suggested that it would be better not to have a sliding scale between 16 per cent. and 20 per cent. The question was whether any injustice would be done if there was no sliding scale. As far as he was aware, even under the present regulations, i.e., 16 per cent. limit, there had been no prosecutions of farmers for selling butter under the standard. The present regulations had been enforced for something like one year, and if there had been any grievances in regard to them the right hon. Gentleman would have heard of them. The fact that they had had no complaints in regard to the present standard appeared to show that it was a safe limit. This view was borne out by some very interesting experiments made at the Dairy Show at Islington in 1901. There were fifty-three lots of butter
  720
  analysed out of the butter sent to compete for prizes at the show, and they showed an average of 13·28 per cent. of water. There were ten lots of butter tests also analysed, and they showed a percentage of 14·52, and there were eleven lots from the working dairy which showed an average percentage of 12·11. This showed that out of seventy-three lots of butter the average percentage of water was a very low one indeed. On the other hand it was quite true that there was in the case of one of the exhibits of butter an instance where the percentage of water rose to 18·65 per cent., but there was also an exhibit taken where the lowest percentage of water was 9·95. In regard to butter test lots, the lowest was 12·85 and the highest 16·90. In the working dairy the lowest percentage was 11·5 and the highest 13·45. These figures showed that butter, with one exception, came well within the limit. As to butter made by small farmers, and it was desirable that the House should consider whether the standard was not a little too high. He thought if they wanted something higher than 16 per cent. 18 was high enough. The hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division had said he thought this might be an interference with the food of the people. He agreed with the President of the Board of Agriculture that it was nothing of the kind. It was an interference with allowing the food of the people to be adulterated and "faked." The hon. Member might as well say that interference with the putting of water in milk was an interference with the food of the people. If his hon. friend carried that argument forward it would be very dangerous indeed, as it would lead to working men's food being adulterated. It seemed to him most essential that working men should be protected in connection with this question as well as producers and retailers.
  MR. BONDsaid he intervened in the debate because he had received a petition, with reference to the Bill, signed by a number of the inhabitants of Nottingham. Judging from the signatures and addresses of the petitioners, they were people of the poorer class. What they said was that they had learned that the avowed object of the

  721
  Bill was to prevent the sale of milk-blended butter by giving it the obnoxious and offensive title of adulterated butter. They asserted that they had for a long time bought milk-blended butter, knowing what they were buying, and preferred it as a cheaper article. That petition showed that these people were in the habit of buying milk-blended butter, that they knew it was not the ordinary butter of commerce, and that for reasons of their own—among them that it was suited to their palates and cheaper—they preferred to buy the milk-blended to the ordinary butter. Then why in the world should not the present practice continue? Why should these people be deprived of the article they wanted? As he understood the matter, the Adulteration Acts were intended to prevent consumers of food from being poisoned or cheated. They could not say that this milk-blended butter would poison people, and the question of fraud had been dealt with in the Court of Appeal, and it had been decided that there was no fraud at all in the matter of milk-blended butter, for it had been found to be in accordance with its description, and that the consumers were not taken in. Under the circumstances he thought there was a great deal in the remarks of the hon. Member for the Ilkeston Division. He thought they ought to pause long before sanctioning the Second Reading of a Bill which, if it were once allowed to pass, would cause milk-blended butter to lose its raison d'être. The Bill proposed a wholly unnecessary departure. If the hon. Member for Devonport went to a division he should vote with him, though not for the reasons which he gave.
  MR. CULLINANsaid he met the hon. Member for Devonport in his own county in Ireland some years ago, and from the interest he took in the butter trade then, he was sure that he was acting with the best intentions in the course he was taking with regard to this matter. But, after all, those who were immediately concerned were those whose appeals should receive greatest consideration. In a portion of his constituency there was perhaps the finest butter-producing land in the world. It was generally known as the Golden Bay.
  722
  In that district they certainly had a good many creameries in which mild-cured butter was manufactured, but, at the same time, there were a great many farmers who were still manufacturing salt butter, and who preferred the old system to the new system in operation in the creamery. He knew a number of farmers who for a while sent milk to the creameries, and who now treated it in the ordinary manner because they found it was more remunerative to do so. Most extraordinary efforts used to be made by the co-operative creameries to force all into their factories, and to leave the farmers no option. He held that it would be highly injurious to the dairy farmers of Ireland if they were to limit the production of butter to these co-operative societies. The fact of the farmers being able to manufacture their own butter was a guarantee that the trade would not be seriously injured. Irish salt butter was a speciality, and there was no other butter in the world could compete with it. They had every reason to be thankful to the President of the Board of Agriculture for having taken up this question. He was rather disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would consider some Amendments on the Bill in view of what had been said by the hon. Member for Devonport. The right hon. Gentleman said he would consider the suggestion as to putting on a limit. That was a very serious matter. He had admitted that the Cork deputation had put forward some information which was not correct. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to receive information from the Cork deputation, the hon. Member hoped he would give those who supported the Bill an opportunity of supplying information later on.
  MR. MCGOVERNsaid that if a stranger had entered the House and listened to the debate he might have imagined that there was no butter made except in Cork and Limerick. He came from a district where much interest was taken in this question, and where as good butter was made as in Cork or Limerick. In those two counties, which were occupied by small dairy farmers, a large

  723
  quantity of butter was made under the old system, although there were also a large number of creameries. He agreed with the hon. Member for Devonport in what he said in regard to adulterated butter, but he disagreed with him in the statement that the Irish farmers purposely adulterated their butter with water. They could not have the same amount of water in the butter made in various districts of the country. The weather and the temperature had a great effect, and no matter what a farmer might do he would have to leave more water in his butter at one time than at another. He thought it unfortunate that there should be two standards for Irish butter. There should be a uniform standard. He thought 16 per cent. was too low and 20 per cent. too high, and if the standard were made 18 per cent. he believed it would meet the views of that part of the country he represented.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that he did not wish to give a silent vote. Along with many other hon. Members he had experienced a good deal of difficulty in making up his mind whether to support or to oppose this Bill. He had, however, come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Devonport, but for entirely different reasons. It was not often that he could give even a qualified support to an Agricultural Bill of the present Government, and he acknowledged that some restrictions should be put on the amount of water in butter offered for sale as butter. They were all agreed that if the working man desired to buy butter he should be enabled to do so, and not incur the danger of having to pay for a great amount of water. But a great amount of Irish salt butter was sold in Lancashire—he had known of that from childhood—and the House should be very chary in doing anything to prevent the sale of that article. He objected to the use of the words "adulterated butter" in Clause 2. It appeared to him that these were most unfortunate words. They did not strike at water, but at something else—milk-blended butter. Why should a stigma be put on a good article of food which was cheap enough to be within the reach
  724
  of all the people in the country? If the right hon. Gentleman was going to enforce the sale of milk-blended butter as adulterated butter, it would practically stop the sale of that article, because they all knew the working man objected to the word "adulterated." The hon. Member for Somerset said that the working man ought to be protected from adulteration, but if the working man was told that he was buying water-logged butter or milk-blended butter he would not be imposed upon. It was all a question of price. These articles were in every respect excellent articles of food, and he most strongly protested against the insertion of the words "adulterated butter" with the view of stopping their sale. If the right hon. Gentleman would say now that he had an open mind in regard to the use of the words "adulterated butter," he would gladly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill; but he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had not an open but a closed mind in this regard; and for these reasons he would most unwillingly have to vote against the Bill.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEthought that all Mould agree that the aim of this Bill was one which should be supported from every quarter of the House—viz., to put a stop to the sale of adulterated butter. But he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture would give him some assurance that he would insert a clause to enable sanitary inspectors to' take, at any place, samples of butter or butter mixture which they considered might be of an adulterated character, and thus protect the retail sellers in the Metropolis. The Corporation of London, as the sanitary authority, already possessed powers to enable their sanitary inspectors to take samples of milk when those samples seemed by them likely to be injurious to health and life; and he should like to see all sanitary authorities granted similar powers in regard to butter and butter-mixtures. The public would thus be protected and the authorities would be able to strike home at those who were realy responsible for sending adulterated articles into the market.
  MR. LUNDONsaid that the adulteration of butter and food supplies of every kind was very prevalent in England, and they did not seem to know where to stop or draw the line of demarcation. It would have been better for Ireland if margarine and blended butter had never been seen either there or in England. Butter by itself was not poisonous, and milk by itself was not poisonous; but when the two elements were put together, and the compound kept for two or three weeks, the amount of milk in it must soon become poisonous. Hon. Gentlemen would not like to have such butter on their own tables, but they were quite ready to say, "Let the working men have it." He spoke on this matter not only his own opinion but that of very many farmers' clubs, boards of guardians, and district councils in Limerick, Clare, and Tipperary. From the lordly Shannon to the Devil's Bit there was an area of over 600 square miles which contained only four creameries. What would happen to the farmers in that territory if Irish salt butter was not exempted? Why should the Minister for Agriculture introduce a time limit? It was put in to show that the farmers in Munster were slovenly, and were not prepared to take the times as they came; and, later, lecturers from Mr. Horace Plunkett's Department would be sent round to enlighten them. They had been making Irish firkin butter in Munster for a hundred years which defied all the competition of the English markets. These farmers had abandoned the old brown firkins, and now used white firkins. Everything was washed and properly prepared; and there was a great improvement all round. It might be possible that when railways were introduced into that part of Ireland to which he referred the promoters of creameries would decide to build creameries in the districts concerned; but when the creameries were built, the cost of the carriage of the cream and of the butter would have to be borne by the farmers, who would be bled through the nose.
  When the Bill was before the House last session, a man wrote to him and asked if he intended to put the seal of dishonesty on dishonest butter. He
  726
  wrote back and asked his correspondent if there was any creamery in his locality, but his correspondent did not reply. He then wrote to some friends in the locality, and found that his correspondent was connected with a creamery for which he did all the cartage; and, of course, he was prepared to say that black was white in favour of the people who employed him. Within the last forty-eight hours he had received a communication in direct contravention to all the other commmunications he had received, to the effect that Irish salt firkin butter could be made at the 16 per cent. standard. He replied that he did not wish to be insulted. He, however, wished to get behind the curtain and see who was there. It was the capitalist; he was everywhere in this fight. It was all a question of money, and a struggle between the capitalist and the poor unfortunate farmer. Every impostor in the world used the working man as his theme. Money was everything. Money was the motive power, the greatest power on this earth. It was responsible for everything that was wrong; and it was the motive power behind the opposition to this Bill. The capitalist could get every agency under Heaven to prove that he was right, and that everyone else was wrong. He saw in the Press recently a report of a deputation which represented the views of the Cork butter merchants to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was all candour; and he very candidly said that he discounted a great deal of what had been stated by the deputation. Some of their statements were grossly misleading; some were more or less true; but one at least was a downright falsehood. The deputation represented that a certain number of firkins containing Irish salt butter passed through their market every year; and that only 7 per cent. were over the 16 per cent. standard. He would tell hon. Members for their edification that very little salt butter was made in Cork at all. The butter there was composition butter, taken over by factory men, and put before the world by the Cork merchants as genuine Irish salt firkin butter.
  The reasons why he supported the exemption of Irish salt firkin butter were numerous. For the most part the makers were poor farmers, many of them the poorest of the poor. In his own part of

  727
  the country very few farmers were engaged in the industry, except the farmers who had turned away from the creameries. But there were other parts of Limerick and Glare not so favoured by Nature, consisting mainly of mountain bog, on which it was impossible to make butter on the 16 per cent. standard. If the farmers in these districts were deprived of their industry they would be thrown on the world. Forty or fifty years ago, when Ireland had 9,000,000 inhabitants, the farmers could raise, with the help of their sons, oats, barley, and in some districts wheat. But that day had passed, and would not return. The farmers' sons went to America to make their livelihood there. Some of the daughters were also in America and others were at home. But if they were deprived of this industry, what chance would the farmers have of making their living? At present, under the creamery system, boys were deprived of their education by having to spend half-a-day in taking milk to the creamery. This was a go-a-head age. They had now under-water machines, and machines that almost flew to Heaven; but in Ireland there were boys, who ought to be at school, driving donkeys, jennets, and horses to the creameries. Meantime, the creameries were playing pitch-and-toss with the farmers' interests, and the result was that there were lads of sixteen or seventeen years of age who were fit for nothing but the Militia. There were Militiamen by the thousand in the country, who not only could not use a pen, but who could not handle a flail or a hook.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must pay more attention to the Bill before the House. He is rather wandering from the subject.
  MR. LUNDONsaid that the Bill reminded him of the Procrustean bed, where the legs of the captives laid on it were cut off by the tyrant if they were too long.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to discuss the Bill before the House, which deals with adulterated butter.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he only mentioned the Procrustean bed as an illustration of what the Bill was like. There were methods of destroying Ireland in every shape and form. One was landlordism; and now there was this attempt to destroy the Irish salt firkin butter, with the result that the farmers were between the Scylla of landlordism and the Charybdis of the gombeen merchant with his 16 per cent. standard. He would show that a revolution was possible in Ireland over this butter question.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It will not be in order for the hon. Member to enter into that.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he did not intend to roam at large over the whole question, but he would inform the President of the Board of Agriculture that the time limit was a dangerous and insidious attempt to accomplish what would otherwise not have been possible. It was an all-round age of progress. Chemicals and electricity now ruled the world. It was even said that the deleterious matter in butter could be removed by the aid of chemicals, and that farmers could reduce the salt they used in butter from four pounds a firkin to two pounds. He did not think, however, that that was likely to occur in the immediate future, and he would impress on the Minister for Agriculture that the views of the supporters of the time limit were false and insidious.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid they had heard a great deal of rail-way facilities being required under the Bill, and of the impossibility of adopting the 16 per cent. standard in the Cork districts. He came from West Cork, and although some portions of his constituency were distant from the railway, the people were entirely in favour of the 16 per cent. standard. Twenty-five years ago the people of West Cork had an antiquated system of making heavily-salted butter, but in order to compete with other farmers they abandoned that system, and now made butter that could command the best prices. He had received letters from merchants doing enormous business, who declared in

  729
  favour of a 16 per cent. standard, and in one instance the writer had asserted that butter could be made at 12 per cent. The information given by the Trustees of Cork Market had been challenged, but before the Bill passed though Committee, those Gentlemen would satisfy the President of the Board of Trade of the accuracy of their statements, and that the information he had recently received was not correct. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if in addition to the time limit he would allow the Cork Trustees to retain the 16 per cent. standard as the proper one for their brand, and to refuse any butter in the market over that standard. They believed it would be a retrograde step to adopt a 20 per cent. standard, and that it would strike a serious blow to the Irish butter industry in the United Kingdom.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the issues of this Bill had been so fully debated that little remained to be said so far as the people were concerned, but, before the debate closed he desired to associate himself with some of the objections made to the Measure. He associated himself with the objection made by the hon. Member for Islington with regard to the drafting of the Bill. It was simply monstrous that hon. Members had to spend hours in the library looking up previous statutes in order to understand it, and it was not to be expected that other people could understand it if Members had to go to this labour in referring to past legislation. Legislation by reference was a very bad system, and if he remembered tightly, the right hon. Gentleman himself in the past, was one of the most ardent critics of that system. It was interesting to observe while they were discussing the basis of the Bill, that the 16 per cent. standard in butter was not included either in this or any previous Hill. What had been done had been to give the Department power to issue a regulation establishing a 16 per cent. standard, and it was necessary to make the Bill plain, if only on that account. He was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had no intention under his Bill of making adulteration legal, but as the Bill was drafted it would be
  730
  possible for a trader to sell an adulterated article which only contained 10 per cent. of butter. Very possibly the right hon. Gentleman had it in his mind that the Margarine Act would cover that, but as a fact, it would not do anything of the kind, and therefore he was glad the point was to be considered in Committee. The only other point to which he wished to refer was identical treatment. If they were going to set up a standard for butter, everybody must be treated alike, and upon that question he hoped the hon. Gentleman would keep an open mind. If the standard was to be 16 per cent., let it be so, and if it was proved that Irish butter could not be made at 16 per cent., then he would say rather than have two standards they should split the difference and say it should be 18 per cent. all round. He believed in the long run that would be found to the interests of the Bill, and the Irish firkin butter industry as well. To retain a time limit he believed would be most dangerous.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid it was a new departure to sanction the sale of an article of food as an adulterated article, but it was perfectly right because, if the proportion of water was too great, the vendor would be liable. If this new departure was adopted he hoped it would be carried a great deal further, because one of the difficulties they met with in dealing with adulterated food products was the label on the articles themselves. It was possible for a man to mix his coffee or cocoa, and sell it as a mixture, in a neat package with an attractive label, accompanied by all manner of commendatory epithets. But who were imposed upon? The innocent person who took a fortnight's holiday in the country would naturally want to buy some country butter, and in the shop, alongside the good country butter, he would find somebody's milk-blended butter, done up in a nice little basket and so forth. Such a person really did not know he was buying milk-blended butter, and that was the class that required to be protected. He should support the Bill because it was intended to bring home to the purchaser what he was buying, and to render it impossible

  731
  for the operation of the Food and Drugs Act to be defeated by the dealer sheltering himself behind some description of the mixture. The Bill took a long step in the direction of honest trading, and would protect a great industry; on that ground he should give it his cordial support.
  MR. BRIGGsaid there was no doubt that milk-blended butter was being sold, but who was injured thereby? The person who bought it was not, because he knew perfectly well what he was buying and desired to have it. The butter was supposed to be improved by the process to which it had been subjected, and if the public desired to have butter in that form he did not see why they should not have it. If it was possible to improve butter in ways not yet discovered, there was no reason why it should not be done, so long as the butter itself suffered no detriment. This particular article was simply an improved form of butter, and it was a mistake to call it adulterated butter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that so far as the part of the country with which he was connected was concerned the right hon. Gentleman could rest assured that his Bill had the thorough approval of all interested. He hoped that when the measure got into Committee the right hon. Gentleman would not allow himself to be carried away by the suggestions which had been made, but would stand by the Bill, which had the approval of the vast majority of the people of the country.
  MR. STEVENSON, while agreeing that the phrase "adulterated butter" was an awkward one, thought the Bill deserved to go upstairs to the Grand Committee to be carefully considered in the light of the evidence, which would no doubt be referred to. There were, however, some important points in regard to which the Bill would require alteration. If there was one thing more important than another, it was that there should be no deterioration in the standard as set forth in a measure of this kind. If anything the standard should be raised rather than lowered,
  732
  because all the progress and improvement of dairy operations tended in that direction.
  MR. O'MARAcontended that a time limit in the case of Irish butter would not meet the case, as the districts concerned would not be able to alter their methods in the time which had been suggested. At the same time he was strongly of opinion that a universal standard should be set up. But Irish firkin butter could not be brought within the 16 per cent. limit, and it was very doubtful whether all creamery and non-salted butter could be. The figures of the Cork Butter Market Trustees which had been quoted went to prove that 16 per cent. was an unworkable standard. He largely sympathised with the view that the proposed exemption would cast a slur on all Irish butter, and, therefore, would like to see a universal standard adopted. He would much prefer 20 per cent. to 16 per cent., but, failing 20 per cent., would like to see 18 per cent. fixed as the standard. The Bill was a very confused measure, and contained Clauses which no one could understand. Admittedly the measure did not do away with adulteration or with the milk blending of butter. He should like to see a stop put to fraud of all kinds in connection with food. This Bill allowed milk-blended butter up to 20 per cent. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put a stop to this milk blending of butter altogether and adopt a standard that would be satisfactory to everybody?
  MR. O'MALLEYsaid that in the general interest of the Irish butter industry he was sorry to differ from some of his own colleagues upon this matter. The hon. Member for Cork favoured 16 per cent., while others favoured 20 per cent. of water. He was disposed to support the view expressed by his hon. colleague from the north of Ireland, who suggested that to meet the difficulties which were inevitable the best course would be to assume a medium course and fix the standard of butter at 18 per cent. water. He should be sorry to see the Irish firkin butter trade injured by this change, and he strongly recommended the right hon. Gentleman to carefully consider whether

  733
  the medium course of a universal standard of 18 per cent. could not be adopted.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid if the House would allow him he should be glad to withdraw his Motion, because he was satisfied with the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. HANBURY: I move that this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLpointed out that the Committee on Law was practically idle, and he thought if this Bill were referred to that Committee, it would go through quicker. He suggested that it should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law instead of the Standing Committee on Trade.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he hoped his right hon. friend would not consent to that course, because there had been more Bills recently sent to the Standing Committee on Law. To refer this measure to a legal Committee would have the effect of leaving out those hon. Members who were interested in agricultural matters.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICEthought this was a Measure which ought rather to go to the Standing Committee on Trade.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he felt that this Bill ought not to be sent to a Committee at all. It was a measure of such general interest that it ought not to be referred to any Committee, because many hon. Members who took a keen interest in the subject would be deprived of any opportunity of taking part in the discussions on this Bill if it were sent to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. MCGOVERNthought this measure would get through a Committee of the House in about an hour, and
  734
  he did not think it should be sent to a Committee upstairs.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman would probably get his Bill quicker through a Committee of the House than by sending it upstairs. He did not think this was a measure which ought to be passed quietly upstairs, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take the measure in the House.
  Committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  THE SHEEP SCAB BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  MR. DALZIELsaid he hoped this Bill would not go through without a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HANBURY: This Bill requires very little explanation. It is intended to remedy what is undoubtedly a defect in the Diseases of Animals Act. Under the existing law the County Council, who are the local authority, only have to order dipping in two cases—namely, when the disease of sheep scab has actually broken out, or as a condition precedent to moving. What is desired is that the local authority shall have power to order dipping apart from either of those conditions, and it is simply to invest them with that power that the Bill is introduced.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  CONTRACTS (INDIA OFFICE) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. When the powers of the East India Company were transferred to the Crown, it was enacted that all contracts made by the Secretary of State should be signed by two members of the Council. That was the usual practice; but there are certain transactions in regard to which it is

  735
  very difficult, if not impossible, to get those signatures. All this Bill does is to give power to the Secretary of State to make contracts like the heads of other Departments.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somersetshire, E.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2,
  MR. DALZIELasked for some information.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOE SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)briefly explained the objects of the clause.
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland to state on behalf of the Government why it was proposed to change the county town. No substantial reason had yet been given why that change should take place.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; a third time, and passed.

  NAVAL FORCES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not propose to divide the Committee, but he wished to state that he was one of those who did not believe in the reconstitution of the Naval Volunteers. A most competent Committee had inquired
  736
  into the subject, and their recommendation was one which, of course, would carry the greatest possible weight. He did not believe in the applicability of the Volunteer principle to service in the Fleet, and the kind of service to be required should be made known. There were certain very exceptional cases where Volunteers might be used with advantage for the Fleet. One case was that of Jersey, where there was ground for the existence of a limited Volunteer force of this kind. Language had been used in the Press, and perhaps by some hon. Members on a former stage of this Bill, to the effect that they might hope for a very large body of Volunteers to serve in the Fleet in time of war, but he thought that was an idle anticipation.
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4,
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was the short service clause, and was the most important new departure made in connection with the Navy in modern times. It introduced a principle which he approved, but the application of which had hitherto been resisted at the Admiralty. The Committee ought to know how far it was intended to apply it now.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD FOUSTER, Belfast, W.)said he was glad that the principle was approved by he right hon. Baronet. The question of the number of short service men to be employed would not arise for many years. It must be a long time before any substantial proportion of the crews could be made up of these men. He really did not think it was necessary to go beyond the present intention of the Admiralty, which was to take a fourth of the ordinary seamen and A. B.s, and one-sixth trained men of the stokers, exclusive of petty officers, from this source. These men would not be in any sense Volunteers, because they would have five years experience of the sea.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved the following new clause—
  "All regulations made in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable after they are made, if Parliament be then sitting, and, if Parliament be not sitting, as soon as practicable after the beginning of the next session of Parliament."
  He supposed there would be no objection to this clause. What he proposed was in accordance with the practice of Parliament in all cases where the ordinary law was departed from. Similar provision was made in the Militia Act, the Army Act, and the Naval Act.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdeclined to accept the clause. The precedents which the hon. Member had quoted were not applicable to the present case. There was no question in the Bill of giving powers to the Secretary of State to modify existing Acts of Parliament. This was new legislation, and the whole of the facts would come before the House in the ordinary way.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was a strong supporter of the Admiralty, but he confessed he was not persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman at the present time. The short service provisions would be governed by
  Admiralty regulations, and he saw no reason for opposing the clause.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that what Parliament was asked to do was to give the Admiralty carte blanche. They were asked to empower the Admiralty to create a new force, and to make whatever regulations they thought fit. Obviously, the regulations made in pursuance of the Act ought to be placed before Parliament so that they might know what was being done.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Gentleman made a mistake. There was no such obligation in regard to the Naval Volunteers, and there was no such obligation in regard to the Naval Reserve.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he wished again to impress on the hon. Gentleman that this clause had nothing to do with the Naval Volunteers. The case for the proposed new Clause rested on what was contained in Clause 4 of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  Committee divided:—Ayes, 76; Noes, 190. (Division List, No. 48.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Asher, Alexander

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bell, Richard

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

  Brigg, John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Burns, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Burt, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings)

  Crooks, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Toulmin, George

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Durham)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Partington, Oswald

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Perks, Robert William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Yoxhall, James Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Lough.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Myers, William Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Flower, Ernest

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Arrol, Sir William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Garfit, William

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Austin, Sir John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordan, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Purvis, Robert

  Bain Colonel James Robert

  Gore, Hn. G R C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Pym, C. Guy

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hain, Edward

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Robinson, Brooke

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Marg. of (Londondy

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Russell, T. W.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hantey)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

  Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J. (Birm

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff, B'tside)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

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

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kimber, Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Knowles, Lees

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cranborne, Lord

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lookwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscount

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Webb, Col. William George

  Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whiteley, H. A. Ashton-und-Lyne

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  SUPPLY [26TH MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING]—REPORT.
  Resolution reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–04.
  "That a sum not exceeding £1,920,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the staff for Engineer services, and expenditure for Royal Engineer

  741
  works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad (including purchases), which will come in course of pay merit during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."

  SUPPLY [26TH MARCH, EVENING SITTING]—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,186,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £259,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."

  SUPPLY [30TH MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING]—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,502,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,292,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in
  742
  course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."

  SUPPLY [30TH MARCH, EVENING SITTING]—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,820,030, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Supply and Repair of Warlike and other Stores, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,745,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the In-Pensioners thereof; for Out Pensions; for the Maintenance of Lunatics for whom Pensions are not drawn; for Gratuities awarded in Commutation and in lieu of Pensions; for Rewards for Meritorious Services; for Victoria Cross Pensions; and for Pensions, etc., to the Widows and Children of Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £195,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  And, there being no further business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker left the Chair till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY (TRANSFER) BILL [BY ORDER].
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. KIMBER, who had given notice that he intended to move the rejection of the Bill, said that the ground of his opposition was that Clause 5 would enable the promoters to take certain lands belonging to private owners without paying compensation. As an undertaking had been given that the Clause should be removed in Committee, he did not propose to offer any opposition to the Bill.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYobjected to Clause 8 of the Bill, which, he said, provided that the undertaking of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway should be transferred to the United Underground Electric Company of London. Pending satisfactory assurances, he formally moved the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. PERKSsaid that Clause 8 would be struck out, and the whole question of the amalgamation of these underground lines would, no doubt, be dealt with by the Royal Commission on London Locomotion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL. [BY ORDER.]
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the object of the Instruction he now proposed to move was to omit from the London County Council Tramways and Improvements Bill the tramway which was to run across Westminster Bridge and then down the Victoria Embankment, as far as Waterloo Bridge, a distance of about one mile. There were two reasons
  744
  on which this Instruction might be supported. The first was that the tramway was unnecessary, that it would add considerably to the congestion of traffic which already existed on Westminster Bridge, and would create a congestion which did not now exist on the Victoria Embankment. The second reason was perhaps stronger; it was this—that a Royal Commission was now sitting to enquire into the whole of the locomotion of London, and that being so, it was rather extraordinary that at this particular time a Bill should be introduced having for its object the making of this tramway. For the last ten or twelve years Bills introduced for this object had been defeated either in this House or in another place. It could not be denied that a tramway across Westminster Bridge must cause a considerable congestion. Westminster Bridge as it stood was a very fine bridge, and that being so, he was prepared to leave it in the state in which it now stood, and not to injure it by putting upon it a weight and a burden which it could not bear. Two lines of tramways occupied a considerable space, and if they were laid on Westminster Bridge there could not possibly be any doubt but what there would be a considerable amount of congestion. He believed one of the great reasons for the congestion in London streets was the cross traffic. Hon. Members had only to go to Hyde Park Corner to see the reason of the blocks which occurred there was the cross traffic coming into Piccadilly from Park Lane, and the same thing was apparent in all the different large centres in London where great congestion of traffic occurred. He believed at the Mansion House the police were obliged every three or four minutes to stop the traffic in order to let the cross traffic pass. If a tramway passed over Westminster Bridge it would immediately have to turn to the right to go on to the Victoria Embankment and that would cause a considerable congestion of traffic just opposite this House. He did not wish to put his opinion before the House as being worth anything, although he had had a considerable amount of experience of the traffic in London streets.

  745
  The hon Member then referred to the evidence taken before the Royal Commission of 1892, to show that in the opinion of the expert witnesses examined, a tramway passing over Westminster Bridge and taking up and setting down passengers would create considerable congestion of traffic immediately in front of the Houses of Parliament. Having pointed out what would happen there, what, he asked, would happen at Waterloo Bridge? Hon. Members must remember that it was not proposed that the tramway should run the whole length of the Embankment, it was only to run as far as Waterloo Bridge. Hon. Members had often said they would not object to a tramway right along the Embankment, because it would provide a pleasant method of coming to this House, but this Bill did not carry out that view because these tramways stopped at Waterloo Bridge, where they turned to the left and met a tramway which went into the ground and under the new road which was being made to Holborn. There consequently would be another line of cross traffic at Waterloo Bridge which would join with something that came out from underground. The present cross traffic coming down the Savoy was comparatively nothing, but if there was to be a heavy cross traffic, disappearing somewhere at Holborn into the ground and coming out of the ground on to the Embankment, it could not be doubted for a moment that there would be considerable congestion at Waterloo Bridge. The Embankment was created in order to give relief to the traffic of the Strand and to provide a route for fast traffic from east to west, and it was convenient that there should be a relief route of that kind down which people might go when they were in a hurry. Of course, it might be urged that this tramway would be a very great advantage to people who lived in South London, but, in answer to that, he would say that he presumed it was not intended that the people were to be conveyed on this tramway for nothing, and that being so there was at present a line of omnibuses plying across the Bridge from Westminster to Charing Cross every half minute at a charge of one halfpenny for the journey, and that being so, the proposed tramway was unnecessary.
  746
  It might be said also that it was desirable to have a direct route from north to south, and no doubt that might be so, but if that was desirable then he thought that line should be underground entirely, and go under the river. This he understood could be carried out at a cost of £300,000. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence at all events to show that this matter ought to be deferred until the Royal Commission had had an opportunity of sifting and weighing all the evidence and giving their opinion upon it. A Royal Commission was now sitting to investigate the question of the locomotion of London, and no one would deny but that Westminster Bridge was a very important part of London, and, that being the case, it should come within the purview of the Royal Commission. He therefore appealed with confidence to the House, and to the division which would take place later on, to support the Instruction which he now begged to move.
  MR. COHENsaid he rose to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Beckham, but not entirely on the same grounds. During the ten or eleven years he had been in this House, he had always steadily opposed a tramway over Westminster Bridge, and had always steadily opposed a tramway down the Embankment. As time had advanced, the question of finding a main arterial communication between North and South London had become more and more urgent. The consideration which governed his decision was that, having left this matter undealt with for ten or eleven years, we should not settle it in a hurry now, but await the decision of the competent tribunal to which this matter had been referred. The fact that the Royal Commission was sitting was the strongest possible reason why the House should suspend judgment on this matter pending the Report of that body. There was no paramount urgency for this tramway, because during the day of fifteen hours there were ninety-eight omnibuses making 1972 journeys, or 131 journeys per hour, over Waterloo Bridge, and ninety-eight omnibuses, making 1,910 journeys per day of fifteen hours, or 120

  747
  journeys per hour, over Westminster Bridge. He was not at all moved by the esthetic consideration that tramways would disfigure the Embankment; he did not think they would; but the whole of this question was at present sub judice, and he thought the House ought to wait until it received the Report of the competent body of experts who were considering the matter. He begged to second the proposed Instruction.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill to omit Tramway No. 7."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  MR. CUMMING MACDONAsaid that to stand in the way of the North and South meeting either across Westminster or any other bridge would be a thoroughly obstructive policy. In this progressive age it would be to the benefit of London that intercourse between all districts should be made as easy as possible, and no one would deny that electricity and its developments afforded the most agreeable and expeditious method by which that could be done. He could not see why his constituents should be deprived of the privilege of coming by tram to admire the Houses of Parliament and going on to Hyde Park, or why the inhabitants of the West End should not be able to visit South wark Park in a similar way.
  MR. WHITMOREthought it a remarkable fact that the promoters of the Bill had not had the courtesy to make any statement as to the reasons why a proposal which had time after time been defeated, should now be supported by the House. The proposal of last year was a purely local matter, whereas the present scheme raised the serious question of the means of intercommunication between the great populations of North and South London. That was a problem which ought to be discussed without any party spirit, with the simple view of arriving as rapidly as possible at the best solution. Was the proposal now made the best solution? Apart from the
  748
  fact that the Royal Commission was sitting, he thought it could hardly be seriously suggested that a route over Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment was the best way by which to effect the inter-communication that was so much desired. Moreover, it was not at all certain that the Commission would recommend tramways as the best means of locomotion. He had no desire to contest the question on any narrow grounds, but the matter was one of such great importance that he thought it would be premature to act before the Royal Commission had reported.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsupported the Instruction on the ground that to bring a tramway over Westminster Bridge was a wrong policy altogether. The great multitude of the people crossed further eastward, and the connecting link between north and south should be in that direction so as to join with the new Kingsway. There was no great demand at present for increased carrying accommodation across Westminster Bridge; it would be time enough to bring this matter forward when the Commission had reported. The County Council were trying to get all sorts of powers, which, when secured, they frequently did not exercise, and he expected that if they carried this proposal they would simply take the tramways over the bridge and stop on the north side, without effecting any communication between north and south.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the authority to decide as to the necessity of tramways was not the House of Commons, but the London County Council as created by Parliament, Both parties on the County Council had decreed that a tramway across Westminster bridge was desirable in the interest of better communication between North and South and when the Company proposed to take the lines over the bridge the County Council supported them. The construction of a tramway across the bridge would remove the congestion which now prevailed on the Surrey side of the bridge between St. Thomas's Hospital and York Road, in a roadway only thirty-three feet wide. The congestion at this dead end of the

  749
  present tramway system was so obvious that hon. Members themselves must have noticed it on a race day, on a review day, or when hurrying in a cab to Waterloo Station in order to play golf. They proposed instead of having a deadend terminus that there should be a continuous route across an eighty-six feet wide bridge turning to the right down the Embankment. The Embankment where it met the junction on the north side was 120 feet wide. Whenever they had a continuous tramway the congestion was bound to be much less. Instead of adding to the congestion of the traffic at this point it would decrease it, and it was on the Surrey side that they desired to remove the congestion by carrying the tramway across Westminster Bridge. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had said that congestion would be increased on the Embankment, but everyone would admit that the Embankment was wide enough for a traffic four times its present volume.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: The Embankment is not 120 feet wide.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that at the point he referred to the Embankment was 120 feet wide, but that its average width was about 100 feet. Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke, who was the chief witness before the Royal Commission, had stated that Westminster Bridge was a desirable place for a tramway, and he also declared that the Embankment seemed a route eminently suitable for tramway traffic. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had referred to the cross traffic. He would remind the House that the cross traffic at Hyde Park Corner had been considerably mitigated by the County Council having effected the widening of Piccadilly. Then there was the police evidence. He noticed that the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham had a habit of always asking the police when in doubt. The hon. Baronet had quoted police evidence given in 1892, but why did he not tell the House that Parliament Street was then only fifty feet wide, and now it was 110 feet wide?
  SIR F. BANBURY: But this Bill has nothing to do with Parliament Street.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid Parliament Street was then one-third of its present width, and the congestion of traffic had been removed.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that Parliament Street had nothing whatever to do with this Bill, because the tramway proposed would not go down Parliament Street, but would turn down the Embankment.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Baronet ought to have asked the cabman who drove him down to the House for some information upon these points.
  SIR F. BANBURY: I walked down.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that since the widening of Parliament Street the congestion of traffic had abated on the north side. The hon. Baronet stated that what was wanted was relief to the Strand, but that would be secured by allowing the passengers who stopped on the Surrey side to come along upon a continuous tramway across Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment, discharging passengers at Northumberland Avenue, and at the various streets between there and Waterloo Bridge. An omnibus carried twenty-six people, but an electric tram-car would carry between seventy and seventy-two passengers, and when it was realised that one tramcar could carry three times as many passengers as an omnibus it would be seen that this must be a great relief to the Strand, and would also remove the congestion on the Surrey side, diminishing the congestion on the bridge, and allowing a free flow of the traffic down Parliament Street and to the West End of London. The best judges as to which was the best route for a tramway or omnibus service were the Progressive and Moderate members of the London County Council, and they had agreed that the cheapest and best route was viâ Westminster Bridge, down the Embankment to Waterloo Bridge to the congested portion of the Strand, and then along Theobalds Road to Hampstead, High-gate, and elsewhere. The alternative route was to spend £500,000 of money upon a subway under the River

  751
  Thames from the Rev. Newman Hall's church in Westminster Bridge Road to near Birdcage Walk. Such a scheme would impose upon the London County Council a needless burden.
  What were the objections to this Bill? Was the bridge too narrow? Certainly not. Next to the Alexandre III. Bridge in Paris, Westminster Bridge was the widest in Europe. Last year the House of Lords unanimously allowed the County Council to run an electric tramway over Putney Bridge, which was only twenty - five feet wide. Surely it was ridiculous and absurd for the House of Commons to deny this right to construct a tramway across a bridge three times as wide. Hon. Members should go to the tramway terminus at Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges and see for themselves the people fighting to get in and out of the tramcars. This had become a scandal, and it was a danger to life and property. The opposition to this Bill was being carried on simply in the interest of a few omnibus proprietors, who were not at present giving the public as good a service over the bridges as the County Council did in the past. They had already got the right to construct tramways over Putney and Battersea Bridges, and also over Vauxhall Bridge, and he appealed to the House in the interests of thousands of people who desired this tramway, to allow the County Council to carry out its primary duty of giving a cheap, easy, and north-to-south communication by tram over Westminster Bridge. If the House of Commons adopted this Bill, the County Council would do everything in its power to see that all the interests concerned were properly served, as they deserved to be. By carrying out this Embankment tramway the Council were pursuing the line of least resistance, and were giving London that communication which the people had long asked for, and which this House had long denied.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars)said that when this subject was before the House upon the last occasion, the Board of Trade took no part in the discussion. If the present proposal had
  752
  been made under similar circumstances, the Board of Trade would not have sought to influence the decision of the House. It did, however, appear to the Board of Trade that the appointment of a Royal Commission on London Locomotion made a difference, the importance of which must be felt even by the hon. Member for Battersea. Speaking for the Board of Trade he felt bound to urge the House to agree to the Instruction which had been moved by his hon. friend pending the Report of the Royal Commission. The principle upon which the Board of Trade had proceeded during the whole of this session in regard to such measures, had been, that whenever a Private Bill was introduced which did not seem to run counter to the duties of the Royal Commission, the Board of Trade should facilitate the passing of such a Bill to a Committee. No one could contend that the present proposal was one of that kind. The very duty which the Royal Commission was called upon to perform was not merely in what direction particular lines should go, but it had quite as much, and perhaps more, to decide what particular mode of locomotion should be adopted in particular localities. It was possible at least that the Commission might recommend that street tramways were a bad mode of locomotion in any district where traffic was heavy. He wished to refer to what the hon. Member for Battersea had said about the evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke. He had read that evidence himself, and he was perfectly certain that the hon. Member had drawn exactly the opposite inference to that which Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke stated. He was giving evidence against tramways in congested districts, and in reply to a question he said that such a street as that across Westminster Bridge would be suitable for a tramway.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: And also along the Embankment.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that the whole of Lieutenant-Colonel Yorke's evidence was in the direction that Westminster Bridge would not be suitable for a tramway. The question was, whether it was reasonable to appoint a Commission and

  753
  decide the question which the Commission had been appointed to consider? If that view were taken, it could only be on the ground that the House attached no importance to the Commission, and did not expect from it a Report of any value. To allow such an important subject as this to be taken out of the scope of the Commission would be disrespectful to that body. He did not propose to go into the question of the merits of the proposal. The argument that this was to be a great through route between North and South London was surely a reason for not allowing the proposal to go through. The Commission which was inquiring into those matters might admit the need of communication and yet be of opinion that a tramway over Westminster Bridge was not the best means of accomplishing that object. That was the kind of question which the Commission had been formed to decide upon. For those reasons, and especially in view of the fact that if this tramway was once allowed it would inevitably become the centre of a large north and south traffic, which, must continually grow, because all other systems of tramways on the north and south would have to be made to meet this system, he hoped the House would agree to this Instruction. Without, therefore, any prejudice to the County Council, and without prejudging the question, on the sole ground that the House ought to respect the Commission which had been appointed, he hoped the Instruction would be agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that Westminster Bridge was one of the main means of access to the House of Commons, and no doubt this question was involved in the consideration as to whether a tramway ought to be constructed across Westminster Bridge. He remembered the old Westminster Bridge, and one of the reasons why the old bridge was removed and the present one built was that the traffic of the old Westminster Bridge was always in a congested condition, and that was one of the matters which the builders of the new bridge had in mind in constructing it upon its present dimensions. In the construction of the present bridge great attention was paid to the question of dealing with the large amount of traffic, and the mode suggested
  754
  was to provide two lines intended to be occupied by the slow traffic, and two lines by the quick traffic. It was thought that if one roadway each way was set apart for the quick traffic, and one each way for the slow traffic, the vehicles would pass along without obstruction. It was very soon found, however, that that was an error, and that the only way of making the traffic easy was to abolish that system and leave the roadway free to every kind of traffic. The effect of constructing tramways across Westminster Bridge would be to reproduce that very thing which it was sought to obviate. They would have two roadways taken up by the tramway and only one road each side would be left for the traffic. The result would be that things would be worse than they were before the new bridge was built. Congested as traffic was now on many occasions, it was obvious that it would be far worse if tramways were constructed on Westminster Bridge. Whatever had been decided with regard to Putney and Battersea Bridges, he thought they ought to leave Westminster Bridge free for the present traffic. If they required another bridge over the Thames for the tramways, they ought to construct some other means across the river. Something had been said about a subway under the river. But he thought the resources of science were not exhausted, and some other means might be found of bringing the tramways across the river.
  MR. BURDETT - COUTTSsaid the City of Westminster was perhaps more interested in this question than any other local authority in London. He shared the surprise of the hon. Member for Chelsea at the extraordinary spectacle witnessed a few moments ago, when hon. Members whose Bill had been attacked did not rise to defend it or to argue their case, but simply expressed their opinions by cries of "Vote" and "Divide." It was perfectly obvious that they wished to snatch a division while these Benches were empty. Nor could he congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea on the extraordinary attitude he took up with regard to the relations between

  755
  this House and the London County Council. He laid it down that this House was not the authority for tramways, but that the London County Council was. If that was so, why was this Bill before the House? And the hon. Member proceeded to say in his most magisterial manner that the London County Council had decreed unanimously that this measure should be carried, a measure which he would remind the House had over and over again been rejected by the House. Had they come then to this position, that the London County Council was a superior authority to this House?
  MR. JOHN BURNSremarked that he never said, neither did he imply, what the hon. Member stated. What he said was that the question whether a tramway was necessary on Westminster Bridge, was not, with all respect to Parliament, so much one for Parliament as for the highway authority which Parliament itself had created.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSdid not think the hon. Member had made his case any better. He understood the hon. Member to argue that the London County Council was the authority for tramways and not this House, and that, therefore, the Council and not the House should decide on this measure. Was not that diminishing the authority of the House, and placing the London County Council in a superior position to it in regard to this question? He would not trouble the House with any comments on the merits of the case, but he would ask whether the House should forestall the decision of the Royal Commission which was sitting on this matter. Was it possible for them to say that the Royal Commission would not take an entirely different view from that which had been taken by the London County Council? The Royal Commission might decide that a tramway over Westminster Bridge was not the best way to establish communication between the southern and the northern systems of tramways. The most reasonable method of carrying out that project might be found to be by means of a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge. Anyone who was acquainted with the districts
  756
  or who looked at the map would know that there was a great system of tramways on the South side running up to Blackfriars Bridge, and a treat system on the North side running down to within a short distance of the same bridge. The most obvious coupling-up of the North and South would be across Blackfriars Bridge. If that would solve a great part of the problem it should, at least, be undertaken before a tramway was laid across Westminster Bridge, which would inflict great injury in various quarters. Last year the London County Council promoted a Bill in which there was nothing about carrying a tramway over Westminster Bridge, but in which it was proposed to place a tramway from nowhere to nowhere on the Embankment. He did not think that the real object the County Council had in view had been put forward in any of these proposals. He believed their object was to carry their tramway to Charing Cross, and thence through Regent Street and Piccadilly, and other West End thoroughfares, and down Victoria Street. There was an obvious proof of this. When the County Council took over the halfpenny omnibuses which crossed the bridge, did they ever turn them to the right along the Embankment? No, they ran them all to Charing Cross. They wanted to do the same thing with their tramway when they got it across Westminster Bridge. With all the 'bus proprietors watching to find new routes where the traffic would justify their running, not a single omnibus had ever turned along the Embankment from Westminster Bridge. He submitted that there was no need for a tramway over Westminster Bridge unless the House was prepared to sanction tramways through the already impassable streets of the West End, which was the real object behind this proposal. The debt of the London County Council had nearly doubled in thirteen years, and in the same period the rates of London had been increased nearly 40 per cent.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: No!
  MR. BURDETT - COUTTSsaid he would give the figures. In 1889 the rate was 1s. 0½d., and it was now 1s.4¾d.—

  757
  that was very nearly 40 per cent. Was this the moment for making a great capital expenditure on a speculation enterprise? He asked the House to vote in favour of the Instruction, which rejected the proposal to embark an enormous sum of the ratepayers' money to-day in a project which the Royal Commission might reject as unwise to-morrow.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIESrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER with held his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he had always voted for this tramway, and he should like to give the reason why he could not vote for it now. The circumstances were quite different now from what they were last year. He was a member of the Royal Commission, and, therefore, could not take part in the division. This was not simply, as it was last, year, a question of facilitating traffic along the Embankment and across Westminster Bridge. It had become a question whether the House should sanction North and South communication by this tramway. Very largely increased facilities were wanted between North and South London. That was one of the points the Commission had to consider, and if he were to vote either way on this Motion, he should be prejudicing the case. There was no desire on the part of the Commission to postpone their work, and he hoped that before long this matter would be considered
  MR. THORNTONsaid this scheme was much needed by the people living in the district he represented. They desired transit facilities for reaching Holborn and the districts beyond without being forced to go underground. Last year a majority declared in favour of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: Not over Westminster Bridge.] It was a Bill for a tramway on the Embankment it must be admitted which gained that majority and suffered reversal in another place, but the two schemes were inseparable. The working classes
  758
  informed him that it was their desire that the scheme should be carried out in order that they might be able to go to their business in the cheapest and best way. He maintained that it was impossible for the Royal Commission to tell them more on this matter than they already knew. Although politically opposed to the hon. Member for Battersea, he would vote with him to-night, because he thought he was right.
  MR CLAUDE HAYregarded this Bill from the point of view of a Londoner. In fact he was neutral in the matter except so far as the scheme affected London as a whole. He was much impressed by what fell from the hon. Member for North Islington, who reminded the House that the Royal Commission was charged to deal with the question of locomotion as a whole. The proposed tramway across Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment could not be regarded—he said it with all deference to the hon. Member for Clapham—asa local matter affecting South London. It was part of the general system of Loudon locomotion, and was therefore a matter which should be considered by the Commision. He was amused at the enthusiasm shown by the hon. Member for Battersea in support of this measure. It was only the other day that a Bill which had been passed by three Joint Committees, and which would give facilities to the North and East of Loudon, was opposed by the hon. Member He was struck by another observation that fell from the hon. Member. He said the width of Westminster Bridge was 86 feet. At a matter of fact it was 54 feet 3 inches. That had a very considerable bearing on the amount of congestion which a tramway across Westminster Bridge; would create. He did not think it was quite fair for the hon. Member to say that this tramway had the warm approval of Colonel Yorke. He thought that any impartial reader of Colonel Yorke's evidence must come to the conclusion that he was not in favour of it. He wished to see a general system for the whole of London, and he was glad that a Royal Commission which would take a broad view of the question had been appointed.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSEsaid that he had last year the honour of sitting on the Select Committee which investigated the proposal to place a tramway on the Embankment. The Committee passed that tramway, and he asked the House to sanction the decision of the Committee. It was absolutely necessary that some means of communication between the tramways on the north side and the south side of the river should be found, but it was very difficult to say whether that means should be by Westminster Bridge or by an entirely new bridge. They were that day in a very different position from twelve months ago. A very strong and competent Commission had been appointed to investigate the question of London traffic as a whole, and he thought the promoters of this tramway line should withdraw their proposal, and bring it forward after the Commission had presented their Report. It was for that reason alone that he would give his vote against proceeding with the Bill in the present session. It would be
  a waste of time and money to have a question like that involved investigated by two different bodies.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that when it was proposed to spoil London and desecrate its best sites by any scheme, country Members like himself ought not to sit quiet without entering their protest. He was opposed to the tramways crossing Westminster Bridge, and he thought the expenditure of £500,000 in providing another means, under or over the river, of connecting the tramways of North and South London would pay over and over again. There was no reason for the present hurry, and the question should not be pre-judged before the Report of the Royal Commission was prepared and laid before Parliament.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 134; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 49.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, George

  Knowles, Lees

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arrol, Sir William

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Bigwood, James

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Bowles, Lt.- Col. H. F. (Middlesex

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Milvain, Thomas

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gore, Hn. G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Morgan D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hamilton, Marg. of (Londondy

  Myers, William Henry

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cox, Irwin Edwd, Bainbridge

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff. B'tside)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Denny, Colonel

  Horner, Frederick William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

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

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Ren-

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Webb, Col. William George

  Frederick Banbury and

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

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

  Mr. W. F. D. Smith.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  NOES.

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Rea, Russell

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Austin, Sir John

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshare)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bell, Richard

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Rose Charles Day.

  Boland, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Runciman, Walter

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Joicey, Sir James

  Russell, T. W.

  Brigg, John

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire.)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Burns, John

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burt, Thomas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leng, Sir John

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  Crooks, William

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Delvin, Chas, Ramsay (Galway

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Saml, T. (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudders'fd

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, William

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  LABOUR REPRESENTATION.
  MR. CROOKScalled attention to the present inadequate representation of Labour in Parliament, and moved, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable and expedient that, in order to give constituencies a full and free choice in the selection of Parliamentary candidates, the charges
  762
  now made by the returning officer to the candidates should be chargeable to public funds, and that all Members of the House of Commons should receive from the State a reasonable stipend during their Parliamentary life." He said that in all probability it would be pointed out that the Woolwich election had shown that there was no difficulty

  763
  in returning a Labour Member. Here and there, no doubt, they found an incident of that character, but Labour candidates had very little opportunity in the constituencies at General Election times. At any rate, such an election should teach the House one lesson, viz., that workmen would rather be represented by those of their own class. He was speaking, of course, of purely industrial constituencies. He had never yet been able to make up his mind as to the position taken up by hon. Members in the House after their election speeches. There was a good deal of talk about there being absolute equality in this country, but there was, as every Member knew, only one way of getting into the House, and that was by spending substantial sums of money. A considerable sum of money was spent in securing his election, but he did not have to find a farthing of it. The cash was subscribed openly and freely. But he had often heard it asked when a poor man was standing, "Who is finding your money?" The British House of Commons boasted of its love for freedom and justice. Then let it give every man the opportunity of giving his brains and his work to the country by carrying into effect the Resolution he proposed, instead of putting all sorts of obstacles in the way of poor men.
  They were told the other night that the great need of men in the Army was brains as well as muscle. If that were good enough for the Army it ought to be good enough for that House, which certainly stood in need; of the best brains of the nation. There should therefore be no bar to constituencies commanding the services of the best brains. It was all very well
  764
  to say that no man was likely to succeed in the House of Commons who had not first succeeded in the world—whether in trade or otherwise, but why should they wait until a man had worn himself out before sending him to Parliament? Only the other day he saw the following advertisement in the Yorkshire Post:—
  "M.P.—A gentleman, thirty, holding a responsible position in London, desirous of entering Parliament, wishes to meet with an affectionate and wealthy lady, view matrimony. Genuine. Highest credentials."
  The highest credentials seemed to be that the applicant had the moral courage to advertise for someone who would find him the money to enter Parliament. The House should put its foot down on that sort of thing by leaving an absolutely free choice to the constituencies in the selection of their representatives. It might be suggested that men would go into the House of Commons simply to make a living out of it But was there not in the present House more than one Member who made a pretty good thing out of the privilege of being able to attach the magic letters "M.P." to his name? However that might be, he ventured to assert that the administrative capacity of this country had never yet been properly tapped. It was said a man needed to be trained for political life. Yes, but where? Was it at the University? Was it by taking a double first at Oxford or Cambridge that he would turn out a great lawmaker, or was it by constant contact with humanity? He had seen in the Press an observation to the effect that it was all very well for Labour to have its representatives in Parliament, but what did they know of those great historic and important questions which so vitally affected the interests and welfare of the nation. His answer to

  765
  that was that it was infinitely more important to the average industrial worker of this country that the conditions of life should be bettered, and that an opportunity should be given for men to enter the House who knew what he wanted. There was a constituency, the name of which he was told was not on the map, but which sent a Member to the House—the Pudsey Division of Yorkshire——
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: Oh, yes, it is on the map.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he had been told in Yorkshire that Pudsey was not on the map. He was not personally responsible for the statement. The fact he wanted to bring out was that when an election was about to take place there, the working men selected a very good man as their candidate. They sent him to the returning officer to ask how much money it would cost to tight the election. He was told he would have to lay down £150, and at once replied, "I have only £100." The result was that because he had not sufficient money to pay the returning officer's fees the Labour candidate was unable to run on that occasion. In the case of another constituency a candidate was forced on it against the wishes of a large proportion of the voters, and when asked why he had come there, he replied, "Here I am, and you will have to take me whether you like it or not." It was something like compulsory vaccination. The nation had not a free choice of its representatives. When it came to selecting a representative of the people
  766
  the choice should be as wide as possible. Apart from workmen there must be many business men who could ill afford to pay the election and out-of-pocket expenses of a Member of this House. If the nation wanted the best the nation ought to pay for it. He might be asked, Why should the nation pay when it got so much for nothing? Well, let people look at the condition of the finances and ask if they really got so very much for nothing. He was foolish enough to believe that the practical knowledge of working men would prove exceedingly helpful in the deliberations of the House. There were too many academically-trained men and too few practical men engaged in the Government of the country. If a dozen men were taken indiscriminately both from the workshops and the Universities and placed around a table to discuss a question, he undertook to say there would be more good sense supplied by the working men than by the University men. He had been in touch with working men for years and years; he had sat with them on administrative bodies and his experience was that one touch of nature was worth infinitely more than all the academic training Oxford or Cambridge could give. If the House would pass that Resolution, and if the Government would give it legislative force, they would never have cause to regret the wider and better selection of members which would follow forthwith.
  MR. BROADHURST, in seconding the Motion, said the subject of it had been discussed in that House many times. It embodied two essential points in connection with the freedom

  767
  of choice in the selection of candidates for membership of the House of Commons. The first part of the Motion asked the House to declare that candidates for Parliamentary honours, like those for seats on county councils, town councils, and parochial bodies, should be relieved of official charges in connection with their election. These charges were the most difficult point which poor men had to contend with in their contests for a seat in the House of Commons, and he submitted that there was no reason whatever why they should be imposed on Parliamentary candidates any more than on candidates for seats on local governing bodies. As far back as 1883 he divided the House upon that question. Mr. Gladstone, in that year, was carrying through Parliament a Bill for the greater Prevention of Corrupt Practices at Parliamentary Elections, and that Act did very considerably reduce the channels of expenditure which had been open up to that date. While the Bill was in Committee he endeavoured to get inserted an Amendment charging the returning officers' expenses on public funds. In that proposal he had with him the sympathy of the House, and he hoped that the Motion now under debate would equally command the sympathy of hon. Members. Still it was not found possible thus to amend the law on that occasion. Mr. Gladstone, who was Prime Minister and Leader of the House, gave, however, an assurance of his deep sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and while pointing out that he could not accept it in a Corrupt Practices Bill, he promised to give favourable consideration to any Bill which might be brought in to accomplish the object it had in view. Consequently, in conjunction with the hon. Members for Morpeth
  768
  and Poplar, he introduced a Bill, but, unfortunately, owing to the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure, he was never able to obtain an expression of the opinion of the House upon it in its concrete form.
  In the constituency which he had the honour to represent, the official charges during the last three elections had amounted in the aggregate to £1,260. That had been divided between four candidates, and it would be seen that it was practically a prohibitive sum so far as poor men were concerned. In years past a suggestion was thrown out that the charge should be imposed on the local rates, but many objections were taken to that course. It was sufficient that night to say that they proposed to throw the charge on public funds. He had worked out how such a proposal would affect Leicester, and had found that it would represent a burden, of not more than two-sevenths of a penny. But in addition to that he believed that if once the charge were imposed on some public fund the claims of the returning officers would immediately be reduced by more than one half, and many expenses which were now incurred would in future be absolutely avoided. He thought the proposal embodied in the Resolution was a very reasonable on. It was advanced in the interests of economy, and he had no doubt that it would be welcomed quite as much by middle class men as by working men. It would even benefit those who were better equipped with the world's wealth than were working men. The other point embodied in the Resolution was the question of the payment of Members. The arguments for and against that proposal were quite familiar

  769
  to the House, because it had been discussed over and over again. He would like to point out that the new Rules of Procedure had enormously increased the difficulties which beset working men in entering Parliament, and he would gladly see made some adjustment of them which would facilitate Labour representation. At present the House sat until midnight, but nearly two hours were wasted in the middle of the evening. Would it not be better to continue work during those hours, and to rise at ten o'clock? Another point which seriously affected poor men was connected with the high rents of houses in London, and the difficulty of getting to and from home.
  At present Members were kept in the House until midnight, and later, when all means of transit to the suburbs had ceased; many hon. Members were therefore compelled to live near Westminster or to travel long distances at night. He hoped the House would get an expression of opinion from the Government on this question; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to meet the demand they put forward, if not wholly at least partially. Having regard to the interest which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was evidently taking in the subject he would second the Motion with confidence.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable and expedient that, in order to give constituencies a full and free choice in the selection of Parliamentary candidates, the charges now made by the returning officer to the candidates should be chargeable to public funds, and that all Members of the House of
  770
  Commons should receive from the State a reasonable stipend during their Parliamentary life."—(Mr. Crooks.)
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: There was one point in the excellent speech of my hon. friend the Member for Woolwich which I was sorry to hear from him. It was that part of the speech in which he let us know that he had received the impression that Members such as himself, who in a peculiar degree represent the working classes, were not received on all occasions, I will not say with respect, but with a feeling of courtesy and consideration by the House. I think that when my hon. friend has been a little longer among us he will be disabused entirely of that idea; because, in my experience, I have never seen an exhibition of such a spirit, and, speaking without regard to one side of the House or the other, I can say that there are no men who are listened to with greater patience and pleasure than those who speak as the representatives of Labour. What is the reason of what I should have called the exceptional interest which is taken in their speeches? It is not only that we are anxious to show our courtesy to them, but because they speak on subjects of which they have themselves a personal knowledge, and with an authority which is not possessed by other hon. Members.
  This Motion is one which I shall support cordially. It is no stronger, and almost less peremptory, than the Motions of the same kind which we on this side of the House have supported before. It is not only a question of the numbers of those whom we call the working classes—by which live mean nothing but a compliment—

  771
  it is not only their numbers that necessitate some provision of the kind; but it is the fact that they have a distinct view of interest in public matters which is not sufficiently represented in the House. And if we are to have any regard whatever to the full development of the democratic system of Government—the system of Government which we profess to have established in this country—we surely ought not to allow any barrier of mere money to stand in the way of the fullest expression of the wishes and desires of the people. And this resolution goes beyond those who may be included in the ranks of labour, as it is commonly understood. There are many men in this House who are not well off, though not Labour Members, and there are many men out of the House who would be most useful to it, but who are debarred from coming in by the expense, not only of the election, but of the life which a Member of Parliament has to lead. Is it not desirable to remove these barriers altogether? As to the expenses of elections, would it not be desirable to have an inquiry into them, for they appear to grow instead of to diminish? Beyond that there is the expense of living in London, and the charge which is thrown on a man by taking him away from his ordinary habits, and these are all bars to the full and free choice in the selection of Parliamentary candidates. I am anxious to see our representative system made as complete as possible, and one of the most essential of all changes, with a view to that completeness of our system, is the removal of the barrier of money from those who are not only competent, but in some respects the most competent of all, to tell the
  772
  House what is required to improve the position of the people.
  EARL PERCYsaid that as one who had had some academic training, and who therefore fell under the condemnation of the hon. Member for Woolwich, he felt some diffidence in speaking on behalf of the Government. It was to be regretted that there was such a short time for the discussion of this important subject, but all must admit the wit and ability which the hon. Member for Woolwich had shown in moving his Resolution. This Motion was one of more importance than those which they were usually called upon to deal with on Tuesday evenings. It was important, not only in the sense that it would introduce constitutional changes into our system of representation as great as any changes that were likely to result from any measure brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, but also because it was a question which they had not had an opportunity of discussing for many years. If hon. Gentlemen were right in thinking that opinion in the constituencies had changed in recent years, then it might be desirable to come to a decision on the subject, since it was only when the Party now in office were in power that any opportunity at all was given for the discussion of the question. The Motion would at once afford instruction to their constituents and a subject of profitable discussion to themselves. He did not, of course, allude for a moment to the pecuniary aspect of the question, which would not weigh with any hon. Member, since the Motion was not retrospective. He alluded rather to the opportunity of

  773
  self examination, of appraising at their proper value the arduous but hitherto unrewarded services which they had rendered to a fortunate country. In these days, when the doctrine of economy was being preached, no doubt it would be gratifying to them to tell their constituencies that the taxpayers of this country, so far from not getting proper value for their money, had for a long time past been living on unearned increment, to hold up to them the example of the model employer and to claim for themselves, as hard-working legislators, if not an eight hours day, at any rate a living wage. He was the last to deny that there was something to be said for this Motion. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman still retained this particular item in the programme of the Party opposite. He had been in some doubt whether it was a measure which had a permanent place in that programme or whether it was one of those ornaments which were thrown aside as flyblown phylacteries—one of those inconvenient accounts which were rubbed off the slate by the advocates of efficiency and economy. This Motion was based on the ground that at the present moment that House did not adequately represent the people. That was a statement in support of which no proof had been adduced and no definition had been given of what was meant by representation. It appeared to be assumed that the representation could not be regarded as adequate, unless there were a certain number of Labour Members in the House He was the last to deny that the presence of Labour Members in that House was desirable. He had been sufficiently long in the House to appreciate the popularity which the Labour Members had deservedly won; and they all welcomed
  774
  gentlemen like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich in their midst. But they did not welcome them because they belonged to a particular class, or were rich or poor, any more than they welcomed the right hon. Gentleman because he was a baronet, or capitalists because they were capitalists. They welcomed them, so far as these considerations were concerned, on the negative ground that the nature of a man's employment, or the amount of his private means had nothing to do with his capacity to represent a constituency. But he did not admit that a member of the working class was any more representative of a constituency than any other Member of the House. Many of them represented constituencies almost entirely composed of members of the working class. If they were to admit that working-class Members of that House were representatives of their constituencies in any other sense than other Members were, they would have to admit that they represented, not the constituency as a whole, but a particular class or section of the constituency.
  MR. CROOKSsaid that the point was that the choice of the constituency was limited.
  EARL PERCYsaid the hon. Gentleman defended his Motion on the ground that it would widen the area of selection. It was undoubtedly true that the Labour Members they welcomed to this House had, in the nature of things, had special opportunities of studying certain social conditions, and therefore brought special knowledge to bear upon social problems. There might be something to be said for the Resolution in so far as it tended to widen the area of selection for that particular class of expert. But, if the House were to adopt this new principle

  775
  of paying for expert knowledge, why were they to limit its application to Labour Members? It was entirely, erroneous to suppose that Labour was the only interest penalised. Many experts in every kind of profession, in business, at the Bar, and in scientific pursuits, were debarred from giving their services to the public in that House because they could not afford to give their time or forego their professional incomes. The proposals of the hon. Gentleman did not even guarantee that the workmen elected would have special knowledge of social questions; and if the principle of paying for expert knowledge were to be adopted, the money would be better spent, not in paying everyone whether they were worth it or not, but in paying a really adequate salary to men of eminence to induce them to forego lucrative work in their own particular walk of life, so as to secure their undivided attention and co-operation in Parliamentary councils. That was one argument against the hon. Gentleman's plan. Another was that his proposals did not tend, according to Colonial and American experience, to secure the object he had in view. A third argument was the financial one. These proposals would involve the country in a charge of £250,000 sterling at the least, and if they included municipal elections in an expenditure of £1,500,000. Could anyone say this expenditure was justifiable in existing circumstances? The taxpayers had the first claim. There were a number of problems awaiting solution on which the money might be better spent, such as poor-law reform, housing, education and licensing reform, every one of which would be thrown into the background if this Motion were accepted. He asked the
  776
  House to reject the Motion on these grounds and because he believed it would seriously alter the character of representatives in the House of Commons, and inflict an irreparable blow on the public life and Parliamentary institutions of this country.
  MR. CROOKSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he believed that there was no country in the world in which there was such an amount of unpaid work done for the benefit of the community as in this country; and if they began to pay one particular branch of work, they would be opening the door to payment for all kinds of public service.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  IMPERTAL REVENUE (COLLECTION ANDEXPENDITURE) (GREATBRITAIN AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "relating to Imperial Revenue (Collection and Expenditure) (Great Britain and Ireland) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1903 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 285, of Session 1902)"—(Mr. Joseph Albert Pease.)

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL).
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.