, in rising to call attention to the successful efforts of the German and other Foreign Governments in pushing the trade of their respective countries in Foreign markets, in competition with English manufacturers; and to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Government ought to consider the desirability of appointing properly qualified Diplomatic Agents in all Foreign capitals or seats of Government, for the express purpose of promoting the extension of British commerce,"

said, this was a matter that deserved serious consideration, as it was a question whether we were doing all that we could do to preserve that commercial supremacy which this country had enjoyed for so long a period. It was said that competition was more favourable for the foreigner than for the English, on account of the cost of manufacture being so much less; but he had such faith in the genius of the English people that he believed if they had fair play, which was all he asked for, they would still command the markets of the world. As it was, they were met in every market by what he could not help calling unfair competition by foreigners, assisted by the Representatives of the countries to which they belonged. It was notorious that the Diplomatic and Cconsular Representatives of other nations left no stone unturned in their endeavours to aid the industries of their respective countries; but our Consuls did nothing of the kind for us. In the first place, they did not know much about our trades; and, in the second, they were precluded by the Rules of the Foreign Office from taking such steps in furtherance of our commerce as were taken by the Representatives of other lands. The trade that might be done by this country with Foreign Governments and Municipalities alone was very large; and therefore it was necessary to see that our chance of obtaining contracts of that sort was not taken away by what might be called official influence. If the existing state of things went on we should soon have a new "Continental system" raised up against us, which would be dangerous, if not fatal, to our trade. Occult German and other foreign influences were now at work all over the world for the purpose of diverting trade into their channels. France and Germany both took care that their foreign trade should be fostered as far as possible partly through their Consuls abroad and partly through their higher-placed officials. They did not hesitate to use the money of the taxpayer in backsheesh in order to smooth the way for contracts with firms of their own nation. In many places that sort of diplomatic pressure was easily put on, and Governments like those of China, Japan, or Servia were quite willing to pay a higher price to please the Minister of a particular nation. A great many instances of that kind of thing might have been seen in the newspapers during the last two or three months. The influences he had mentioned were at work all over the world, and the energy and ability of Prince Bismarck had even brought England within his toils. Instances had come under his observation of English consumers being induced by means of Consular influence to obtain their goods from German manufacturers. He also knew of an instance in which Prince Bismarck had actually written to a large importer in the United States to ask him if he could not see his way to purchase some of the goods he required in his trade from German firms. The same state of things existed in Eastern Europe, where the interests of German firms were being worked through the Consuls. He did not for a moment contend that the trade of this country ought to be carried on by means of our Consuls abroad; but he asked that some means should be taken by which, at all events, our own manufacturers might be placed in as good a position as those of other countries, and he did not think he was asking too much. The hon. Member then produced a large volume, one of four which, he said, had been sent from Germany to commercial clubs in every country. The publication was handsomely got up by a sort of Royal Commission appointed for the purpose, and contained nothing but advertisements of German manufacturers, printed in four languages—German, English, French, and Spanish. This mode of working the interests of German manufacturers had now become a regular system, and the House would see that if that book were to be found on every club table in commercial centres much trade might be diverted from this country. What could be simpler than for the Government of this country to encourage some such enterprize as that? From local inquiries which he made with respect to Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, he found that English trade with those countries was entirely falling off. Every week boats came in from Germany laden with every class of goods which we used to supply. Agricultural machinery and everything in the way of machinery came from Germany to Scandinavia. Then as to ships. Two or three years ago China required two ironclads. At that time there was only one Chinese Foreign Minister in Europe—the Minister at Berlin. One of our largest shipbuilding firms applied to the Chinese Minister at Berlin to be allowed to tender. They were allowed to tender for one, but heard nothing more about it. They were not allowed to tender for the other at all. The building of the iron-clads went to Germany, procured, beyond the shadow of a doubt, for Germany by the Berlin Foreign Office. It was stated that China was very much dissatisfied with the German-built vessels. Not long since The Times Berlin Correspondent stated that two new belted cruisers were to be built for China by Germany; so that two new vessels which could be easily built on the Tyne, the Clyde, or the Mersey had gone to Germany without any English firm having had a chance of competing for them. It was the same with regard to Japan. Two or three years ago Austria was building three iron-clads. It was thought than an English firm would have the armour plating; but just as the contract was about to be signed they received an intimation that it would be supplied by a German house. In order to please the Sister Country of Germany the contract was snatched from English firms and given to an unknown competitor. Formerly we contracted for all the railways in Europe; but he had lately received a letter from a member of a leading firm of railway contractors, showing how a contract in one of the Eastern States of Europe had been lost. The moment it was known that an English firm was likely to obtain the contract, the Austrian Consul, who was in close relation with the Union Générale, and Vienna Landerbank, complained to our Foreign Office that their Representative on the spot was interfering with foreign trade. The Foreign Office instantly recalled him and sent him to an obscure German town, informing him that it was a most dangerous thing for the Representative of the English Foreign Office to interfere with foreign trade. The contract was given to the Austrian protégé, though it cost the country £1,500,000 more at the French price. He believed that it was entirely due to the efforts of his hon. Friend below him and to Lord Rosebery that the German Syndicate in China had fallen flat. It was quite true that our Consuls were called Superintendents of Trade; but they never superintended British trade except for the purpose of preventing British traders from cheating natives or foreigners. In 1872 Mr. James Howard, lately Member for Bedfordshire, brought the subject under the notice of the Foreign Office, and he was under the impression to this day that nothing had been done. In 1865, in consequence of the Report of a Select Committee on British Trade, a Commercial Department was established at the Foreign Office. In 1872 the Consular Reports began to be published. They were not satisfactory Reports. They contained a good deal of discursive information, but they were not Reports by commercial men, and never got into the hands of Members until 12 months after date, and they very seldom got further. He understood the American Consular Reports were not only very much better done, but in many cases were published monthly, and were very much to the point. England had only one Commercial Attaché for the whole of Europe—Mr. Crowe—and he wandered about from country to country, picking up what information he could. This was a state of things not creditable to a great commercial nation. There ought to be a Commercial and Agricultural Attaché at every important Legation in Europe and elsewhere, and they should be men thoroughly acquainted with our commercial affairs. This was a subject in which the country took very great interest, and there was no public body of any importance connected with trade that had not considered the question and passed resolutions similar to that which stood in his name. He hoped that the Foreign Office would consider this matter in a wise and liberal spirit, and that they would be prepared to expend a little money, if necessary, and at any rate a great deal of energy, for the purpose of securing the object which he had indicated. The Foreign Office received between £400,000 and £500,000 a-year; and he thought that a little out of that sum might be set apart to support some such organization as he had suggested. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

, in seconding the Resolution, said, he had been most deeply impressed with the importance of the subject from the information which he gathered while acting as a Member of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade. The Commission had received evidence from the first merchants and manufacturers of this country; and it was most painful to hear the one story which was revealed in reference to the state of trade generally. Nothing could be more important and impressive than the Reports which, as they knew, had been sent to the Commission from our Embassies and Consuls abroad. These Reports had been obtained by the order of the Foreign Office; and he might compliment those gentlemen who represented this country abroad upon the fact that the Reports which they had sent were full of information of the most interesting and important character. It was true that, previous to the appointment of the Commission, Reports were made from time to time by the Embassies abroad; but he ventured to say that very few Members of that House went through them, because they did not enter into sufficient details connected with the trade and commerce of the various countries in which our Representatives were placed. The Reports which the Royal Commission now received were very specific, and entered into all matters connected with the industries abroad and with the working classes in foreign countries. He was quite satisfied that if the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country would only consider the Reports, and if the working classes would only study them, they would be able to learn what was being done abroad with reference to working hours, wages, and other matters connected with foreign industries; and they would not be surprised that the commercial prosperity of this country was not equal to that of other countries. With such knowledge before them, he was sure that the working classes would not continue to think that by receiving a sort of temporary relief in the midst of their distress this wave of adversity in our commercial interests was a periodical one. They would gather from the Reports that it arose in a great measure from actual loss of trade in this country—trade which was being taken up by foreign countries. Having perused the Reports to which he had been referring, he was satisfied that this country was suffering from depression of trade to a greater extent, perhaps, than any other country. It was said, in answer to the complaints made by British manufacturers, that other countries were suffering from as acute depression as ourselves. He ventured to say that, with the exception possibly of France, there was no other country at the present time—at all events as far as the Consular Reports went—which was suffering so much from depression of trade as our own.

asked if Belgium was not suffering equally as much as ourselves?

said, his right hon. Friend remarked that Belgium was suffering from depression of trade; but he (Mr. C. Palmer) ventured to say that Belgium was not suffering from depression of trade in the way indicated—that was, in the sense in which the hon. Member wished it to be understood. What Belgium was suffering from was depression of profits owing to the general lowering of prices for all classes of manufactured goods; but the volume of trade in Belgium was as large as ever. But in this country not only had the profit of trade fallen off, but also the volume of trade was decreasing. Then they heard that Germany was also suffering from depression of trade. That country was undoubtedly suffering from agricultural depression; but in other respects it was far from suffering. Germany was one of the most prosperous and flourishing countries in Europe, and it was running England so close in regard to manufactures and commerce that he feared, unless we took a lesson from it in the assistance afforded to industry and commerce, we should certainly see ourselves behind it in the race. He did not say that we should utilize our Consuls abroad, for commercial purposes; but we might assist our commercial interests abroad and make known what trades were being carried on and what changes were being made. We ought at least to assist the commercial interests of the country by collecting information from various countries and circulating it at home. The fact was that the state of trade in Europe was undergoing a very important change at this time. This arose from many circumstances. Among others, he might mention this—that there was now a more direct communication between the manufacturer and the consumer than there was formerly. Whether this change was brought about by the opening of the Suez Canal, by the piercing of the Alps, or by the purchase by Germany of the railways, whereby that country was enabled to develop its industry and carry its produce to distant parts at a low cost, he (Mr. C. Palmer} could not say; but it was certain that such change had taken place and was developing, and that the Germans were foremost amongst the nations of the world in pushing forward that new development. Germany gave all the assistance in the power of the State to assist the progress of her commerce. She did not hesitate to send her young men into every country in the world to study the language of the countries, and the habits of the people, their industrial and commercial wants; and when they had obtained all this information they put it into practical effect by distributing the manufactures of their country direct to the consumers, and displacing, as far as possible, middlemen. Not only Germany, however, but other countries in Europe were taking a great interest in commercial affairs, whilst our own country, which prided itself upon being the greatest commercial country in the world, did very little indeed to aid in the development of her commercial enterprize or of her manufacturing industries. That House occupied itself a good deal, and very properly so, in discussing and passing mea- sures for the improvement of the condition of the working classes; but it was possible to over-legislate in this direction, and he thought if a Government would only put into their hands well-digested information as to the state of the labour market in other countries, the rates and wages of skilled and unskilled labour, the class of manufactures produced, and other information, which might easily be obtained, a great deal of good might be done to the working classes, who probably would begin to discern that something else was wanted to ensure success besides legislation. They would see that skilled energy and perseverance were necessary in the workman as well as in the capitalist, if we were to keep pace with the manufacturers of other countries. It was, he regretted to say, a fact that other countries, which used to be importers of our manufactures, were now not only competing with us in supplying the foreign market, but were actually sending their surplus manufactures into this country to compete with our own manufactures in the home market. The result of this was to destroy our own industry, and we naturally wanted to know why this was so. Well, he was afraid that one, at all events, of the causes was the little interest taken in our commerce, and the little help given to it by our Government, compared with the Governments of other countries, and he hoped that one outcome of this Resolution would be that the Government would take up this question in earnest in connection with the Foreign Office; or, still better, why should we not have a Minister of Commerce to undertake the direction of such matters? At all events, he hoped the Government would take the matter up, and that they would see that we had at our Embassies, not only Military and Naval Attaches, but also commercial men, of sufficient experience to enable them to gain information up to the latest possible date on everything passing in the countries to which they were appointed, in reference to commerce, the requirements of the people, the rate of wages, the demands for labour, the condition of the working classes, and on cognate subjects. He recommended hon. Members, too, to read the Reports which had been sent home by our Consults in foreign countries. They were very interesting reading; but they were also very startling in the informa- tion which they conveyed as to the manner in which our manufacturers were being supplanted by other countries, and especially by Germany. There was no question of more serious importance to us than our industrial condition. If we chose to pass over it lightly the numbers of our unemployed would continually increase, and we should find the distress intensified from year to year. Our trade would leave us, gradually but most assuredly, unless we could receive prompt information through the channels indicated, and unless when it was received it was promptly disseminated by the Government. No paltry saving should unduly limit the circulation of these Reports throughout the country for the information of manufacturers and all engaged in trade and industry. Nothing would bring working classes and capitalists together more quickly than the realization of the alarming fact that capital was leaving this country for the purpose of establishing large factories abroad. When once capitalists and workers saw that their interests were mutual in the matter there was every reason to believe that the great energy and activity of our merchants, and the intelligence undoubtedly possessed by our working classes and by Englishmen generally, would be united in a well-directed effort to maintain the commercial and industrial status of this country.

said, that this important subject had been introduced in a very interesting and effective manner by the previous speakers. He was glad that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. C. Palmer) had alluded to the circulation of the Reports which had been laid before the Commission on Trade, because they showed many of the causes of depression from which this country was suffering. For the last 10 years he had been making representations to Her Majesty's Government on this very subject, and more especially during the last two years, when, as President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, he had impressed upon the Foreign Office the necessity of taking more interest in the manufacturers and trade of this country. He had not a word to say against the great body of our Commercial Representatives in different parts of the world. We had an able body of men who were anxious to do their duty to the commercial interests of this country. He had frequently heard addresses delivered by Consuls and others before meetings of merchants in this country, and the speakers had laid before those meetings facts which were of immense value. It was, however, a ground of complaint that in a body so able there were many men who were so useless as regarded commerce. He could not support altogether the arguments of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren), who appeared to wish that our Consuls should become commercial touters. It would not be consistent with the dignity of this country for those gentlemen, many of whom were well educated in law and in diplomacy, to become commercial touters, as many of the German Consuls were. A book named by the hon. Member for Stafford was simply three volumes of advertisements which were issued by the German Government. That book reached him last year, and the volumes were on the shelves of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, where they would remain unused, because it was known that they were only advertisements. It ought to be stated plainly and clearly that what was required was a greater amount of earnestness and determination, not only on the part of our Consuls, but also on the part of those who were charged with the Administration of this country. It was to them we must look for more zeal, energy, and determination. We must not simply blame the Consuls who were trying to do their duty abroad, and who, when they sent home good Reports, met with little support and encouragement from the Government at home. Many of the Reports gave interesting and practical information connected with the commerce of the country to which the writer had been appointed; but there were very few which dealt with industrial interests; there were very few that told us what things were wanted abroad which could be supplied by the industry of England. It was in this respect that we wanted more information. There was an interesting Report from Consul Playfair at Algiers, who devoted 36 pages to a most interesting, romantic, archæological, and geographical account of Tunis, but only eight pages of any importance to the trade and industry in which Lancashire was concerned. It was on points like these that instructions might be given from headquarters at home. He might be wrong if he said that the Foreign Office did not instruct the Consuls as to looking after the commercial interests; but their importance was not sufficiently impressed upon them. Then many of these Reports dated back 18 months, and consequently gave no information as to what was now wanted. It seemed to take the Foreign Office a year to consider what Reports should be circulated. The Consuls waited until they could get complete statistics; whereas the Representatives of other countries sent home Reports yearly or periodically, giving information of what was going on at the time of writing, and not troubling themselves, as our Consuls did, with things which were matters of ancient history. Looking through the Reports lately published, he found there were several cases of Reports which had been delayed 18 months, and were practically a year old when they were sent off. In some cases three years were dealt with in one Report. The Consul at San Salvador sent home in 1885 a Report for 1883. The delay in the publication of the Reports was a great source of dissatisfaction. He hoped the Foreign Office would take a leaf out of the book of foreign countries. The Representatives of the United States sent home most valuable Reports of the trade and industry of the countries in which they lived, and these were of the greatest use to the manufacturers and traders in the United States. If this course was adopted by our Consuls it would be of great service to the commercial classes in this country. We also required periodical Reports of a practical character also with regard to our own Colonies, where it was even more important. He urged the Government to consider the enormous interests which were at stake, for unless some measures were taken before long to help the industries of this country they would see a continuation of the present depression, and trade would still further turn away from us.

I think the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this Motion has done a service to the House in bringing this very important matter before it. For a very important matter it is—important not only in its bearings upon commerce, though these are extremely serious, but important also as far as it bears upon the whole of our foreign policy—upon the traditions of the Foreign Office, and on the course of conduct which our Diplomatic Agents, the Representatives of this country in all parts of the world, ought to pursue. I will not follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow with regard to the present state of the depression of trade; but the whole House will be prepared to admit these two statements—the one, that the present state of our industry deserves the most careful attention of the Legislature; the other, that the competition of foreign countries has become extremely severe, and requires to be watched with the greatest anxiety on all sides. But it is extremely important that, in endeavouring to meet this competition of foreign countries, we should not be carried into a wrong direction, that we should not, in our desire to push the trade of the country, either at this moment or any other moment, embark on a course which might afterwards prove to be most dangerous, or embark upon a new system system totally contrary to the traditions of the diplomacy of this country in vying with the diplomacy of foreign countries. The words of the Motion are comparatively innocuous; but the preamble calls attention to the successful efforts of the German and other Foreign Governments in pushing the trade of their respective countries in competition with English manufacturers. The speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Motion with so much ability, dealt specifically with a large number of cases where the diplomatic pressure exercised by Foreign Governments had resulted to the detriment of this country; and the question which arose in my mind while the hon. Member was pursuing his argument was this—Does the hon. Member recommend that this country should enter into competition with the Governments of France, Germany, and others which he mentioned, in pushing special enterprizes, such as the sale of ships, or the promotion of railways, or the building of water-works, by bringing pressure to bear upon Foreign Governments, and by doing their utmost to secure concessions? That is a point which it is extremely important for this House to bear in mind. I entirely agree in the remark of the hon. Member who spoke last, that the fault, if fault there is, in not exercising this pressure, does not lie with our Ambassadors or Consuls abroad, but is due to the recognized policy of the Foreign Office, and that they are instructed to abstain from those intrigues and that competition for securing concessions in favour of individuals or firms which forms a great part of the occupation, and the favourite occupation, of foreign Diplomatists. All I can say, from the knowledge which I gained of this question when I was at Constantinople, is that there would be nothing which would give greater satisfaction to British Consuls abroad than that this House should pass a Resolution encouraging them to push trade. It would be a great increase to their occupations; but not only that, it would increase their interest. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion spoke of the pleasures of British Residents abroad, and one of the greatest pleasures of Consuls and Vice Consuls is to be able to trip up Consuls and Vice Consuls of other countries. We cannot, therefore, give them an occupation which will be more congenial to them than to cast aside all the past pedantry of the Foreign Office, and allow them to vie with German Diplomatic Agents both in pushing the wares of individual firms and in securing contracts to individual traders. Is that the wish of the House of Commons? Is it the wish that this course of diplomacy should be followed by our Diplomatists? There ought to be no obscurity upon the subject. I regret that the Resolution does not bring that point out sufficiently clear. It might be perfectly possible that this House would endorse, as I am sure it would endorse, the view that by all legitimate means the Foreign Office should increase the means of information of our merchants and managers, and that we should increase not only their knowledge, but also remove, if possible, impediments to trade generally in foreign countries. In that way they would promote the industries of this country. But, at the same time, I do not think it would be desirable that the House should express its view that our Representatives should imitate the examples which were sketched by the hon. Member behind me, and by which, under the auspices of Prince Bismarck, great results have certainly been achieved for German manufacturers. The House ought also to remember this, that there is a great responsibility involved in the recommendation of particular firms or particular interests. Hitherto it has been the desire of the Foreign Office—and that is why our Consuls are so careful—I think I may speak from my knowledge of the Foreign Office—to hold that it is impossible to discriminate between the claims of different British subjects; and that, therefore, either they must take up the interests of all or they could not promote the interest of any particular enterprize. I wish the House to draw a distinction between promoting British trade in its broad sense by such means as the improvement of foreign tariffs, or increasing our stock of information, and, on the other hand, pushing the trade of particular firms with the object of securing them particular contracts. There is a further point, and that is that the working out of special advantages for special firms or groups of firms afterwards frequently involves the Governments who have promoted such business in very awkward claims. The friction caused by these claims between respective Governments frequently damages the trade of the whole country quite as much as it has been served by the granting of an individual concession. I remember when I arrived at Constantinople there were 102 legal claims by British subjects connected with various industrial enter-prizes which had been entered into in former years, and the pushing of these claims continually seemed to me to weaken the general influence of the Ambassador. Continual interviews with the Foreign Minister, to push the payment of the claims of a particular British subject, caused such irritation that on the following day, if the Foreign Minister had to be seen on some great question of policy, the result of the friction of the disagreeable interview of the previous day still remained. In former times I think there was more encouragement given to British traders in this respect. There were claims open at Constantinople of 22 years' standing and more, which had formed the constant subject of correspondence between successive Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers during those 22 years. Occasionally what happened was an understanding such as this—the Turkish Minister said, "This claim must be satisfied, and I will satisfy it." On one occasion a Turkish Minister granted to a claimant an assignment upon the revenues of some distant Turkish Province. The claimant thought he had at last some satisfaction; but two months afterwards he came with a longer face than ever to the British Embassy, stating that when his friends presented this assignment to the Provincial Treasury there were no assets—that the money had all been remitted to Constantinople. This is an illustration of the kind of difficulty which attaches to this class of business, and which creates considerable inconvenience. I do not think that the House will be disposed to assent to any part of the argument of the hon. Member which went in that direction. I would now come to another point, which is that of furnishing information and sending properly qualified persons to be attached to the Embassies. I entirely endorse what has fallen from one hon. Member who spoke of the great services of Mr. Crowe, who is a singularly able and indefatigable official. I think it is well worth the while of the Foreign Office to consider how they can further expand that system; but I think it is only justice to Foreign Consuls to say that there are amongst them some men who have considerable commercial experience; and I think, on the other hand, the House must also bear in mind that it is extremely difficult to find these properly qualified Diplomatic Agents who are to be generally acquainted with the trade of this country. Far from wishing to discourage the Foreign Office in the selection of such Agents, and in endeavouring to find them, I would encourage them to do so; but it is right that we should bear the difficulties in mind. Whenever you come to select these Commercial Agents you must take care not to select men who have been unsuc- cessful in their own business engagements, because I am sure if it were known to-morrow that the Foreign Office were prepared to engage the services of five or six Diplomatic Agents with commercial knowledge, a very large proportion of the applications for the post would come from gentlemen who had been unsuccessful in their own business. Why? Because, before the time of this great depression of trade, the profits of commercial men, on the whole, were greater than the salaries of our Diplomatists, and it would have been difficult to tempt away first-class men not acquainted with one particular industry, but most of the industries, from successful business, in order to send them to the centre of Asia Minor, or Japan, or China. Then there comes the difficulty of the language. These properly qualified Agents would be of no use unless acquainted with the language. So I think it would be well worth while for the Foreign Office to consider whether they cannot train men to this business who may not be ready in one, two, or three years, but who may be trained specially for the service with a view to an acquaintance with our industries, so far as they can make themselves acquainted with them, and at the same time acquire some knowledge of foreign languages, so that they may be useful abroad. In that way it is possible that considerable advantage may be reaped. But we cannot conceal from ourselves that this kind of universal knowledge which they are to obtain of the general industries of the country is very difficult. What would the great cotton industry say if, in a particular country, you were to appoint a man specially qualified to represent the iron industry, while their own was neglected? If you can find men of general ability, and qualify them by a special course of study, that might be a more effectual way than to select special commercial men, and take them away from their business. I know that as soon as these specially trained men enter the Public Service, there is, perhaps not unnaturally, a kind of prejudice against them on the part of the commercial classes, because it is considered to a degree which, I think, is scarcely justified, that the public servants of the State are tied up with red tape, and if you can only remove them and introduce the commer- cial element, that you would immediately make a great revolution. But those acquainted with these matters know that there are men who now devote themselves to these tasks with great ability; and I think I may appeal to hon. Members who sometimes look into these Commercial Reports whether they are not struck with the ability shown by men who have had no special commercial training at all, but who bring their intelligence to bear on these matters. In conclusion, I would say I entirely endorse what fell from my hon. Friend who spoke just now when he said great energy was necessary at headquarters in this respect. If there was a time when more or less it was true that the Foreign Office looked upon British merchants as rather troublesome people, who were continually causing vexation and annoyance at the Foreign Office, that has ceased to be the case now. Since the Commercial Department has been established at the Foreign Office, and since able men like Mr. Kennedy have been introduced there, I believe there is a great desire at the Foreign Office to promote—I would rather use the word promote than the word push—the interests of British trade. That desire exists, and nothing can be more true than this—that the more the young men in the Departments and in the Diplomatic Service understood they would be approved and rewarded at headquarters if they specially devoted themselves to matters of this kind, the more success is likely to be achieved, and the more it is felt generally at the Foreign Office that all Reports upon trade, and all legitimate efforts made to promote the general course of British commerce without entering into competition by putting on diplomatic pressure, the more I think it will be for the interests of the country. I trust, whatever view the House may take of the particular Motion, they will not encourage the idea that either Prince Bismarck, great man as he is, or any French, or Belgian, or Austrian Ministers ought to be the guides of this country or of our diplomacy abroad—our diplomacy which is looked to to promote British interests, but at the same time to hold as high as possible the standard of British honour.

said, that, as a former Attaché, he agreed with hon. Members who had spoken in favour of the Resolution, and, in the case of a division, he should vote in support of it. Sitting, as he did, on the economical side of the House, he thought that the matter of expenses should be duly taken into consideration. Some hon. Members, doubtless, thought that the Consuls were the only gentlemen abroad who attended to commercial affairs, and that opinion appeared to be shared to some extent by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen); but he knew that they formed some portion of the duties at the Embassies. A system ought to be arranged by which properly-qualified commercial men—who understood the laws and language of the countries to which they would be accredited—might be appointed to the Diplomatic Service, while a permanent Secretary, trained and educated in the country, would be of great use to the Ambassador upon his arrival. When an Ambassador arrived at his post he perhaps found a body of new Secretaries, not one of whom could speak the language of the country to which he went; and probably he found a Consul who was the only person able to translate for him into the tongue of the people among whom he resided. If, however, he found on his arrival a permanent Secretary such as existed in Foreign Embassies under the designation of a chancelier—a man who knew intimately the language, manners, customs, and law of the country, and who had always been there—then the Ambassador or Minister would have at his right hand one who could advise him on all commercial matters. It would be inadvisable to hand over commercial duties entirely to the Consuls. If they had permanent Commercial Secretaries at the Embassies and Legations they might reduce the Diplomatic Service considerably. At the present time it was the First Secretary to the Embassy, and not the Consul, who compiled the Commercial Report; but when that gentleman was removed to a new post it was impossible that he could know much, if anything, of the affairs of that country. He believed that the Diplomatic Service did its best to assist our commerce abroad, although many of its members had no special training. The best solution, if economy was to be kept in mind, would, perhaps, be to reduce the personnel of the Diplomatic Service in order to have the Commercial Secretaries to whom he had referred, and who would, of course, be under the guidance of the Ambassadors.

said, it had been remarked that hon. Members did not read the Reports presented on trade; but he must say that he had read most attentively the Report to which reference had been made in connection with Tunis, Algiers, and other countries. He noticed that a small slip printed with those Reports intimated that in future they would be forwarded only to those Members who specifically asked for them; so that it was not intended that they should be circulated to the House at large. Many of the Reports were, moreover, presented too late to be of real use. If the hon. Member who introduced the Motion went to a division he would be very happy to give him his vote in order to bring this question more properly before the Government.

said, he would venture to call the attention of the House to one, if not two, cases of recent years in which, owing to our deficiency at headquarters, we had not secured the trade which we should have secured. One case was at Cameroons, where, owing entirely to the activity and energy of Prince Bismarck, the trade of that important place was taken away from us. For three or four years the Kings in that neighbourhood had been writing to our Foreign Office begging us to take them under our protection. The Foreign Office gave no answer, or, if they did, at all events a very halting one. Then they went to Prince Bismarck who procured territory which was esteemed of considerable value. The result was, as he saw in a newspaper in December after the General Election, that in trade the City of Liverpool had suffered to the extent of something like £1,000,000 sterling a-year. That might be only a newspaper statement, and might be exaggerated; but still there was a loss which was entirely owing to a want of energy at headquarters. Then there was Zanzibar, the Sultan of which place had had his territory nibbled away, and this was all the result of lethargy at headquarters. We had let the time go by when we could maintain with success the position of the Sultan of Zanzibar. The trade of Africa and the great cen- tral places there through the activity of Prince Bismarck had gone to Germany. What was wanted was energy, pluck, courage, and resource at the Foreign Office, and, failing that, all the exertions of its subordinates abroad went for nought. He cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House after the testimony which he had obtained from both sides as to the immediate necessity of the Foreign Office taking some steps in order that the Consular Representatives of this country might show a greater interest in all matters connected with British trade in the midst of the terrible competition to which it was subjected. He was very much struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. C. Palmer) in reference to the Report already published by the Royal Commission on Trade. He was fully aware that the information contained in the first Report—which he thought was the only one yet published—ought to be of the greatest value to the working classes of this country in showing that if they were handicapped by foreigners they were handicapped simply from the fact that foreign working men were working longer hours and living at a lower rate of expenditure. Considering how much had been heard during the last six months, and especially during the time of the late General Election, with reference to the advantages which were to be derived from the investigations of that Royal Commission, he could not help feeling some disappointment that some achievement had not yet been brought to light by the labour of that Commission.

said, that the Report of the Depression of Trade Commission would be issued in a fortnight.

said, that the point to which he was directing attention was that they had heard a great deal on all sides, more especially during the recent General Election, as to the depression of trade being due to the fact that this country was following Free Trade instead of developing Fair Trade, and he thought if that were so the Royal Commission should duly enlighten them on the subject at the earliest possible moment. He was wishful, however, more particularly to take the opportunity of stating his own personal experience in connection with Consular matters, derived after a residence of some years at the Treaty Ports of China. He agreed almost entirely with the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) as to the absence of an adequate interest on the part of our Consular Representatives in that part of the world in the commercial interests of our country. But he must say also in this respect, that there were Consuls and Consuls, and if he were to quote the name of a man whose name was honoured in the East, and honoured wherever people were familiar with Eastern commerce—he meant the late Sir Harry Parkes—he would say that in him we had a bright example of a man who would uphold what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh called the honourable position of British commerce, and who, at the same time, would not, if he could possibly help it, allow any enterprize for a moment to be lost sight of or to be taken away through the influence of any foreign Consul to the disadvantage of the commerce of his own country. But he also agreed with what had been said by some of the speakers, that the fault did not lie so much with the individual Consuls as with the spirit which prevailed at the Foreign Office in regard to commercial affairs. He believed that a change for the better had been introduced there, but only, he thought, to some slight extent; and if he deemed it right to occupy the time of the House he could easily give examples in connection with his own experience to show that the Foreign Office did not take kindly to the exercise of those duties which were connected with commercial affairs, and that there was too great a proneness to take for granted matters which ought to be pushed forward with zeal and energy. He would give only one example of what he meant. Under our Treaty with China shipowners trading with that country paid to the Chinese Government a very large amount for port dues, and they naturally expected that the harbours of that country would be maintained in an efficient state. By far the most important place in China was the port of Shanghai, and for many years the merchants and shipowners of that part of that world had been agitating vigorously in order to obtain an improvement in the access to Shanghai; but so far from it having been improved, it has been constantly and disgracefully deteriorating to such an extent that vessels were now not able to cross the bar of the river, when drawing two feet less water than that with which they might have crossed it some 10 or 12 years ago. Great pressure had been brought to bear on the Foreign Office in this particular matter, and he was bound to say that the Foreign Office had carried their action up to a certain point in connection with it. They had carried it to this point, that the Chinese Government actually sent out a powerful dredger for the purpose of dredging the bar; but as soon as they got the dredger out there they took the opportunity of removing it, and the bar remained undredged to the present moment. That was a matter which had been brought under the notice of the Foreign Office over and over again; and if a proper amount of energy had been exhibited in that Department he was perfectly certain that, before now, our Minister would have succeeded in triumphing over the obstacles placed by the Chinese Government in the way of this improvement. It was perfectly well known that the Chinese Government and the Chinese people were of a character of this description—they were obstinate up to a certain point; but when they saw you were determined to succeed they invariably gave in. It was constantly remarked in the course of our wars with China that if ever we showed the slightest determination to take possession of one of their forts they philosophically observed that as we were determined to go in it was necessary that they should go out. That was exactly the position they held on every subject, and if the Foreign Office would prosecute this matter aright they would meet with the desired success.

suggested that it would be of great advantage if an abstract of the Reports of our Consular Agents abroad were published at a cheap price, so that they might be more generally read. He could not see, however, having read a large number of those Reports, that British trade would be advantaged by our workmen labouring longer hours for lower wages. This would only increase the intensity of trade depression. In spite of his short hours and better wages, the output of the British working man compared, both with regard to amount and cost, more than favourably with that of the foreign workman. If our Diplomatic Agents abroad were to be instructed to use their influence on behalf of British trade, they should be instructed also to give more detailed information on industrial matters in their periodical Reports.

said, he would support this Motion, because he thought something ought to be done to promote the extension of British commerce. It seemed to him to open the larger question whether the whole system of our trade and commerce did not, in some respects, require protection? And by the very terms of the Motion the House would be committed to the opinion that something in this direction should be done. He was glad to hear from hon. Members opposite the admission that our home industries were being injured and capital driven from this country by foreign competition; and it was hardly necessary, perhaps, to point out that the amount of our trade and commerce was of vital importance, not merely for the sake of capitalists, but for the sake of employment of working men. He understood the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) to say that the condition of our trade and commerce had not changed; but it seemed to him that as regards our relations with foreign countries, these conditions had entirely changed; improved means of communication and the advance of foreign protected industries had entirely altered the nature of foreign competition, and the time for some action in the direction suggested by this Motion had, he believed, now come. It was a question with him whether we were not living in a fool's paradise; whether we were not, by our apathy, allowing our home trade to leave us, and our foreign markets to be taken from us by our European and American rivals.

said, it had been well observed by the late General Gordon that the British Empire had been built up not by its Governments but by its adventurers. If that was true of the British Empire, how much more true was it of British trade? It was the spirit of private enterprize, asking no help from the State, that gave us the volume of trade which in magnitude and value surpassed any other in the world. When we talked of foreign competition and the inquiries Germany, France, and Italy were pushing in every part of the world, we should remember how far behind us they had hitherto been and how much they had to learn from the British merchant. They were trying to encroach on a commercial monopoly which had belonged to this country for years, and which was entirely the fruit of the spirit of individual enterprize. It would be an evil day for this country, and would make a great change in the spirit in which business was carried on, if English manufacturers and merchants were to fall into the habit of coming to the House asking the Government of the country to interfere on their behalf. When Motions of this kind were brought forward it was right that those who represented great industrial constituencies in this House should ask what was really the cause of this great foreign competition in recent days. Had not merchants and manufacturers some grounds for searchings of the heart in this matter? Was it not the case that both capitalists and workmen had been spoilt by prosperity and had fallen into a too luxurious manner of living? During his stay in Bombay he had noticed how Greek and German firms outstripped in some cases their English rivals. What was the reason of this? It was that foreign merchants lived much more simply and in a more thrifty manner than their English rivals. A Greek merchant did not drive down to the cotton market with a phaeton and pair of horses. He walked down from his small bungalow, where he lived in a simple, thrifty manner, and was content with smaller profits than the high-minded, luxurious Englishman. So it was at home. It was said that it was Prince Bismarck who was taking away the foreign trade from this country. But were there not a number of enlightened travellers and merchants in Germany who explored distant markets and on their return induced their Government to support their enterprizes? Look at what the Germans were doing in Eastern Africa, where German pioneers, private individuals, had gone forth like the English merchants who were the great- ness and glory of this country in years gone by. Upon the Western Coast of Africa the same course was being pursued by the French. This country had been carrying out a number of wars in the most distant countries of the world. But did they ever hear of Chambers of Commerce sending representatives to go with our armies to Abyssina, up the Nile, into Central Asia, or even to Burmah? In past times English merchants would have taken advantage of these Expeditions to push their business for themselves, and they would not have wanted any Government to tell them what were the requirements of foreign markets, or how to produce goods to suit the tastes of the people. He should like to point out, however, in what way the Government might fairly assist trade. It was often said that wars were of benefit to the commerce of this country. But was this the case? When Russia pushed forward and acquired new territory the first thing that she did was to establish a line of Custom-houses, with a view of thus shutting out English trade, and then formed railways for the transit of the produce of her people to the new territory. This was an example which England might well follow. We were far too magnanimous in our foreign policy. We had an increasing population, and were greatly in need of new markets; but when we acquired new territory like Burmah, at great cost to the taxpayers of India, and great cost of life to England and India, the Government never thought of imposing differential duties on foreign goods, but threw open to all nations the advantages we had so dearly purchased. We did nothing to prevent foreign competition in the new markets which we acquired, and foolishly abandoned the precautions which other countries always took for the safety of their own commercial interests. The result of that necessarily was that, while we did so much to open distant markets throughout the world, we gained no exclusive advantage from this extension of Empire; while Russia and other countries, by extending their Dominions abroad, did everything that they possibly could to stem our progress, and in this way deprived us of any advantage we might have gained by our enterprize.

said, the House was indebted to his hon. Friend for the very interesting debate which his Motion had produced. The subject was one which might properly engage the attention of the House at a time when so much was heard on all sides of commercial depression, and they were under an obligation to his hon. Friend for the great pains with which he had collected a number of instances in which it was supposed that foreign countries had profited to the disadvantage of the trade of this country. He did not think that his hon. Friend had made out any ground for complaining of the Foreign Office; and, indeed, his hon. Friend himself seemed to feel that such grounds did not exist; still the cases he had mentioned were not without interest, and deserved to be well weighed and carefully investigated. There had been for several years past constant complaints among the commercial classes as to the diminution in the volume of British trade when compared with that of some foreign countries. He did not believe that the facts were as bad as they were commonly represented to be; but if it could be shown that there was any action possible on the part of Her Majesty's Government which would in any way diminish the severity of foreign competition, and give British traders a better chance in the foreign markets than they had now, and if any complaints were to be made against the Government in connection with the promotion of British trade interests, it was, he thought, very desirable that they should be heard in the House of Commons. He must inform his hon. Friend, however, that it was not possible for him at the present moment to give a complete reply to his case by telling him the measures which the Foreign Office could adopt in order to meet his wishes, because they were at this moment in the very midst of an investigation of this question. The Foreign Office had only just received replies to the questions that had been addressed to the Chambers of Commerce, and it was receiving almost every day a number of valuable letters from Consuls, from private firms, and men of great commercial experience, which were throwing a great deal of light on this question. Within the very first week in which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had entered on the duties of their respective Offices, they met and exchanged ideas on this question, and a Minute was frame by the Secretary of State, addressed to the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, requesting it to take this whole question into consideration, and to endeavour to frame a scheme by which the efficiency of the Foreign Office and of the Diplomatic and Consular Services might be increased, with a view to the better promotion of British trade abroad, and with a view particularly to the prompt collection and diffusion of information regarding the trade conditions of foreign countries, so as to make it available to British merchants and manufacturers at the earliest possible moment. That was one reason why the Government found it impossible to accept the Motion of his hon. Friend. It would interrupt them in the very midst of their investigation, and might have the effect of tying their hands by prescribing to them one particular way in which trade interests might be promoted; whereas they desired at the present to keep their minds perfectly open, so that they might receive suggestions from every quarter, and be able, after full consideration, to frame a scheme which would prove satisfactory to the House. Another reason why the Government could not accept the Motion was because in its terms it implied the creation of a large number of posts, and the incurring of a very large addiional expense, which the Government could not feel itself justified in recommending at the present stage of their investigation. He hoped that, under these circumstances, his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to press his Motion; but if he or any other hon. Member wished to obtain a record of the general feeling and sentiment of the House on the subject, the Government would have no objection to its being taken in the form of some such Resolution as the following:—

"That the House hears with satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government are examining proposals for increasing the efficiency for commercial purposes of the Diplomatic and Consular Staff of the Foreign Office, and for promptly obtaining and distributing information on commercial subjects."

He did not himself suggest that any Resolution was needed; but in case it was desired to pass one to the effect he had stated, some such words would have the concurrence of the Government. He did not see that his hon. Friend had given any reason for thinking that our Consular Agents were at present deficient in zeal. His hon. Friend had referred to cases in which contracts which English firms desired to obtain had been obtained by foreigners. He had not shown, however, that the British Consuls had not interested themselves in these cases as far as they could properly do so. They might have taken action, although in vain, or they might have abstained from interference for fear of exposing their Government to a rebuff, or because success could only be achieved by means which the conscience of the country could not approve. His hon. Friend should not ask the House to proceed on the assumption that foreign countries did more in this matter than ourselves. No doubt, the competition of other nations was far more active in every direction than it was formerly, and it extended to parts of the world where it was previously almost unknown; but it was impossible that Britain could always keep a monopoly of trade in regions where she had once enjoyed it. His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), in what, in its earlier portions, he could not but consider an excellent and seasonable speech, had called attention to some of the causes which awakened this competition; and another hon. Member had truly remarked that the German merchant very often cut the British merchant out because he lived more frugally, was willing to do business upon a smaller margin of profit, and applied himself perhaps with less enterprize but with an untiring industry to his business. Then, mercantile education in Germany had reached a much higher point than it had in this country, which accounted in no small degree for the success of German merchants. This transfer of trade to the hands of German firms was by no means confined to the case of Germans who were German subjects and domiciled in Germany, but it applied just as much to Germans who were domiciled in England and British subjects. He therefore attributed the advances that German trade had made to the attainments and character of the German merchants rather than to any political action on the part of their country. In the United States the same complaints were heard which we heard in this country, that foreign trade was languishing and was not sufficiently pushed by the Government; and the depression felt in England was not in any way exceptional, for there was depression everywhere. The recurrence, however, of that spirit of self-help which was the spirit that had made English commerce great in the past would make it always great, and would expand the limits of our commerce as long as it flourished. It was another question whether our Diplomatic and Consular Agents were deficient in zeal or capacity. Having wandered about the world a good deal as a private traveller, he could recollect very few instances in which he had not found the British Representative to be an active and capable man, with a good knowledge of the country where he lived and a readiness to place his knowledge at the service of the British visitor. He did not believe that any European State possessed a more active or zealous body of officials than those who served Her Majesty abroad as Consuls. He did not admit that there existed any longer a desire on the part of anyone connected with, the Foreign Office to "snub" commerce. If there were any traces of it yet lingering among our Diplomatists, such traces were fast disappearing; and it was now acknowledged within the Foreign Office that one of its clearest duties was to promote the interests of British commerce to the best of its power by all legitimate means. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) had shown with great force how dangerous it would be if the Foreign Office were to encourage Her Majesty's Representatives to give; ground for foreign complaints and jealousies by endeavouring to press and push English commerce in a grasping and exclusive spirit. We should have to be prepared for troublous times in our foreign relations were we to embark on such a policy. Quarrels would spring up in every direction, because; there was no part of the world where the assistance of the British Agency would not be invoked, and the exercise of British influence to the prejudice of the citizens of other European States would increase the jealousy which our own pre-eminent position had already aroused, and might involve us in such constant difficulties as would necessitate an increase in our Military and Naval Establishments. There was another point even more important—namely, the necessity of maintaining the high character hitherto borne by Her Majesty's Representatives. Lucrative contracts and concessions could seldom be procured, especially in Eastern countries and in some parts of South America, without resort to doubtful means; and the House would hardly wish that Her Majesty's Representatives should be asked to connive at such measures. Let them suppose a case in which competition became very keen, and a bribe of £2,000 was offered by a foreigner to a Mandarin or any other official in order to obtain the desired prize, and then a British merchant or financier came to our Consul and informed him that they could get the concession by offering £3,000. Was the British Agent to connive at such dealings? What would this House say if the matter was brought before it, and a Representative of Her Majesty accused of having been a party? He must remind the House that the attempt to push commerce in the sense which some words that had been used in this debate seemed to suggest would almost certainly lead to transactions of that kind. Nothing had been of greater service to the trade of Britain as well as to her public character than the belief in the integrity of British Representatives and the knowledge that they were above suspicion. He had heard with pleasure many valuable suggestions made by hon. Members upon various branches of the question. These suggestions Her Majesty's Government were prepared to weigh with full care and attention. With regard to the diffusion of information and the alleged delay in the publication of Reports, the fault did not entirely lie with the Foreign Office, but partly with the printers, who during the Session were very much pressed by other work. Remonstrances had, however, been made, and they had received assurances that there would be more expedition in the future. One reason of the delay which sometimes occurred was the Rule that all Reports must first be laid on the Table of the House. A Report received in the middle of August might thus have to remain undisturbed till the middle of February before it could be presented. But if the House were willing to do away with this Rule a great deal of time could be saved. Consuls were also obliged to wait for the publication of statistics, which in many instances came out very slowly. Sometimes they were not published for eight or ten months after the end of the year to which they referred. With regard to the criticisms which had been passed upon Consul General Playfair, the Report of that gentleman was a good deal longer than he was required by the Regulations to make it, and the valuable Report on Tunis which formed part of it was entirely a work of supererogation. The Report was one of great interest; and he thought that the House would agree in thinking that Consul General Playfair had exercised a wise discretion in extending his Report to include other than purely commercial matters. Without adopting many of the views which had been put forward in that debate, he sympathized with the general feelings which had pervaded the speeches upon the question. As to the question of what line their action ought to take, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had spoken wisely when he had said that the two principal points required were, in the first place, that some care should be shown in selecting Consular Agents with a view to their commercial qualifications, and, in the second place, that they should have better plans for obtaining and publishing information. In these two ways the Government hoped to be able to do something to satisfy the wishes expressed on behalf of the mercantile community. They believed that it was possible to reward Diplomatic Agents who showed knowledge and skill in commercial affairs by singling them out for promotion and showing in various ways the satisfaction of the Foreign Office with their conduct. They were prepared to do everything that had been suggested towards spurring the zeal of our Representatives in obtaining information of solid commercial value. It had occurred to his mind that, instead of selecting special Commercial Attachés, it would not be a bad plan to use a some- what wider discretion than at present in sending upon special missions members of the Foreign Office or of the Diplomatic or Consular Services who had shown a knowledge of and capacity for dealing with commercial questions. He also thought that it deserved to be considered whether they should not invite Her Majesty's Representatives abroad to tell them from time to time if there was any question regarding commerce or industry which required an immediate Report, so that a special Agent might be sent to inquire and to prepare it. Chambers of Commerce might also make similar suggestions, and the Government would be glad to pick out the most competent official to send over to the place where he was wanted. If time permitted, he thought he could convince the House that the United States alone, with the infinite variety of experiments that were being tried there in industry and in social organization, were sufficient to employ the whole time of a roving Commissioner; and that such Reports as an active and open-minded man could make on various matters would be most valuable to this country. He could also show what was done in Germany by the publication of The Handels-Archive, a species of commercial journal, which contained information of great value. In France and Austria they had similar official journals, which in a similar way gave the latest information on current questions of trade; and he saw no reason why something of the same kind should not be attempted in this country. He hoped the House would believe from what he had said that the Foreign Office was now fully sensible of the importance of this question, and might be trusted to attend to it. They were well aware that commerce was the life-blood of Britain. Now that agriculture was suffering from causes beyond our own control, commerce had become more important than ever, and success in commerce could only be maintained, in the face of the fierce competition of to-day, by turning to account every resource which the country possessed. The Government believed that it might help commerce, if not to so great an extent as despondent merchants believed, yet still to some extent. He fully recognized that the altered conditions of the world had made the swift transmission of infor- mation with respect to the changing conditions of every market, the growing or declining industries of every community, the movements of trade from every great port, more necessary than before, because there were now few parts of the world that were not in touch with every other part through the telegraph—none whose circumstances might not, so frequent and easy had communication become, affect the commerce and the industries of Britain. The Government believed that the country wished them to try whether more might not be done than had yet been done to make the strong and widespread machinery of the Diplomatic and Consular Services helpful to British commerce, and so believing they would try promptly and try heartily.

said, with respect to the means of improving our trade foreshadowed by the Resolution, he differed almost altogether from the hon. Gentleman who moved it; but be thought that that part of his speech had been so conclusively dealt with by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) it was not necessary for him to say more than a few words. He could not imagine anything more inconvenient and derogatory to the character of the Diplomatic Service than that our Consuls and Diplomatists abroad should be turned into commercial agents. Nothing could be more disagreeable than for a Consul or Diplomatist to find himself one day interviewed by five or six British merchants, all of them anxious to get his assistance to push their particular trade with foreign Governments. That would be a thing impossible for any Consul or Diplomatist to do, and complaints would be made in that House against any Consul or Diplomatist who should attempt to push the trade of one commercial gentleman against that of another. But, at the same time, he was far from saying that diplomacy ought to stand idle when our Diplomatists found that those of other Powers were doing their best to push British trade out of the foreign markets. If unfair competition were resorted to by foreign Diplomatists abroad we ought not to permit it. When he was at the Foreign Office he acted on the principle himself. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the subject had referred to the action of Lord Rosebery, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had said that it was in consequence of their interference that British merchants in China had received justice. He was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that case, because the despatch was written by himself in consequence of some representation which had been received from our merchants at home, and which induced the Foreign Office to consider it absolutely necessary to make representations at Pekin. Now, with respect to the changes which had been suggested as to what were called commercial Consuls, he thought hon. Gentlemen had been a little inconsistent; because hardly one speaker had risen without bearing testimony in very complimentary terms to the value of the Reports of our Consular Agents. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. C. Palmer) said that he was quite sure if the commercial classes read these Reports they would receive much information. An hon. Gentleman opposite made some very sensible remarks, showing that he appreciated the full value of the Reports, when he said it would be a good thing if a condensation of them should be made by some Department of the Government. That was a recommendation which the Foreign Office might well take into its consideration. The thing might be done with very little trouble, and would be of great advantage. He could not agree with a remark which had been made by a noble Lord (Lord William Compton), whom he heard speaking for the first time with so much promise that evening. The noble Lord seemed to think that though these Reports were extremely valuable they were sometimes prepared by persons who knew nothing whatever of trade. His own experience did not confirm that. If any such thing were done it was the fault of the Ambassador or Minister abroad whose duty it was to choose competent persons, and that was being done at present, as the hon. Member for Jarrow had stated. He took great interest in the question, as the Circular written to the Consuls was signed by himself. As to the Amendment suggested by the Under Secretary, he did not see much objection to it, except that it seemed to take credit to the present Government for instituting a new era; whereas there was nothing that had been indicated by the Under Secretary which had not been foreshadowed by the late Government, and on which they had not taken action. But he hoped that the Motion would be withdrawn, and that they would hear nothing more about the Amendment which had been suggested by the Under Secretary. He had no notion that our Consuls should be turned into commercial travellers; but, at the same time, he thought much was due by the Government at home to the traders of this country. There was one subject which he hoped the House would not think him presumptuous in mentioning. He had been informed by persons in trade among his own constituents, and persons in trade whom he met abroad, that there was a very great difference in education between our commercial travellers abroad and the commercial travellers of foreign nations. A great deal of information which commercial persons sought from the Foreign Office they could obtain from their own commercial travellers if those travellers were competent men. He knew that our foreign commercial travellers were totally ignorant of the language of the country, and totally unable to make themselves thoroughly understood by the persons with whom they were anxious to embark in trade. He could not help thinking that in the Diplomatic Service there was a large number of persons perfectly competent to perform all the duties that might be put upon them. If there was any fault at all it laid at headquarters, with the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary. Persons in the Diplomatic Service performed their duties, comparatively speaking, at small salaries, because they looked forward to promotion; but if they appointed persons engaged in commerce to do the work mentioned by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. M'Laren) they would have to be paid high salaries, and the Estimates would consequently have to be increased. He hoped the House would not for a moment countenance the appointment of any large number of persons engaged in commerce, because there was in the Diplomatic Service a large number of persons who could perform the duties referred to in this discussion. He hoped that the present system would be retained, and that it would be regulated from headquarters.

said, he wished to address an appeal to the hon. Member for Newington (Mr. Isaacs), who had the next Motion on the Paper, which had reference to the relaxation of the Local Government Board's rule with regard to the granting of outdoor relief to the poor until the present depression of trade had disappeared. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he said, had not yet been returned to the House on his re-election on taking Office, and, at the present moment, there was no Secretary to the Board. The Motion of the hon. Member was one relating to the administration of the Poor Law; and, under the circumstances, he hoped that it would be postponed.

said, he held that it would be very wrong on the part of a new Member to cause the Government any inconvenience or embarrassment; and he would accede to the request which the right hon. Gentleman had made that he should postpone his Motion. He desired to point out, however, that the Motion had been on the Order Book since January 13 last, and that it had been put on one side on more than one occasion in order to facilitate Government Business. It was owing to no fault of his or of the Opposition side of the House that there was no President of the Local Government Board in the House, nor a Parliamentary Secretary of the Department. Under the circumstances, he hoped the Government would afford him facilities for bringing the Motion forward on a future occasion.

said, he was sorry that circumstances had occurred to impede the hon. Member in submitting his Motion to the House. Owing to the nature of the Business which they had before them, it was not in his power at present to make any engagement with the hon. Member to afford him an opportunity, by giving him some portion of the time at the disposal of the Government, for bringing his Motion forward.

Before this Bill is reported, I wish to ask whether the contribution which has been made under the authority of the Act which is now to be repealed will, notwithstanding the repeal of the Act, be continued to be paid, at all events for this year, to the hospitals of Devonport and Portsmouth? The Vote appears in the Army and Navy Estimates as a Vote under the Act to be repealed, and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) will see that the matter admits of some inquiry. He will see that as when this Bill becomes law the Act will have disappeared, and the Vote has not been taken, it will have to be proposed independently of the Act that is repealed under the authority of this Bill.

It is our intention this year to continue the sums which the right hon. Gentleman refers to. It is true they are inserted as payable under the Act which is about to be repealed, and that some alteration in the wording of the Vote will have to be made; but it is the intention of the Government to continue the payments.

said, he thought before the House came to a decision on this very important question they were entitled, on the part of the promoters of the Bill, to a very great deal of information which had not yet been given. The Bill before the House, as was shown on a former occasion, was very incomplete, and open to very serious objection in detail; and the case in favour of the Bill was, in his opinion, not proved. He did not say that the spirit which dictated the proposal now before the House was not one with which he had very great sympathy. The object of the hon. Gentleman opposite, in his own view, was, undoubtedly, the cause of morality in this country; and he was very far from saying there were not many respects in which the law might be altered with advantage. But what he would venture to say was that they knew, in a very short period, there would be a measure dealing with the general question of local government in this country brought before the House which had been promised by the Leaders of the Conservative Party, and promised, he understood, by right hon. Gentlemen opposite; and they were also aware that the question of the Liquor Laws would be referred, in a very great measure, to the Local Bodies to be created by that Act. Under those circumstances, he thought they ought to look upon any proposal for dealing with Sunday Closing with very great caution. It was very much better that a question of this kind should be dealt with by Local Bodies rather than by such a Bill as was now before the House; because if they passed the Bill, and it appeared afterwards that upon experience it was not successful, in order to alter again the state of the law back to its present condition they would have to pass another Act of Parliament. If it were in the hands of the Local Bodies, and it were found that Sunday Closing was not successful in any particular district, the Local Body would be able to alter that state of things without the difficulty and well-nigh impossibility of passing another Act of Parliament. He thought that was a most powerful reason for avoiding, if possible, dealing with this question by an Act of Parliament. It was far better that it should be left to the Local Bodies who were to be created under the Local Government Bill. The hon. Member who introduced this Bill on the 10th of March dealt with it most inadequately, because half the House was composed of new Members who could not be supposed to know or understand very much about the subject. There was in his speech absolutely no information whatever. There was, however, a very great deal of information available. A Committee of the other House and a Royal Commission had reported upon the subject; and, therefore, the least the hon. Member could have done would have been, he should have thought, to give them the conclusions to which those Commissions had come. But, on the contrary, he did not believe the hon. Member mentioned the one or the other in the whole course of his speech; and hon. Members, in order to know the facts of the case, would be obliged to refer to those Reports themselves. He had had occasion to refer to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords upon this subject; and he found this very remarkable fact, among other things—that the intoxication which was said to have been due to the opening of public-houses on Sunday was, in a large measure, due not to the opening of public-houses on Sunday, but to the opening of public-houses on Saturday. By that he meant to say that the cases which came before the magistrates were those which occurred before the public-houses opened on Sunday morning, so that the intoxication must have been due either to private drinking or to the drinking on Saturday night. Saturday was the great day for paying wages, and it was upon that day, therefore, that the most drinking took place. Argument, therefore, pointed not to a Sunday, but to a Saturday Closing Bill. These were reasons why he thought they should insist upon more information being given by the promoters of the Bill before they consented to the second reading. They had had experience to guide them in determining as to whether such a measure would be an advantage to the community, for Sunday Closing had been the law in parts of the United Kingdom already—in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland. It was alleged—and he believed with perfect truth—that in Scotland the diminution in drunkenness had been no greater than the diminution in England, where there had been no Sunday Closing. So far as Ireland was concerned, there was a strong case against the Bill; and as regarded Wales, if they were to believe the reports, the case against Sunday Closing was absolutely crushing. It had been such a failure that in an enormous number of cases the people who favoured the passing of the Welsh Sunday Closing Act were now strongly opposed to it, and laid it down as beyond the reach of argument that, before anything could be done to remedy the state of affairs, it would be necessary entirely to repeal the Welsh Sunday Closing Act. In view of such very strong arguments as these against Sunday Closing they ought to look with great hesitation upon a proposal of this kind. He did not propose to discuss the details of the Bill at this stage; but he would like to say that he was very far from being altogether opposed to any change in the law in respect to Sunday Closing. He would, for his own part, be very glad to consider any proposal which was adequately supported by the facts, either in one direction or the other. It had been said—with some truth, perhaps—that it would be better to reduce the hours in London on Sunday from 11 o'clock to 10 o'clock. That might or might not be so; but the hon. Gentleman had given them no facts whatever to enable them to arrive at a conclusion on the subject. There was one very obvious criticism to be made upon the Bill. Why was such an enormous distinction to be made between the Metropolitan district and the country? He heard the hon. Member's speech, and had referred to it since; but he could find no adequate defence for the distinction. It appeared to him there was no reason why the Metropolis should be treated in regard to Sunday Closing so much more mildly than the other parts of England, unless it be that the people of London were very much opposed to Sunday Closing. That brought him to an argument which was used in the debate on the 10th of March both by the hon. Member opposite and by the Home Secretary. They both spoke of the necessity of not going too fast, because they said total Sunday Closing was in advance of public opinion. Of course, that argument could only lie in the mouths of people who were in favour of total Sunday Closing. If they were not in favour of total Sunday Closing they would not pay any attention to public opinion on the subject. Supposing that were the case, they could only conclude that the hon. Member who introduced the Bill and the Home Secretary were really in favour of total Sunday Closing. Now, whatever view some of them on his side of the House might hold with respect to partial Sunday Closing, they were—he spoke for himself, but there were many who agreed with him—absolutely opposed to total Sunday Closing; and as they must judge a measure not merely by what it actually said, but by the intentions of those who introduced it, it made them look with still greater hesitation upon the Bill. He thought the strongest point which was made by those who were in favour of Sunday Closing was the point that the amount of labour which was thrown upon the employés in public-houses in the course of the week was so very much greater than that in many other trades that they should be protected from Sunday labour as well. He believed the hours during which young men and women were employed in public-house bars in the course of a week were very numerous indeed; and any proposal which tended to restrict the number of hours of labour for women in public-houses in the course of the week he would be willing to consider very favourably. But he did not see that, even supposing they were to restrict the number of hours in that respect, it would necessarily lead to Sunday Closing. Hon. Members on his side of the House looked at the matter with an unprejudiced view, and were willing to entertain any legislation which would really be of advantage to the community; but they were, on the whole, opposed to this Bill, partly on the merits of the case, and partly on the total inadequacy of the speeches with which it had been supported; and therefore if his hon. Friend went to a division on his Amendment he would certainly vote with him.

said, he was in the House during the late discussion on this Bill, and he had hoped that before the debate closed that evening they would have heard a little more of the intentions of the supporters of the Bill with regard to the partial closing of public-houses on Sundays in the country. For his own part, he did not at all feel disposed to give his vote against the Bill; but he was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some alteration might be made in regard to the closing hours in the country. He would like to know what that alteration was to be? If it should be a fair one he would vote for it; but he objected to the entire closing of public-houses on Sunday.

explained that the hours in the country during which public-houses would remain open on Sunday would be from half-past 12 to half-past 2, as at present, and from 7 o'clock until 9 o'clock, instead of from 6 o'clock until 10 o'clock, as at present.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the matter had been originally introduced in the last Parliament by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his (the Attorney General's) learned Colleague (Sir Horace Davey). A similar Bill had been passed, after considerable discussion, by the House of Lords, and it was now presented to the House in the form in which it left the Peers in the late Parliament. Stated shortly, the object of the Bill was to remove, in certain particulars at least, some of the remnants of the old rule, by which the wife and the mother were regarded as having no individuality and power of their own in regard to the custody of children, but that their individuality and power were merged in the husband. The law at present did not give a widow the guardianship of her child, even if the father had not appointed a guardian, nor had she any right to appoint a guardian by will. The object of the Bill was to set that matter right by giving the mother a natural and proper voice in the guardianship and bringing up of her children.

said, he must congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the great improvement shown in the treatment of this subject since it was originally brought before the House. When the idea first occurred to someone that it was desirable to legislate on the guardianship of infants, the intention seemed to have been effectuated, as far as he could gather from the first measure, by putting it in the hands of a committee of elderly bachelors and spinsters, who knew nothing about matrimony, and, if possible, less about children. In the first Bill there was to be a sort of duality of control on the part of a father and a mother, so that whenever a father corrected the child it could run to the mother, or when the correction was administered by the mother it could run to the father, with the object that the family should, as soon as possible, find itself in the nearest County Court. He did not think that this setting aside of the laws of nature was likely to be a success; and he was glad to see that the measure had been amended in this particular part. His hon. and learned Friend, however, seemed to be so enamoured of the dual system, that even now he could not give it up. It was extremely unfortunate that the law at present did not recognize the right of the mother; but, that being so, why did his hon. and learned Friend not make the law as he said it should be, and give to the mother who survived the father the sole right and control of the children? While he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, he should venture in Committee to try to alter it a little more into consistency with what he believed to be the natural law affecting these important relations.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was identical with the measure which was introduced last year by the present Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. Its object was to facilitate the acquisition of sites for places of religious worship. It contained every precaution necessary to prevent unreasonable or injurious proceedings. The principle underlying the measure was as follows:—There was one denomination in this country—namely, the Church of England—which possessed the power of compulsorily obtaining sites for places of worship, and the Bill proposed that the same power should be conferred upon other denominations. It was thought an injustice that those who did not conform to one particular mode of worship should not have the same facilities as the Church of England for obtaining sites. It was in order to promote perfect religious equality that the present Bill had been introduced. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

said, it was his fate last year to oppose the Bill, and 12 months' further study of the subject did not incline him to regard the measure with greater favour. While wishing to give every credit to hon. Members who supported it, he must say that the Bill belonged to a class of legislation of which he had always had a great dread and dislike. It was legislation by invidiousness. It set forth with much pomp and circumstance what seemed to be a tremendous grievance, which, when looked at in its reality, shrank to very minute proportions. He did not believe the Bill would confer upon persons desirous to obtain sites for places of religious worship any real privileges which they might not be reasonably presumed to possess at present. If freedom of contract in regard to the acquisition of land were to be interfered with, he did not see why the principle should be limited to obtaining sites for places of religious worship, and not extended to the acquisition of sites for baths, washhouses, markets, and other objects tending to the moral, physical, and sanitary improvement of the population. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, he was aware that, to a considerable extent, such facilities already existed; but that cheer showed the extent to which philanthropic Liberalism was inclined to go. The privilege possessed by the Church of England for compulsorily obtaining sites he should be willing to abandon, for he did not believe the Church had made much use of it. In conclusion, he moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the Amendment.

said that, in his opinion, the Mover of the Bill had made out no case, as he had failed to adduce a single case in which an owner was averse to selling his land for the purpose of the erection of a place of worship. Then, the Bill contained no definition of "religious denomination." Was it intended, for example, to include Positivists and the Salvation Army? The Church of England, so far from using the power she possessed, had been content with the sites given to her voluntarily. He was rather surprised that this Bill should emanate from hon. Members opposite, who boasted so much of their voluntary efforts, because the measure was a step in the direction of abolishing the voluntary principle and obtaining a quasi-establishment for Nonconformist Bodies. He did not object to the Bill passing, but he should like to see what Amendments would be proposed in Committee, and what the religious denominations were which were intended to be affected by it.

said, that he had known cases where Nonconformists had had to walk a long way to a place of worship. He hoped the Bill would pass.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Addison) had admitted that the powers which the Bill would give to Nonconformists had long been enjoyed by the Church of England. He had ventured to make that statement not very long ago, and ever since he had been denounced by Bishops and Diocesan Chancellors. One Diocesan Chancellor had written to The Times denying the existence of any such Act of Parliament. He ought to have known better; but Diocesan Chancellors were often not learned in the law, especially the Ecclesiastical Law. The Chancellor was followed by a Bishop, who went to a Church Congress and stated that the Home Secretary had asserted that which was contrary to the fact, and various clergymen had held him up to execration for his ignorance of the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that what he was pleased to term an obscure statute—which was the principal Church Building Act—was not frequently put in force. Perhaps not, but there was an obvious reason. The chief landowner in a district was generally a Churchman, and there was, therefore, no difficulty in finding sites. But the case was different when the land was in the hands of a Churchman and the great majority of the people were Nonconformists. The hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in reserving his decision till he saw what arrangements would be made. It was plain that the powers conferred by the Bill should not be put in force when there was no justification for it. But the general principle of the Bill was perfectly sound. It was only fair that if the Church of England was allowed to obtain sites where there was a difficulty in obtaining them, other Religious Bodies should be allowed to have the same privilege, and he hoped the House would support the second reading of the Bill.

said, that it was perfectly reasonable that details of the Bill should be asked for, though, for the purpose of avoiding irritation, details had been avoided. But he knew parishes where land had been refused for chapels, and Lord Salisbury himself had refused to allow a chapel to be built on his property.

said, there were innumerable denominations in the country, and it could not be intended to recognize them all.

said, he had the express authority of Lord Salisbury for denying that he had ever refused a site for a chapel. On the contrary, the noble Lord had expressed his readiness to allow a site to be taken for the purpose.

On this clause I have an Amendment to propose. I desire to insert words which will make the clause read—

"In the county of Durham all premises in which intoxicating liquors are sold or exposed for retail or are supplied to any members of any club, society, or association shall be closed during the whole of Sunday."

Of course, in discussing this matter in Committee it is not open to us to discuss the policy of the Bill; but I think it will be agreed——

I am afraid the hon. and learned Member is under a mistake in this matter. His Amendment applies to Clause 1, and we have passed that clause. The words he proposes will not read here. The hon. and learned Member is moving on the wrong clause.

My Amendment is in Clause 1, line 12, to insert after "retail" the words "or are supplied to any members of any club, society, or association." I am on the right line; but by some mistake the Amendment is put down as coming under Clause 2. I submit, however, that I was entitled to be called upon until line 12 was passed.

I am afraid it is not possible now for the hon. and learned Member to move his Amendment. Clause 1 has been disposed of. It was called and agreed to without question. The Amendment stands against Clause 2. I am afraid the hon. and learned Member must reserve his proposal for the Report stage.

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the foundation of the Bill was a resolution which was passed some time ago at a great meeting at Exeter Hall, at which the Bishop of London, Mr. Samuel Morley, and Mr. William Fowler were present. In justification of a Bill of that kind, he thought it worth while to call the attention of the House to the fact that, a Census being taken one Saturday evening in reference to 200 public-houses in South, West, North, and East London, for the purpose of ascertaining how many men, women, and children in a given time frequented public-houses, it was found that in about three hours no fewer than 7,019 children passed in and out of these public-houses. That might be accepted as a fair specimen of what went on in other parts of the Metropolis; and they asked how many children might be found visiting the 10,000 public-houses of the Metropolis, not only during the three hours of Saturday evening, but during 105 hours that public-houses were open during the course of the week? Statements by different authorities con- vinced them that they had in their midst a terrible evil, for they found that there were 250,000 boys and girls constantly becoming habituated to the surroundings of the public-house. Not only in London did this occur, but in Bristol they had the same startling state of things. There, from a Census taken in 1881, it was proved that during four hours no less than 1,200 children went into 900 public-houses. The provisions of the Bill which he had the honour to introduce were very simple. The operative clause simply prohibited every holder of a licence from selling or allowing any person to sell any description of intoxicating liquors to children under 13 years of age. With respect to that, some might think the age fixed too early; but if the opinion generally existed the provisions of the Bill could be easily altered in Committee. One reason for fixing the limit was briefly this. By Act of Parliament no child under 13 years of age could be employed full time at a factory or mine, every child under 13 years of age must attend school, and no child under 12 years of age could pledge things at pawnshops. Having these things in view, the promoters of the Bill considered they were not unreasonable in asking that children of such tender years should be protected from the permanent demoralizing influences of public-houses. Comment had been made, particularly by some newspapers, on the fact that Scotland was exempted from the Bill, and it was argued from that that there had been inconsistency. It was said that they had no objection to the people of Scotland becoming familiar with the taste of whisky, while they had an objection to English children becoming familiar with the taste of beer. The fact was that those who raised the objection were ignorant of the circumstances of the case. No licensed person in Scotland was permitted to sell intoxicating drinks to children under 14 years of age; so that the only inconsistency—if inconsistency there were—was that they wished to fix the age at a year younger than their friends over the Border. Then, again, they knew that under the provisions of the Licensing Act of 1872 no holder of a licence was permitted to sell spirits to be drunk on the premises to any young person under 16. Therefore he thought they might argue that they were simply asking the House to extend the principles which had already, in a limited degree, been applied in the existing law of the country. To touch upon what he conceived to be the principal objection which might be brought against that little Bill, he could conceive it possible that many would say—"Was it not hard that poor people, who had no servants to do their errands, should be prohibited from sending their children to fetch the pot of beer from the public-house?" The answer to that was that temporary inconvenience to men or women who liked to drink was not to be compared with the permanent moral injury done to young children in going to public-houses. If the working man coming from his work desired to have beer or spirits to drink for supper or dinner, he could not see that there would be great difficulty or inconvenience in his bringing it home or calling for it at the nearest public-house on his way. Another reason was that no serious inconvenience could be done, because publicans were always ready and willing to send beer and spirits by their potboys to those who might order it to be sent at any particular time. He did say, when they saw around them day after day all the terrible evils and crime and poverty resulting from intemperance, it was the duty of the House to do whatever was in its power to stamp out those evils; and if, as he believed, they might protect the lives and the moral character of the people by a small measure like the one he had submitted, he asked the House to extend a helping hand to defenceless children, and to assist them to become sober, honest, and industrious men and women, by passing the Bill.

said, that although it was always a very serious matter to speak prejudicially of any measure to promote the cause of temperance, and especially the temperance of children, there were reasons which should induce the House to pause before passing this Bill. In the first place, the Bill had only been printed for a day or two, and while with a little more consideration he might be tempted to vote for it, he was not at present prepared to do so; because it was perfectly impossible that with the numerous subjects for which attention was claimed, he or any other Member could in a few days become fully conversant with the whole facts connected with each Bill. If the Bill was pressed he would vote against it. There was no proposal to deal with the parents who sent their children for the drink; but if the Bill was to be logical in its provisions the parents, as well as the publican, should be liable to a penalty. They had heard much complaint about the State freeing parents of their responsibility; but this Bill proposed to put the responsibility of the parent on the publican, who was to become the guardian of a child's morals. It was true that the Scotch had already got legislation on similar lines; and while he bowed to the Scotch Act as one reason in favour of the Bill, it did not follow that because an Act was in operation in Scotland its principles should be introduced into an English Act. He thought the House should hesitate on this important measure. It would be very hard for many a poor working woman if, when preparing her husband's dinner, she should be deprived of the assistance of her children, and be compelled to leave the house and run for the dinner beer. While he would be most willing to do everything to prevent children frequenting the public-houses during the night, he did not think that it would be wise to prohibit children entering the public-house at all for their parents' beer.

said, he could assure the House that the question covered by the Bill had been very carefully and fully considered by a good many people for a good many months past. The London Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children had had under their consideration for several months past a Bill, which he believed might be introduced into the House of Lords, dealing in one of its clauses with this question. He heartily welcomed the Bill. He was quite sure, from his experience of the best class of working men, that they would not fail to exhibit the greatest repugnance to sending their children into the public-house, and the greatest care in excluding them from the vice which the public-house subjected children to. In the United States a most stringent law had been carried into effect with this object, and had been most useful in checking the demoralization of children, and in removing a great many of the evils which they had so great reason to deplore.

, in supporting the Bill, observed that the only objection that could be raised to it was on the ground that some parents would experience some inconvenience by not being able to send their children for dinner or supper beer. On the other hand, the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) had said that great benefit would be derived, which would counteract and balance that objection. As the last speaker had said, the large majority of the better class of working people would rejoice at a Bill of this kind—at anything, in fact, which would shelter their children from the influences of the public-house, or from the familiarity occasioned by going there. Some years since a Census was taken of young children who entered public-houses late on Saturday nights in London, and there were found to be 3,000 or 4,000. He thought that everything that could possibly be done to keep young children from going to the public-houses and in furtherance of the work of the great Body of the Band of Hope, should be done by the House of Commons; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would give the Bill a second reading.

said, the arguments of the hon. Member who had just spoken did not meet the case of this Bill, because he spoke of the children who in great numbers went into the public-house in London, and who were there treated to wine or liquor of some kind. Now, this would not be a case of selling intoxicating liquor to children, and therefore the Bill would not meet the case at all. His own opinion upon the Bill was that he thought it was one with which the House would not be much disposed to quarrel. It would be very proper indeed to prevent children of tender age from being allowed to obtain drink in the public-house; but he did not think it followed from that that parents should be altogether prohibited from sending children to the public-house for the beer they wanted for dinner or supper. But that was a matter which could be left very much to the Committee. The main question of the Bill was whether liquor should be sold to a child evidently for consumption in the public-house. He thought that, taking that as the main object of the Bill, they might read it a second time, and then in Committee the question whether a child should be allowed to take away beer for its parents to drink off the premises might be raised. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, because he thought it was intended to refer to children drinking on the premises, which ought not to be allowed.

said, he was very much of the same opinion as the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The question raised as to how far they should allow children to fetch beer for their parents was one of considerable importance, because that was not what they wanted to suppress. He should not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he hoped the Secretary of State before the Committee stage would give his personal attention to the matter, in order that proper Amendments might be introduced with his authority with the object of limiting the object as described. There was only one word more he wished to say. If there was one thing in which those engaged in the trade desired more than another it was that an end should be put to this perpetually harassing legislation. He wished, therefore, very much that the Government would come forward and say what measure they meant to pass dealing with the whole question of the liquor traffic, instead of allowing an infinite variety of measures to be brought in on the subject, the only effect of which was to harass the liquor trade.

said, that after what had passed between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) he should content himself by asking the House to listen very shortly to him. From his researches on this question it struck him, looking at this Bill, that a hardship might arise, especially from the way in which the present Bill was worded. He certainly sympathized very much with the views of the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) in bringing in this Bill, and in trying to check the evil; but in trying to check an evil they often found that "too fast made too loose." And unless some provision, such as had been suggested by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was introduced the Bill might do a great deal more harm, perhaps, than good. In his researches on the Sunday Closing Bill he took a great deal of pains in looking at and ascertaining the habits of the people on Sunday afternoons as soon as the public-houses were opened, and for this purpose he watched the public-houses in the low districts surrounding that House. He found that there were a great number of well-dressed children who went into them for beer for their parents, and came out again within a few minutes. He did not understand that the hon. Member desired to stop that; but that what he wanted to stop was children being detained in public-houses, and being sold liquor for themselves to be consumed on the premises. Then there was another point. They were going to stop little children from going into public-houses under 13 years of age; but they must be careful in sending in girls who were rather over that age. He was afraid that girls over 13 might be subject to greater temptations. Those were points which he trusted the House would not fail to consider when the Bill got into Committee. He was afraid, as the Bill stood at present, it might possibly in these respects do a great deal of harm, when the hon. Member and his Friends were desirous that the principle they were advocating should do a good deal of good.

said, he wanted to make sure whether or not it was the intention of the Bill that young children should be prohibited from getting liquor for their parents. The Home Secretary said that was not the intention.

begged to correct the hon. Gentleman. What he said was that in Committee he should propose to amend the Bill, so as not to prohibit children fetching liquor for their parents.

said, that that point struck at the very principle of the Bill. If the measure was to be limited to prohibiting the supply to young children of liquor for themselves to drink on the premises, he would heartily support it. But if it was to prohibit children from fetching liquor for their parents, then he thought that with a philanthropic view the House would be inflicting a very great hardship. The remark of the hon. Baronet that it was more dangerous to send the elder children was one of great importance. He trusted that if the Bill was read a second time it would be on the distinct understanding that the Amendments indicated by the Home Secretary were made in Committee.

said, they had an Act in Scotland prohibiting the sale of excisable liquor to children under 14 years, and it worked very well. But the prohibition had been held to apply only to the sale of liquor for the children's own consumption, and not to the sale of liquor for their parents. Some difficulty had been caused by the word "apparently," because it would be very hard if a publican were fined for supplying a child who was actually over 14, but looked apparently under the age; and he remembered a case which came before him on that point. The boy who was served was a very little fellow, and was apparently under 14; but the publican who served him knew that he was over 14; and he (Mr. Macdonald) decided that there could be no conviction—although he was not quite sure that in so doing he acted up to the letter of the law. There was at present an agitation among the Temperance Party in Scotland to get the Act amended, so as to make it apply to every case in which a child was served with liquor; but it appeared to him that the proper thing was to limit it to cases in which a publican allowed a child to remain on his premises for the purpose of drinking.

said, he hoped the House would think twice before passing this Bill. It seemed to him it would effect very great hardships in the agricultural districts. The labourers had large families, the wives were obliged to look after the children at home, and the fathers might be unable to fetch their supper beer. In such cases children were naturally sent for it, and he could not see any possible harm. As had been pointed out, these young children were not the ones who required protection so much as the older ones, who were more likely to want the drink for themselves. He thought that if the Bill were passed the House would be going much too far in interfering with the operations of the daily life of the people. If fathers and mothers could not be trusted to send their own children, and to control them, he said that no control of that House would bring up those children properly. He objected to this interference with the rights of parents, and he warned the House that if it proposed to undertake the management of all the children in the country such legislation must inevitably break down. He thought the Bill was a very ill-considered and crude measure. The hon. Member who brought it in had not much experience of the House, and therefore, with the best intentions in the world, his Bill bristled with difficulties. Everybody admitted that if it passed the second reading it must be entirely altered in Committee, and that was not the form in which a Bill ought to pass the second reading in that House. Measures ought to be well considered and able to stand on their own merits, and ought not to have to be altered in principle in Committee. If a Bill were brought in the principles of which were approved, then it was well and good to give it a second reading, and the details might be altered in Committee, but never the principles. He hoped the House would not give a second reading to the Bill, which he was confident would work ill in the country, and do great injustice to parents.

supported the second, reading of the Bill upon the understanding that the utmost circumspection would be used in examining its details when they got into Committee.

said, he wished to know whether the professed object of this Bill was not in conflict with its provisions? Its object was to prevent demoralization, and, with that view, to render it unlawful for a publican to supply a child, although only the messenger of its father or mother, with a pint of beer or anything else which the parents required to consume at home. Now, imagine the case of a wife and mother, with a sick husband whom she was bound to nurse at home, requiring to send one of her two children to the public-house to pro- cure the usual jug of beer. One was an intelligent boy of 11 or 12 years, the other a girl of 17 or 18. Were they to be told that, if there was danger of demoralization, the danger was less for the grown young woman than for the child? Few people who reflected on the subject could doubt that the danger was greater for the grown young woman; but the House was asked to pass a law to overrule the parents' choice in such a case. He would vote against the Bill, however good the intentions of its promoters.

said, he thought that the Bill now before the House was an important one in its way. He must confess he had been very much surprised with what fell from the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman knew as well as anybody the danger likely to result from ill-considered legislation. The Bill which it was intended should issue from the Committee was not the Bill that was now before the House. The Bill now before the House was explained by the hon. Member for Cornwall as a Bill to prevent children going to public-houses and purchasing beer for any purpose whatever. That was the position taken by the hon. Member for Cornwall, and it was only when he found that the Home Secretary was anxious that some relaxation should be made that he consented—if he did consont—to some alteration in Committee. Now, when such a Bill as this came before the House, it was necessary that it should be well considered and all its details understood. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) agreed with the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire that if the Bill were carried in its present form it would absolutely preclude children in rural districts going for beer to the public-house. When they considered what had been said by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with regard to the franchise which had just been given, and, as he thought, rightly given, to the working classes of this country, they were now going, after continuing that privilege, to tell the same classes that they were not fit, and could not be trusted to look after the children. That he considered one of the most preposterous things that was ever brought before the House, for a parent who had the best interest in his children could not be trusted to look after them! That was the actual proposal of the Bill; it was a slur on the working classes. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the whole of this question. Every day they had questions cropping up with respect to the liquor traffic. Was it fair that so respectable an interest as that of the licensed victuallers should have no guide from the Government with regard to what they intended to do? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he should like to see piecemeal legislation in these cases, and that every county should have the privilege of deciding for itself such questions, at any rate as far as Sunday Closing was concerned. This was a view from which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) entirely dissented. What was good for one county was good for all. They ought to have from the Government an explicit statement of their views upon this question. It was unwise to hurry through the House of Commons a measure like this. He did not see what was going to be done with the Bill; all he could say was that if it came out of Committee with the Amendments of the Secretary of State for the Home Department it would not be the same Bill to which they were now asked to give a second reading. He, therefore, asked the House to pause before assenting to the second reading of this Bill, for they might depend upon it the Bill would disgust the working classes when they came to find out what it really was.

thought the hon. and gallant Member opposite had evinced some unnecessary indignation in regard to the proposal. The late Lord Advocate had said that that very law existed in Scotland, the words of the Scotch Act being very nearly identical with those of the present Bill, and being to the effect that excisable liquors were not to be supplied to girls and boys apparently under 14 years of age. Unless, therefore, the word "supply" differed in its legal interpretation from the word "sell" in the present Bill the two things were substantially identical; but the point could be made quite clear in Committee. He quite agreed, however, with those hon. Members who contended that children should not, especially in rural districts, be prevented from bringing beer from the licensed houses to their parents. The hon. and gallant Member had addressed an objurgation against his remark that each particular locality ought to have its own measure, and preferred that there should be one general law. For himself, however, he held that in those matters each locality should judge for itself, and that what suited one locality might not suit another. He did not expect the hon. and gallant Member to pay much attention to his remarks, or to accept his authority on a question of that kind; but he might, perhaps, pay some attention to the statement of the Marquess of Salisbury, who, he might remind the hon. and gallant Member, in his speech at Newport, laid down in the broadest manner the principle that in regard to Sunday Closing the localities were, under the Local Government Bill, to be allowed to judge and to form their own opinion. Therefore he hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would divert some of his wrath to Lord Salisbury. Under these circumstances, and with the general agreement that the Bill should be limited to the matters stated, he would support the second reading.

said, he regretted that he had not been present when that discussion began, because no one with any experience of their Friday nights' discussions would have imagined that Order of the Day No. 12 would be reached or come on for serious discussion in the House. He questioned whether any right hon. Gentleman opposite could mention an instance when such a thing had occurred before. He ventured to take exception to the attitude assumed on that subject as on others by the Government. The Government seemed to think that it was perfectly legitimate to support any Bill that might be moved from below the Gangway on their own side as long as they could bring themselves to say that they agreed to some extent with the principle of the measure. Well, but had that generally been the rule on which responsible Governments had accepted legislation? If they wanted the House to agree to an abstract principle the ordinary practice was to embody it in a Resolution; but he had never heard yet, until the pre- sent Government came into Office, that a responsible Administration would say that they agreed with the principle of the Bill, or would go even further and say that possibly to some extent they might agree with the principle of the Bill, and therefore they would support its second reading, although with the contents and with the machinery of the measure they entirely disagreed, and if it went into Committee they must try to alter everything that was in it. That, to some extent, was the position which the Government had taken up in this matter. It was very much the position they took up on another Bill on Wednesday—the Agricultural Allotments Bill. He ventured to think that that was an entirely new departure for the House of Commons or for a Government to take. If the Government accepted a Bill they accepted not only the principle of the Bill, but also the machinery by which that principle was to be carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if they altered this word or that word, and changed this word and substituted another word for some other word, and so on, in fact made very considerable alterations—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No; only one word.]—it was possible to accept the Bill. It had been said, and the Scotch Judges had come to the conclusion, that the word "sell" had not the same meaning as the word "supply;" but it did not in anyway follow that the English Judges would come to the same conclusion. He would point out that there was a great difference between Scotch habits and English habits in reference to the question of the supply of liquor. [Cries of "Divide!"] The House was exhibiting a little impatience about this matter; but why they should do so, considering the progress which had been made, he did not know. The national drink in Scotland was not the same as the national drink in England, and he ventured to doubt whether the practice of sending children, to fetch liquor from the public-house at all obtained in Scotland. It would put the working classes of this country to great inconvenience if they were to be prevented from sending children to fetch the beer for the midday meal. By the Bill a publican who supplied intoxicating liquor to a child to be taken off the premises might be liable to a prosecution at the hands of some fanatic belonging to a temperance society. Did hon. Members who supported the Bill think that they were contributing to the social comfort of the working classes? He greatly doubted it. He should have thought the working classes in this country at the present day were rather hardly dealt with already, what with their low wages and legal restrictions at every step they took. He protested against the manner in which measure after measure was thrust through the House of Commons, all having for their object the cramping of individual liberty. Matters were fast coming to this—that they would be soon having it laid down exactly what the labouring classes were to do at each particular hour of the day. Was such a measure as this likely to be popular? Could hon. Members point out that there had been such a frightful amount of juvenile drunkenness as to warrant Parliament stepping in and passing such an Act as this? He imagined that what Parliament had to do was to deal with great social evils, and until they could prove the existence of great social evils Parliament should not interfere too hastily. This was a Bill about which very little had been known. It had happened to be alluded to in a leading article in a morning paper of that day; but he doubted whether any great proportion of the House of Commons had had any idea that the second reading of a Bill of this kind was to be moved, but up jumped the Government and said—"That, on the whole, they agreed, more or less, with the principle of the Bill, and that they would give it a second reading." Was that the principle on which the new House of Commons was to proceed? He would venture to press upon the House that there was a rashness, a recklessness of legislation going on at the present moment. For his own part he should certainly vote against the Bill, as he considered that no justification for it whatsoever had been put forward. The Government had acted most imprudently in accepting the second reading of a Bill which he did not think they had any intention of allowing to go any further; and he wished to enter a solemn protest against important and wide-reaching legislation of this kind being adopted without any sufficient grounds for interference having been shown to exist.

said, that the noble Lord who had just spoken had come down late in the evening, and had spoken evidently in ignorance of all the remarks which had been made concerning it. The noble Lord had declared his intention of opposing the second reading of the Bill, and charged the House of Commons with rashness? with recklessness, and he did not know what other strong language the noble Lord had used; and he had been particularly severe on the Government for consenting under any circumstances and with any Amendments to pass the second reading of the Bill. But did the noble Lord know that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, who was sitting beside him, had been in favour of the Bill, and had suggested the very words to be introduced?

I said that without those words it was absolutely impossible that such a Bill should be passed.

remarked, that the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would support the second reading; and while the late Lord Advocate had given the illustration of Scotland, and had said that the Bill would do with a slight alteration, his own Colleague in the representation of Sheffield had also said that he would give the Bill, with the alterations indicated, his cordial support. Then down came the noble Lord, showing what unanimity existed on that Bench, and warned them of the rash and reckless character of the new House of Commons. The noble Lord had told them that what Parliament had to do with was great social evils, and that they should not mind the minor questions. That the way to deal with great social evils was to nip thorn in the bud—to take them at the outset, before they became great social evils. The noble Lord had spoken about altering every line of the Bill; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary had said that by the alteration of a single word the Bill would be put upon all-fours with the Scotch Act, and that the Scotch Act had worked very well indeed. [Mr. MACDONALD: In Scotland.] In Scotland, of course. If such a simple Amendment introduced into this Bill would make it a good Bill and check a great social evil he thought that they need not be deterred by the thunders of the noble Lord, whose knowledge of the provisions of the Bill did not appear to be very great; and more especially as the Government had the support of the noble Lord's Colleagues on the Front Bench, who were nearly all of opinion that the Bill was a good one, and who had promised to support it. He (Mr. Mundella) might add that he had no doubt whatever that the Government would receive the support of the House in consenting to the second reading of the Bill, which he hoped would be carried by a large and overwhelming majority.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in a light and airy manner of the alteration necessary in this Bill; but he had omitted to notice the declaration of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that he would not pledge himself to the Amendments which both sides of the House thought absolutely necessary.

I did not say I would not accept the Amendments.

said, the right hon. Gentleman talked about nipping a great social evil in the bud; but he would ask the House to consider whether it was a proper course, after an hour's discussion, to pass a Bill dealing with the interests and with the comfort of every single working man? Why had children been sent to fetch beer from public-houses for the first time in the year of Our Lord 1886? Was this a new social evil—was it so pressing that on a Friday night, after an hour's discussion in a thin House—["Oh!"]—he repeated, in a thin House—the House should sit to pass a Bill which not a single Member three hours ago thought would come on at all? Was that a kind of procedure which hon. Members thought would bring the proceedings of the House into credit with the country? He could assure them that they were very much mistaken. The House was getting into a habit of passing second readings which were never to be more than second readings, of passing abstract Resolutions which were never to be more than abstract Resolutions, and then hon. Members went into the country and spoke of the good things they were going to give the people. He could assure hon. Members that that was not the method by which the new House of Commons was likely to bring itself into credit with the great mass of sound public opinion in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted against his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) the speech of Lord Salisbury at Newport, in which Lord Salisbury told the country that in his opinion localities should be left to manage this great question, under proper limitations, for themselves. Lord Salisbury did say that. That was the opinion not only of Lord Salisbury, but of every Gentleman, he thought, on the Opposition side of the House—["No, no!"]—of everybody except the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury).

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; there were a good many cries of "No, no!" from these Benches.

said, that the contradiction of the hon. Member was the only one that reached his ears, but he apologized. The principle he had just stated, however, was a principle that the late Government had embodied in a Local Government Bill which they proposed to introduce. He wanted to know how that principle was embodied and illustrated in the Bill before the House? The Bill left no Local Option whatever, and no jurisdiction to Local Authorities. How the Government—holding the views they did with regard to the authority Local Bodies ought to have in regard to this question—could assent to this Bill, he was utterly unable to understand. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill). This was a Bill which in its present shape he could not vote for on the second reading, as they had no pledge from the Mover of it that he was prepared to amend it, and it did not embody those principles of Local Option which were necessary.

said, the spectacle exhibited by the Front Bench opposite placed Members in considerable difficulty. Those who were disposed to respect the late Home Secretary would have expected that his words would have some weight and authority on his own side.

I said I objected to piecemeal dealing with this matter.

said, he heard every word that fell from the right hon. Gentleman's lips, and though he threw out a suggestion of that kind at the end of his speech he certainly so expressed himself as to leave the impression that he was going to acquiesce in the second reading of the Bill. It was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord to enjoy the pleasures of the table and keep themselves entirely en rapport with what passed in the House. It was a painful thing to see the late Home Secretary, who had spoken so clearly for the Bill, thrown unceremoniously overboard by the noble Lord when he came in. He could feel some pity for the noble Lord. He was a Party of his own, and required a good deal of freedom and sea room. Nothing was more entertaining and less damaging than the way he put the case. He was a master of light parts, and when he acted in burlesque they all enjoyed the fun; but when he acted a serious part he was not a credit to the House of Commons or himself. If the noble Lord complained that they had taken up this Bill hastily, what were they to say to the noble Lord himself, who said he knew nothing about it except that he casually saw a remark about it in a leading article? They could not regard the joint ideas of the Leaders of the Opposition on this subject as of any value whatever. The confusion of tongues was too great. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had been in the House when the Bill was moved he would have found that the evil in question was one of great magnitude, and that it was high time something should be done to check the evil. If the Bill was going beyond the real necessities of the case, it could be limited in Committee; but in his opinion the Bill was so simple and necessary that oven although, as the noble Lord pointed out, it was the 12th Order, it should be passed, and in Committee it could be made precisely the measure which the House wished to become law. If the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in a state of distress at that night's proceedings, let him assure them that on his side Members had had an evening of pleasure and delectation, because it had been possible for them to transact Public Business on behalf of the Temperance Cause; and if right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords would allow themselves even an extra hour to dinner, probably many of them on his side would not be very sorry.

said, that he did not desire to refer to the speeches which they had had from the two Front Benches in reference to this Bill. It had formed a great Parliamentary controversy, and he would leave it where it was. The hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), who so warmly supported the Bill, had not said what Bill it was he wished to pass. The hon. Member who moved the present Bill distinctly said it was not aimed at the practice of children going to public-houses to buy beer for themselves, but at the practice of sending them to fetch beer for other people.

I beg your pardon, that is not so.

said, he listened to the whole speech, and the hon. Gentleman said that was not what the Bill was aimed at, but that what it was aimed at was the practice of sending children to public-houses to fetch beer. It was seconded by a Gentleman on the Back Benches, who repeated that statement—namely, that it was the sending children to the public-houses to fetch beer for others which was the evil to be attacked. Then came the Representatives of the Government—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary. Both said that that which the hon. Member who introduced the Bill wished to prohibit they would not join him in prohibiting. The Bill forbade working men and working women sending children under 13 to fetch beer from a public-house, and the Leaders of the Government distinctly said—and he (Mr. E. Clarke) hoped they would stand to the declaration—that they would not sanction any legislation of that kind. But if that was so, why should they assist that Bill to go into Committee, unless the hon. Member who proposed the Bill, or someone who was responsible for it, would accept the Bill in the form in which the Government were prepared to assent to it? He believed all sides would agree with what had been said by the Front Government Bench. If it was necessary to have a Bill to forbid publicans supplying children under 13 years of age with drink for the children themselves to consume—if such a Bill was necessary, by all means let it be proposed, and it would go through the House with universal consent. But that was not the Bill which was proposed for acceptance now. It was a pity there should be any necessity for a division on the subject; because if the hon. Member who proposed the Bill meant to stand by his own words, he certainly could not hope for the support of the Government, and if he acceded to the Amendment suggested from the Front Bench, there need be no division, because the House would unanimously pass the Bill through the second reading.

said, that as his name was upon the back of the Bill, perhaps the House would permit him to say a few words in support of the Motion for its second reading. All the hon. Members in that House who specially represented the working classes were in favour of this measure as a step in the direction of temperance. If the noble Lord were better acquainted with the wants of the working classes, he need not have taken up the position he had. He (Mr. Cossham) had mixed all his life with the working classes, and there was no question in which they took a deeper interest than in temperance.

said, he entirely denied that the effect of the Bill would be to promote temperance amongst the working classes; on the contrary, it would tend rather to promote secret drinking in their homes. He maintained that the sending of children to the public-house for the dinner or supper beer could not be injurious.

said, he was in entire sympathy with hon. Members opposite in believing that the abuse of drinking was fatal to the morality and prosperity of the people. At the same time he desired that there should be no piecemeal legislation. He desired that the question should be taken up in its entirety and dealt with by the Government in a general and comprehensive manner. They had had three Bills dealing with this subject disposed of that evening, and he regretted to find that they had been scampered through during the dinner hour. Due and proper attention had not been devoted to the subject, for it was one of vital importance to the people. He objected to the Bill also because it interfered with the privileges of the people. The people nowadays had a feeling of freedom within them. They were educated, and would not easily submit to injustice or an infringement of their rights. This was a question that intimately affected the interests of the masses. It was also a piece of class legislation of the worst possible form. It touched the poor and left the rich man free. It was an attempt to "rob the poor man of his beer," which he did not think they should do. The rich man could go to his club, get gloriously drunk, and stay there all day, and all night too, and there was nobody to interfere with him; but the poor man had no place where he could get his beer except where it was vended. More over, this was an attempt to deprive men of it at dinner time. He considered that the Bill might possibly be needed for London, but unquestionably it was by no means suited for the rural districts and the great manufacturing centres. The Bill would work a serious hardship if, when a working man would have but a quarter of an hour or so in which to snatch a hasty meal, it prevented him from sending his child for a mug of beer, and insist on his going himself. It would be a decided in justice. It was not always for the mug of beer that a child was sent to the public-house. It might be for a bottle of soda-water or lemonade, or for a small bottle of whisky, which would be sealed up and inaccessible to the child. No moral injury could be done to children in such cases. He objected to these restrictive measures. He had a great deal of sympathy for the benevolent feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and nobody condemned the abuse of drink more than he did; but he liked a certain freedom of action, and for himself he claimed and used it. He objected to restrictive measures of all kinds. In March last the following bodies had declared that restrictive measures had been a complete failure. The hon. Member was proceeding to read the list of bodies referred to when——

said, that the hon. Member was departing widely from the subject before the House.

said, he would submit to the ruling of the Chair and confine himself to the Bill. The 1st clause imposed a penalty of 20s. for the first offence and 40s. for the second. Those penalties were much too high. Then the age fixed was 13. At 13 a child had reached the age of discretion, and ought to be able to judge between good and evil. Ten years ought to be the limit. Then the Bill was only to extend to England and Wales. Why was not Scotland and Ireland included? If it was good for one country it was good for another. No legislation of a piecemeal character should be entertained on this subject, and therefore he had to express his entire disapproval of the Bill. At the same time he could not help bearing testimony to the desirability of some general and comprehensive Bill being introduced by the Government; but he protested against such a thing being left to individual and irresponsible Members.

said, that Scotland already had an Act in force similar to the present Bill. If "supply" were interpreted in England as it had been in Scotland, not to include sale to a messenger, the operation of the Bill could not involve any of the hardship to parents which was the basis of all the opposition to the Bill.

said, with regard to the decisions of the Scotch Courts, he hardly thought that they could be relied on by the people of England. At all events, reference must be had only to the letter of this Bill, assisted, if explanation was required, by the remarks of the Mover, who said the object was to put down the immoral practice of the working classes sending their children—who were often the only individuals they could send—to fetch their midday and evening beer. He did not know whether he should be correct in referring to the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) as the hon. and rev. Member—but he wished to distinguish him from his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach)—but he denied that he exclusively represented the feeling of the working classes in this matter. He (Sir James Fergusson) represented a constituency as largely composed of the working classes as any other in the country; and although he was not pledged one way or the other, yet when he was questioned upon this subject he denounced the restrictions which were advocated in some quarters. He was quite certain that the working classes did not require these intense and close restrictions which the hon. Gentleman wished to put upon them. This Bill was one of those narrow and cramping pieces of legislation which the House ought to put down, and was another instance of the way in which these fads were likely to be pressed into the legislation of the country unless the House took a common-sense view of the question. The Bill was oppressive and spiteful, and was not in the interest of the Temperance Cause, and, interfering as it did so materially with the liberties of the people, it was not worthy of the House, or consistent with the legislation hitherto passed by the House.

said, he objected to the Bill because it was to be applied to Ireland. He was in favour of more drastic reforms; but this Bill would defeat the object it had in view. He opposed the Bill on the ground that it was inhuman and unjust; it would close the public-houses entirely to sick persons, or those who could only get beer by sending their children for it. It would also tend to drive people into public-houses, because they would not be allowed to send children for liquors to be consumed at home. He would suggest that if the Bill got into Committee the age should be raised to 14 years as in Scotland, and that the word "supply" should be substituted for "sell." The Bill might then be workable.

I wish to say a few words with regard to this Bill which has occupied so much of the time of the House. I wish to say that this question of the liquor trade is obstructing the ordinary Business which. Parliament should be engaged on. Three Bills affecting the trade have been before us this evening. Year after year there are a Bill, a Motion, and three or four other things affecting the trade, brought forward by private Members. Now, it is a very surprising thing to me to find that the Gentlemen who are so much against the sale of intoxicating liquor cannot agree amongst themselves to bring in one sweeping measure which will settle the liquor question now and for evermore. That is what we should like. They cannot agree about the matter, and cannot bring in a Bill that will satisfy either their own Party, or the Conservatives, or the Government. The thing is most extraordinary. I am not in favour of the liquor traffic at all, and should be very glad to see a Bill introduced that would do away with it altogether. A right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke in favour of the Bill, and said that this was the proper way to deal with the matter by nipping the thing in the bud. Well, I cannot at all agree with him that this is the right way to go about the matter; I should like to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who interest themselves in this kind of legislation, if they are prepared when they cut off this thing called drink—which is a luxury, and, as such, contributes largely to the Revenue of the country—to give the Government money from some other source in support of the Army and Navy?

I must remind the hon. Member that this Bill deals only with the sale of beer to children.

It only deals with the sale of beer to children, no doubt; but, to my mind, it affects householders who have their employment and domestic duties to look after in their own houses, and may desire occasionally to send a child of 12 or 13 years of age out for a mug of beer for dinner to save them selves the necessity of leaving their occupation for the purpose. The question is a very important one. To my mind this is a one-sided sort of legislation. There are a class of Gentlemen in this House who have very good cellars in their own premises, and have them stocked with wine, beer, whisky, and brandy, and I say that for them to take away the opportunity of getting a glass of beer for a population like that of London—a population of over 4,000,000 of people who are unable to procure the luxury we have in our country in the shape of a glass of milk——

I have already told the hon. Member that he is irrelevant, and is not discussing the Bill. He is now continuing that irrelevancy.

With regard to the beer for the father's dinner, I mean to say that it is very important that the father should not be required to get his dinner without some sort of liquor. I must say that the raising of this liquor question three times to-night is, in my opinion, simply a matter of obstruction to prevent the ordinary Business of the House from taking its proper course. I have heard hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House declare themselves friendly to the working classes. I must say they seem particularly friendly to them, so much so that they want to fine them 20s.—which means two weeks' wages—for sending their children to fetch their beer. [An hon. MEMBER: The publican, not the parent, is to be fined.] Well, why should all these penalties fall upon the publican? Why should they not fall on the guilty person or the messenger? It is not just, in my opinion, that a tax of this sort should be laid on the publican. What means will he have of knowing the age of a child? If a child of 12½ years goes into the public-house for beer, how is the publican to examine him? He may say, "What is your age?" and the child may answer, "Thirteen" or "Thirteen and a-half," and if the publican happens to give the beer on the word of the child, and if the child is only 12½ years old, then some friends of the Mover of this Bill, who will, of course, have been watching—as they are constantly doing in connection with matters of this sort—will report the circumstances, and the publican will be fined 20s. or more. I do not know why the hon. Member has made the Bill so extensive in its application. He may have some necessity for it in his own constituency in Cornwall; but if his own constituency are of a class that require such legislation that is no reason why he should apply it also to mine, who do not require any measure of the sort. It seems to me that the main object of these hon. Members is really to bring themselves before the public as educators of morality. They wish to make themselves heard and felt, particularly in the fines which, through their instrumentality, will be imposed on the poor publican. As I said, if this Bill had been brought in for the purpose of sweeping away the liquor traffic, it would have had my support; but that is not its object. The Bill will affect my constituents. I tell the hon. Member most candidly and distinctly that it is not at all necessary in Ireland; that if he wishes a Bill for Cornwall, he can have it with the greatest pleasure; and that if he brings forward such a measure he will get my undivided support. Why does the hon. Member propose one sort of legislation for England and Ireland, and leave Scotland to have another kind? The age under which it is illegal to sell beer to a child in Scotland is 14; but, under this Bill, the limit is to be 13 years. This only proves to my mind that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill considers the English and Irish children far more intelligent than the Scotch. The Mover of the second reading of this Bill has not told us that the doing away with this traffic is for the purpose of increasing the traffic in coffee-houses and other places——

I have already twice called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his observations are irrelevant. I must now ask him to discontinue his speech.

at once resumed his seat.

We ought to take into account the object of the Bill itself. I see that many persons belonging to the Church of England have said that the number of people who nowadays meet on Sundays at the public-houses is something appalling; and I think that when you reflect that between 7,000 and 8,000 children have gone into 200 public-houses in the short space of three hours on a certain day it becomes a very serious matter to fathers and mothers how to stop it. The object and aim of this Bill, as I understand it, is to prevent childhood from being contaminated and depraved by the evil influence of public-houses. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen say "No!" but I would ask them this—is there one amongst them who will engage a servant who has been employed in a public-house; and, if not, why not? One hon. Member opposite said that the real danger is when the children are over 13. Well, if that is so, what becomes of the argument as to innocence? If the danger comes when they are over 13, how can it be innocent for them to fetch beer under 13? If it is dangerous up to 14, it must be dangerous under 13. I was very much amused at the argument against the Bill that it would interfere with the convenience of some people. I had thought that all laws interfered with the convenience of some persons, and how any hon. Member supposed to be possessed of representative intelli- gence can have failed to learn that I am at a loss to understand. It seems to me that the question is one of the balance of advantage or disadvantage. I admit all the inferences of hon. Members; I admit that families might be put to inconvenience; but I contend that the great good to be achieved by the measure far outweighs any inconvenience which you can put in the other scale. Then, of all men in the world, we had the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) standing up for the rights of the working men. Well, I am very proud of his sudden conversion. Better late than never. I should like to know, however, how it is, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite speak about the beer of the poor man, that they are so generously disposed? I think the poor man can take care of his own beer; but, as a matter of fact, there are 350 men in this House elected to legislate on temperance lines, if possible, to get rid of the liquor traffic altogether. I have some documents here in my possession which show that when the working man wanted a vote the noble Lord was not so generous in bestowing it upon him. Now that it is a question of beer, however, he is very generous indeed. I, for one, believe that keeping children away from public-houses will tend to their virtue and morality, and for that reason I shall go heart and soul for the measure. We hear hon. Gentlemen talk a great deal about the advantages possessed by the rich. No doubt, the rich have advantages over the poor; but that is the accident of wealth. Do hon. Gentlemen say that because wealth possesses advantages, therefore you must dismantle rich men of their riches? Under the present state of things, whatever system you may adopt, wealth must possess advantages which the poor can never enjoy. Whatever licensing laws we may have, the rich have already stocked their cellars with wine; but the poor man cannot lay in a stock of beer, to say nothing of wine; and if you base your argument upon this, I would say why do you not come down to your logical position, and say—"Get rid of the licensing law altogether?" But, as a matter of fact, wealth cannot be interfered with because it has advantages over poverty. Believing that this measure, if passed into law, will greatly improve the moral tone of the working classes, I, for one, shall give it my cordial support.

I think it is desirable that the House should, if possible, come back for a few moments to what may be called the common-sense view of the measure. Although when measures affecting the working classes are proposed from this side of the House it is a very common thing for hon. Members opposite to say that we have no right to introduce them, I trust that some of those hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there are, at any rate, a good many hon. Members on this side who do their best to ascertain what is to the advantage of the working classes, and who endeavour to pass measures based upon the result of their investigations, or who report those results to the House. I trust, also, there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who have the cause of temperance at heart. I can only say that, practically independently of Party, I shall be able to vote for any measure that promotes the interests of temperance. But when we know what this Bill proposes, as it stands, I do not think anyone who is acquainted with the working of these matters can for a moment believe that it will promote the cause of temperance. What is it that we have been striving for in our legislation? We have been striving to keep men and women who are addicted to drink out of the public-houses; and I submit to the House that it would be far better and more desirable that men and women should be encouraged to stay in their homes, and have their meals in their homes, rather than take them in the public-houses. A man who is weak and cannot resist the temptation of drink when he finds himself in a public-house will stay there. As I understand it, this measure is framed in the plainest terms to provide that intoxicating liquor shall not be supplied to any person under 13 years of age. The result of passing the Bill would be that if children are sent for their parents' beer and they are under 13 years of age, if the publican serve them, it would cause him to be subjected to a penalty. It is now said that that is not intended; but I emphatically assert that that is the object and intention of those who have brought in the Bill. As I understand it, the hon. Member who moved the Bill said that that was his object. We ought really to know what is the principle of the Bill we are discussing, and, as it appears to me, the measure has been brought in with that intention. There ought to be some liberty—some recognition of freedom of will—in this matter. If there are hon. Gentlemen who think that all alcoholic liquors are bad and demoralizing, let thorn endeavour to pass measures which will suppress the sale of intoxicants altogether. I can quite understand such a state of information and such an amount of knowledge as to the nature of alcohol becoming universal that people might come to the conclusion that its sale ought to be prohibited; but at any rate, notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Leicester), we have no right to prevent sober working men from having their glass of beer with their dinner in their own homes. Working men come home for a very short time, and it may be necessary for them during the short time they are there to have their beer. I want to know what reason there is why the sending of a child of 10 or 13 years of age to fetch a father's beer under such circumstances should be regarded as a criminal act? I must say that, in the somewhat discursive and amusing speech made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. O'Hanlon), it did seem to me, as he pointed out, rather a strong thing to say that a publican should be guilty of a criminal offence because he supplied beer to a child, not for the purpose of its being drunk on the premises, but for the purpose of being carried home to the child's parents, the publican having no means of knowing what the child's real age was. As I have said, I would gladly support this or any other measure if it were likely to promote the cause of temperance; but it seems to me that this is simply interfering, not with the propensities of those who are addicted to drink, or with those people who are likely to be misled into the public-house, but with the ordinary and just rights of the working man. I will be no party to anything which practically says that the working man shall not get liquor in his own house when we ourselves can get it to any extent we please in ours.

I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was present when the Home Secretary spoke in regard to this measure, and described some of the limitations to the present proposal which he will make on behalf of the Government should this measure get to the Committee stage.

The hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) refused to accept those limitations.

I beg pardon; the right hon. and learned Member is entirely mistaken.

It may be true that the Mover of the second reading has refused to accept the limitations; but I think, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consult right hon. Gentlemen on his right and left, he will find that the form which a Bill introduced by a private Member may ultimately take does not always depend upon the pleasure of the Mover. Probably the hon. and learned Member has not seen so many levellings of Bills of private Members as some of his right hon. Friends in his immediate locality. With regard to the speech which has just been made, I noticed a very general tone of similarity between it and several others which have come from the same quarter to-night, particularly as to the question of the inconvenience which they say the working classes will suffer if their children are not allowed to go to the public-houses to fetch their dinner beer. Well, Sir, my experience as a working man in many parts of the country leads me to quite a different conclusion. I do not think there would be any general inconvenience if even the Bill was passed in its present very severe form. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member that if the beer is not fetched by the children from the public-house the parents will visit the public-house themselves to get it, and will drink it there. So far as my experience has gone, where it is the habit of the family to drink beer with their meals, there is no difficulty experienced by the parents in providing themselves with it by their own journeyings to the public-house. ["Oh!"] I do not understand what that "Oh!" is about. Surely hon. Members will admit that it is as easy for a man or a woman to go to a public-house to fetch beer as it is for an infant. ["No!"] Well, where is the difficulty? I should like hon. Gentlemen to point it out. My experience is that parents usually do fetch it for themselves, and that any considerate parent would rather do that, and in many cases would rather go without it altogether, than risk sending their young children into these public-houses where they may be kept waiting for many minutes with great danger both to their present morals and to their future life. My reading in this matter leads me to make the assertion that all social reformers and all temperance advocates of all classes, at all times, have always warned the people against that association of their infant children with public-house language and conduct which naturally results from sending them to the public-house for dinner and supper beer. My opinion is that this measure is crude in the extreme, but that a great many of the working classes will most readily accept the restrictions it proposes to impose upon them. The whole drift of public opinion, whether amongst teetotallers or the moderate drinking classes, is in favour of temperance legislation of this kind, and especially where it seeks to dissociate children and young members of families from any connection or experience of the public-house, its surroundings, and its vile influences. If this Bill should go to a second reading, I shall certainly give my vote in support of it in the full confidence that I shall not by so doing be offending any considerable number of the great working class constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. May I say one word to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall with regard to this debate to-night? I would give him a friendly warning not to be too impatient of debate and discussion in putting forward proposals of this kind. If he had had the privilege of sitting in the last Parliament he would think himself exceedingly fortunate in having got the second reading stage of a measure of this description after one, two, or three nights' debate, let alone securing it in a debate only extending over half of a Friday evening. I am not surprised that there is considerable opposition to the Bill; but I am certain of this, that if it goes to a second reading, the Bill will be carried by a considerable majority of the House, consisting not alone of Members on these Benches, but Members below the Gangway on this and the other side of the House, and of Members behind the Front Opposition Bench. I have never witnessed a more remarkable diversity of opinion on the other side of the House than I did to-night when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was speaking. There was scarcely an hon. Member in his immediate locality who did not differ with some part of his speech; and if I gathered the sense of his Friends rightly, they all object to the firm and determined opposition he appears to be offering to this very reasonable and wise proposal.

I was rather surprised that the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) should have congratulated the hon. Member responsible for this Bill upon his good fortune in having very probably secured its second reading to-night, because, of all the circumstances which have occurred during the present Session, I think few are more remarkable than the proceedings of this evening. We have had all sorts of Bills nominally under discussion, three-fourths of which nobody could have expected would have been reached, and all of which were reached owing to the default of the Government for whom the hon. Gentlemen spoke, because they did not take the ordinary and proper course of attempting to proceed with the important Business of Supply. This is a point with regard to which we are, I think, entitled to make very grave complaint; and I shall bear it in mind when next the Government come to this House for a Vote on Account, because it will be perfectly clear that they have not utilized the time at their disposal. But, Sir, I have something more to say on the way in which the Government have let the Orders of the Day, for which private Members are responsible, take the place of Government Business, which ought to have been proceeded with, if possible, on a Friday night. There is something very remarkable in the nature of the Business which has principally occupied our time. I think if there is one matter on which, if legislation is desirable, the Government of the day ought to attempt to legislate, it is this matter of the liquor laws. There is no question, upon which hasty or intemperate legislation is more likely to conflict with the established habits of the people, and, therefore, to promote a dangerous reaction against some law which Parliament may pass without due consideration. Therefore, there is no subject on which, if the House of Commons is asked to legislate, the legislation ought more certainly to be proposed by the Government of the day. Yet, what do we find? In arranging the Paper of Business for this evening Her Majesty's Government have indirectly presented no less than three measures dealing with the liquor laws in England and Ireland. They are not courageous enough to make themselves responsible for any one of these proposals. They have talked enough about this question, both in Office and in Opposition; but they have not hitherto ventured to submit their own proposals upon it to Parliament. Therefore, they take advantage of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Conybeare), who is responsible for this Bill, and of the hon. Member for Durham; and they seek, in this illegitimate way, to foist the proposals of these hon. Members on the House of Commons without themselves being responsible for the legislation. Now, I must say that that is a course which is not becoming either to the Government or to the House, and is not calculated to lead to that successful dealing with this important question which we all desire. What is the proposal that the hon. Member for Cornwall has made? He proposes in all cases to prohibit the sale of any intoxicating liquors to any person under the age of 13 years. I do not wish to dwell upon the obvious objections to such a proposal—such as the impossibility of ascertaining the age of the child—since these have already been placed before the House; but I would remind the House that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) a statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon this question. We understand the right hon. Gentleman plainly to state, as representing the Government, that he does not approve of the wide scope of the Bill as it stands, and that it would be his desire to limit it very considerably in Committee, so as to make it somewhat analogous to the existing Scotch law. Now, that is an intelligible proposal. The hon. Member the Under Secretary for the Home Department seems to think that, as a matter of course, having been suggested by the Government, that proposal will be carried. Well, I congratulate him upon his estimate of the power of the Government; but I venture to differ from him. I am not at all sure——

I beg to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that because the Government have suggested it it would be carried as a matter of course; but I suggested that it is not likely to be resisted simply because the hon. Member in charge of the Bill says he cannot accept it.

At any rate, the hon. Member spoke very hopefully of the power of the Government in this matter. I would only remind him that when measures of this kind are supported with that fanaticism in which they are apt to originate, we have known a Government, very much like that which now occupies the Front Bench opposite, yielding all of a sudden, without an attempt to stand by the opinions they had expressed in debate. But, more than this, the Home Secretary has taken one view of the matter, and the Under Secretary for the Home Department has taken an absolutely opposite view. According to the Under Secretary, the hon. Member for Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) is right, and his Chief is wrong. He would approve of the entire proposition of the hon. Member for Cornwall. He told us a great deal about the desire of parents to keep their children from the contamination of the society in public-houses. But if such is the desire of parents, they need not send their children to the public-house. What is the use of legislating for parents who have that desire and do not at present send their children to public-houses? Then, of course, comes in that tyrannical notion which appears to dominate the minds of all true Liberals on this liquor question—namely, that in the name of those who do not want to send their children to public-houses you are to to prevent those who do send them there from being able to do so. Without saying one single word in defence of a parent who would voluntarily send his child into society of that kind, I would say that the existence of such parents, in considerable numbers, is precisely why this Bill, if it should unhappily become law, would prove a disastrous failure. Either it would not be carried out—and that is the very worst thing which could happen to the law—or else, if carried out, it would be found to conflict with the everyday habits of thousands of the working men of this country. It would be found an intolerable nuisance; a reaction would set in, and there would be a demand made for the entire repeal of the Act. Then those who desire to see the sale of liquor to children for their own use forbidden will find themselves farther than ever from their object, because the law which has prevented children from going to public-houses to fetch beer for their fathers and mothers has gone too far. That does seem to be the great danger that surrounds all attempts at legislation of this kind, and that is why legislation on a liquor question should especially be in the hands of a Government, and not of a Government whose Under Secretary for the Home Department differs from his Chief, but of a Government which is able to reconcile the conflicting views of its own Members in the same Department. I trust that if we are called upon to divide on this Bill unexpectedly, to-night, that, at any rate, we shall vote upon it as it now stands, after the speech of the Under Secretary. We shall vote upon it, I hope, as, what I believe it to be, a tyrannical measure, though brought in with the best intention—tyrannical because, in order to effect a good object, it goes beyond that object, and will interfere materially with the ordinary daily habits of many thousands of our working population.

We have had this evening, as we shall always have when these liquor questions are discussed, shilly-shally speeches from hon. Gentlemen who want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds—who want to be supported by the publicans on the one hand, and by the temperance people on the other; but I must really congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has just down upon having made a bold and honest liquor speech. I do not agree with him, but still I am bound to congratulate him. I was somewhat surprised at the commencement of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He professed himself astonished at our having got through such a large amount of Business this evening. He was horrified at the idea of this House getting through its Business, particularly on a Friday night. He complained of the Government, and said their conduct was perfectly monstrous; and that they ought to have stepped in and have prevented all the Bills which have been divided against this evening from being reached, by going into Committee of Supply. Now, the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that while, years ago, it was very often the custom of the House to go into effective Supply on a Friday night, for the last few years there has been hardly a single instance in which that has been done. [Laughter.] Yes, I repeat, there has been hardly a single instance in which the House has gone into effective Supply on a Friday night. But the right hon. Gentleman surely had not looked at the Paper with which we are furnished to tell us what is to take place in the evening. He must have known very well that, when it is intended to go into effective Supply, the Votes that are to be taken in Supply are set down on the Paper. Well, to-day they were not upon the Paper; therefore, he must have known perfectly well that the Government had not the slightest intention of going into Supply. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends come strolling in late in the evening, and are exceedingly surprised that they have not had an opportunity of discussing, and possibly of obstructing, the several excellent measures that have been advanced a stage. But I think the protest of the right hon. Gentleman was still more surprising. It is a protest which comes very frequently from that Bench, and, I may say, from the Front Bench on this side also. "Why?" he said, "is the House to assent to a private Member's Bill?" Why, I would ask, is the House not to assent to a private Member's Bill? For my part, I sometimes even assent to a Government Bill. I look at a Bill on its merits, whether it comes from this side of the House or from that, or from this side of the Gangway or the other. If a Bill is a good one, I vote in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government were shirking responsibility, because they do not themselves deal with this liquor question. Let me ask him if they have had time to deal with it? They have had two nights a-week; but those nights have always been occupied, and it looks very much to me as though, for some time henceforward, not only will the Government days be occupied, but private Members' days also will be taken up by the consideration of some great and eminent measure which the Government intend to bring forward. As to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him, they object to this Bill because they consider that parents who like to send their children to public-houses should be allowed to do so. But we hold just the reverse. We say that they ought not be allowed to do it. We admit very fully that a great many parents do send their children to public-houses to fetch drink. Statistics have been obtained of the number of children that have gone into public-houses on certain days; but let me ask any hon. Member of this House would he wish his own children to go into public-houses—would he send his own children into public-houses? Most certainly he would not; and he knows perfectly well that children of tender age cannot gain any good by going into public-houses. I have been in public-houses, and I suppose other hon. Gentlemen have done the same; and, even at my age, I have not found the language which is ordinarily used in these places very improving. I am too old, Sir, for it to demoralize me; but I can easily conceive that it might demoralize a young child. Why, anyone who goes into these places must hear improper language used. [Cries of "No!"] I say "Yes;" and I say that if hon. Members were to poll respectable publicans themselves, either in the Metropolis or in any other part of the country, they would find that they not only object to serving children with liquor, but object to children coming into their public-houses. We were told by one hon. Member opposite that if children were not allowed to be sent to public-houses, their parents would have to go without their beer, as they would not be able to fetch it themselves. But bachelors, who have no children, drink beer with their dinner. They have to get it for themselves; and why should not those persons who have children do the same? Another hon. Member has told us that the Bill ought not to apply to Ireland. Well, that is a question to be considered in Committee. In Committee hon. Members from Ireland can raise that point; and probably the English and Scotch Members will consent to their view, if it is entertained by the majority of the Irish Representatives. Another hon. Member opposite—the late Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald)—whose views do not appear to me to coincide with those of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) pointed out that the Scotch Act, which fixes the age of the children at 14, has worked extremely well. It does not injure Scotchmen, and we know that they drink more than Englishmen. [A laugh.] I speak statistically. Surely, if these Scotchmen can find time to visit the public-houses to fetch their drink, Englishmen can do the same. You may depend upon this—that there will not be one drop less beer drunk by adults if you prevent the children from fetching it. The man who wants his beer will take uncommonly good care to get his beer. If he is not able to send his child, he will go himself, or send his wife. I consider this Bill an excellent one, and I trust that it will pass a second reading this evening. There has been some discussion upon it, but not an exhaustive discussion; and I think it is likely there are other hon. Gentlemen anxious to speak, and that the discussion will continue for at least another 20 minutes.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated, apparently with some authority on the part of those who are responsible for this Bill, that if, when it comes into Committee, the majority of the Irish Members should desire that it should not apply to Ireland, those who are promoting it will assent to that desire. Do I understand that the hon. Gentlemen who have charge of the Bill would agree to that suggestion?

Yes.

That relieves me and my Colleagues from some considerable difficulty, because I am not, at present, in a position to say whether the majority of our Party are in favour of this Bill or not. Since I have had a seat in this House I have always at- tempted to keep clear of these temperance questions. I have never voted on any of them, because I think that the question of temperance and of the control of the liquor trade, is one which, of all others, could most suitably and properly be left to an Irish Legislature to deal with. I believe most firmly that this House will never satisfactorily deal with the liquor traffic in Ireland. If it be understood that the promoters of the Bill will favourably take into consideration the opinion of the majority of my Colleagues as to whether or not the measure should or should not apply to Ireland, I think I may say on their behalf that those of them who, up to the present moment, have opposed the Bill, will retire from further opposition.

Sir, this is a Bill on which it is difficult for any hon. Member to give a silent vote. For my part, I cannot join in a vote which would interfere between parent and child; that is to say, I think that the father and mother are the best judges as to where a child should be sent. I do not deny that there are cases in which the law ought to interfere between the parent and the child, but I do not think that this is one of those cases in which we should be justified in interfering. It should be remembered that the Bill is to refer to all quiet little country places, where there are small public-houses which are empty for the most part during the day, and where a child might be sent most innocently. I must, therefore, honestly say I cannot vote for the Bill as it stands. If a measure were brought in which provided that intoxicating liquor should not be sold to children for their own consumption, I would vote for it without hesitation.

I support this Bill with all my heart. Anybody who has been in the habit of walking through the streets of this Metropolis at a late hour and has seen the immorality and drunkenness which exist will, I believe, vote for a Bill which offers, however small, a remedy for that state of things. I think it is the bounden duty of any man who has a care for the welfare of children to support this Bill. I hope, as my hon. Friend has said, that when the Bill goes into Committee the question of the application of the Bill to Ireland will be decided by my hon. Friends voting for the measure.

I shall certainly be willing to agree to the exclusion of Ireland from the operation of the Bill.

Like the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), I do not wish to give a silent vote. I wish to say that if the hon. Member had accepted the Amendment proposed by the Government I should have supported him; but, as he has not done so, I shall vote against the Motion.

I wish to say that, after the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the assent on the part of the promoters that Ireland should be omitted from its provisions, I shall vote against the Bill.

I do not understand all the difficulties which have been raised about this Bill. I believe my hon. Friend who brought in the Bill had no idea of the amount of discussion which would take place. One would infer, from the way in which one part of the subject has been spoken of, that, to ascertain the age of a child, some people imagine that the publican would have to examine the child as a veterinary examines a horse's teeth. That sort of language, Sir, is absurd. We do not believe that respectable publicans who desire to carry on their business properly wish to have small children in their houses. I cannot imagine that any respectable publican would like to see such children shouldering their way amonst the people frequenting his house. The sending of children to public-houses, moreover, teaches them early to drink; for no one can forget that he has seen children sipping the beer which they are carrying home. There is no doubt that the principle of the Bill is a right one, and ought to be accepted. The hon. Member says that if in Scotland children are not allowed to enter a public-house before they are 14 years of age, the children in England should be treated in the same way. In this Bill it is proposed that the limit should be 13 years. For my own part, I am opposed to there being any difference in the matter as between the two countries; and I say that if the law for Scotland is 14 years, it should be the same in England, or vice versa. There is another point of considerable importance, and that is that the hon. Gentleman who has brought in this Bill has been attacked because it only applies to a small part of the question. I find that hon. Members opposite, especially Conservative Members, object to large Bills which embrace large principles; and therefore many hon. Members are compelled to bring in small Bills, and so deal with questions bit by bit. We had an example of that the other day in the Women's Enfranchisement Bill. With regard to this Bill, I believe that almost all of us hold that my hon. Friend is conferring a benefit alike on the parent, the publican, and the child, by bringing in the Bill in its present form. The argument has been put forward that a parent may himself object to go to a public-house because he feels that he is not strong enough to resist the temptation to remain there, and that therefore he sends his child; and another argument is that a parent may not understand the temptation to which he exposes his child. But I believe those arguments would not have been put forward if the hon. Gentleman who used them had given them a moment's consideration, and my object in calling attention to them is simply to refute them. With regard to the liquor question, it would, no doubt, be better not to have piecemeal legislation; but the House is so burdened with Business that it seems desirable to use any opportunity we may get to deal with this question. I think my hon. Friend is lucky in having the Motion for the second reading of the Bill down to-night, when it is likely to be carried. I am satisfied that there is no feeling amongst the publicans against the Bill. My experience is that publicans are not at all slow in telling you when they have an objection to a Bill, and to the present Bill I have not heard, as coming from that class, a single objection. Therefore, if I belonged to the Conservative Party I should not be ashamed to support the Bill; and, as Liberals, although we do not get much publican support, I do not think we are doing any harm to the publicans, whom I do not wish to injure, in asking that the Bill be now read a second time.

There is a misapprehension with regard to the law of Scotland on this subject. The law of Scotland does not allow children under 14 years of age to get drink for themselves in public-houses, but it does not prevent parents sending their children to a public-house for what they themselves want. I therefore hope the House will not support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, which deals with matters which I am sure all Members of the House must have seen, during the recent elections, needed serious legislation. The anomalies of the Parliamentary franchise under our present laws are so great that, in the case of a very large number of people, especially of the poorer classes, we find that the provisions which purport to give to the voters a right to vote on an occupation of one year are perfectly illusory, and that it takes two or three years of continuous occupation of exactly the same tenement and in exactly the same character, before a man is able to exercise the privilege of the franchise. If we take the very simple case of the lodger franchise, we find it is impossible for anyone to get upon the Register until from one June to another June he has occupied lodgings in the same house in the same borough; and even then six months elapse before his right to vote becomes effective, and another year may pass before he is able to use it. Much the same state of things exists with regard to other franchises. Now, Sir, this practically means that the period for qualification is something like two or three years; and the anomaly of this is turned into a real injustice when you consider that if there is any change in the character of the qualification during that period, disfranchisement is complete. A very simple case of this kind occurred in the division which I have the honour to represent. It was the case of a person who, being a lodger for the greater portion of the year at a rental which, would have entitled him to the franchise, married, and took a house. The consequence was he was disqualified, although the occupation of the house would have been sufficient to qualify him by itself, or the occupation of his lodgings would have been sufficient itself to give him the vote. Now, I am not going at this late hour (12.45) to detain the House with any lengthy speech upon this Bill. The Bill simply goes to the root of the matter so far as this kind of disfranchisement is concerned. It looks upon the possession of a qualification as granting to the man who possesses it a personal status which is not in the least altered by the fact that he changes the position of the house he occupies or the lodging he occupies. By this Bill, if a man has possessed a qualification during a sufficient period, no matter whether the qualification is in one borough or another, or what its nature may be, he is to have, as he ought to have, the right to vote in respect of it. I cannot imagine how any hon. Members who really believe that our qualifications for the franchise are righteous can think it is right to disfranchise a man because he has lived, say, on one side of Brixton Road during one part of the year and on the other side of the same road during the other part of the year. It seems to me that hon. Members who wish to keep up these artificial distinctions must wish to do so with some Party motive—possibly because they think that the classes of voters who support them are not subject to removal so frequently as the classes who oppose them. I, however, have great confidence that the general fairness of the Members of the House will admit that reform in this respect is necessary. Now, Sir, that is the great principle of the Bill. It takes the two main qualifications—the qualification of being a householder, and the qualification of occupying premises of the value of £10 a-year—and it says the possession of one of these qualifications during the required time, however frequently the nature of the qualification is changed, shall be sufficient to entitle a man to the vote. The qualifying period is fixed at six months. But the next question which every Bill of this kind must deal with is, where is the man to vote? The Bill provides that he is to vote, as I think most hon. Mem- bers will agree he should vote, in the district in which he resides at the end of the qualifying period. Now, this has two effects, two most important effects. In the first place, it gets rid of the difficulty as to where a man is to vote; and, secondly, it takes away that multiplicity of votes which is most unfairly given to some persons by reason that the properties they occupy are distributed in different boroughs. It is, I submit, monstrous that a person who occupies five places in one borough should have but one vote, while, if the five places were situated in five different boroughs, he would have a multiplicity of votes. In this, the 19th century, and the latter part of the century, I trust there can be found no one who will support the principle of representation in proportion to wealth; and if this is not representation in proportion to wealth, it is something very much like it. Now, Sir, another very great and most important provision of the Bill is that it no longer respects those franchises which are simply bought. It is a crime to bribe a voter; but, according to the present state of the law, it is no crime whatever to buy for yourself a vote by the investment of something like £50 or £60 in every county division in England. The Bill proposes to entirely do away with that. It proposes to leave the franchise as it should be regarded, a purely personal right which cannot be acquired merely by the investment of a little money. And the last point to which I will call the attention of the House is that the Bill proposes to include all the laws which regulate the franchise in one short Bill. The laws which govern and define the civil rights of the people of England should, at all events, if possible, be intelligible to the people. Although we respect the franchise highly, and regard it as one of the civil rights most precious to the inhabitants of England, the laws which regulate and confer that franchise are contained in something like 60 Statutes. This Bill collects together the whole of the necessary provisions; and in one small Statute is included all those laws which in the future will confer the franchise on the people of the country. The Bill is simple and intelligible, and I trust the House will consider that that is in itself a very important point. To sum up, this Bill proposes to prevent any mere change of qualification from disfranchising the voter; it proposes to take away those franchises which are merely bought; and it proposes to consolidate in one short Act the whole of the laws which regulate the possession of the franchise. As such, I trust it will command the support of the House, and I move its second reading.

I am not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) should say this is a very important measure. It is a very important measure indeed; and I hope that hon. Members, before they give their vote in favour of its second reading, will master its details. Sir, it is not very long since the late Parliament came to a very important decision in relation to the question of the franchise in this country. I will not say that any compromise was effected; but I will say that the moderation of the Franchise Act of 1884 commended itself not only to the then Parliament, but, I think, to the constituencies of the country generally. Now, Sir, this Bill is, in fact, an entire and total departure from the Franchise Act of 1884; and if it be true that such alterations as are proposed should be made, I think I am justified in asking that they shall not be made, by the inadvertent act of this Bill remaining on the Notice Paper, without attention being called to it, and without full opportunity being afforded hon. Members of the House of mastering the contents of the Bill. I am afraid that, in consequence of the events of this evening, many hon. Members of the House are not aware of the contents of the measure proposed by my hon. and learned Friend in the few words he has addressed to the House. The real truth is that, in the first place, this Bill entirely destroys the ownership vote, and it destroys the best class of the ownership voters—namely, the small freeholders of the country. I will not go into the question whether this ownership vote should exist at all; but if it is abolished, it can only be abolished after full discussion. If the small freeholders of the country are to be deprived of the franchise by a Liberal Member, the fact ought to be known, and full opportunity given for the discussion of so great a principle. I may tell the House, for I presume that very few hon. Members can have the Bill in their hands, this is really a repeal in its terms of the Franchise Act of 1884 to this extent—that it puts the provisions of that great measure on one side, and re-enacts only those which my hon. and learned Friend thinks it right to agree with. We have also this important alteration proposed—that one month's residence is to give a man the vote. It may be right or wrong that this should be so; but surely such a change should only be made after full and mature consideration. There are a great many changes proposed by the Bill; but, at least, there is one striking change which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned—namely, that all borough elections throughout the country shall take place on the same day, and all county elections on the same day; and in order, I suppose, to make it more satisfactory and more convenient to all concerned, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes that elections shall always take place on a Saturday. I do not doubt that there may be a great deal to be said in favour of such propositions; but these propositions amount to radical changes, changes of the greatest moment to the citizens of the country. Has this Bill ever been mentioned in the country; has anyone ever heard of it? I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that if he wishes to obtain support for the great principles involved in this Bill, does he not think it right they should be open to fair discussion in the presence of a full House? Taking this view, and taking some little interest in the legislation of last Session, I do hope I may be permitted to move the adjournment of the debate.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) who moved the second reading of the Bill will not object to the adjournment of the debate. It is quite clear that no one expected that a Bill of this importance would come on at 1 o'clock in the morning. I will not attempt to offer any opinion upon the details of the Bill—I must frankly con- fess I am not sufficiently acquainted with them to do so—but say that there is no doubt that this Bill intends to make great changes in the settlement of the franchise question arrived at last year. That may or may not be a good thing to do; but, at all events, it should not be done by surprise. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Moulton) has had the advantage of stating his case to the House, and therefore I hope he will not object to the adjournment of the debate.

; I should like to say that, while I entirely agree with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), it appears to me most extraordinary for a new Member, whatever his abilities and eminence in his profession may be, to bring in such a measure as this, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) has said, absolutely repeals the existing law governing the Parliamentary franchise of this country, and to press it on at 1 o'clock in the morning. Personally, I should like to vote against the second reading of the Bill.