in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, regretted that it was not associated with some Member more influential than himself. Although he was a firm adherent of the Church of England, the measure might better have been brought forward by one more connected with Church work. This measure, like the Bill of last year dealing with this subject, had been approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bench of Bishops, and had been practically adopted by the Houses of Convocation. The present measure bad also been approved by both Houses of Laymen. It had, therefore, received the support of both clergy and laity. He would not go into questions connected with ecclesiastical law or involving technical matters, complex even to lawyers, but would confine himself to the broad principles of the measure. There were three main ideas in the Bill, and they would commend themselves to all interested not only in the welfare of the Church and in its extended usefulness in this country and elsewhere, but in the advancement of the Christian religion. First of all, it was to stop the sale by public auction of next presentations to Church livings; secondly, it was to stop the traffic in Church livings; and, thirdly, it was to give to the Bishop of the diocese some power, though not very great, to prevent improper persons from being instituted to any benefice. Those three main propositions could not be objected to by anyone who was in any way interested in the welfare of the Church of England. These were all proverbial points which had been discussed many times, and as to which, practically speaking, both laity and clergy agreed something ought to be done; and he did not think that their Nonconformist friends could possibly object to those reforms in the Church. The Nonconformists, though not agreeing with Churchmen on points of discipline or otherwise, were interested in the spread of sound Christian instruction in this country, and would therefore agree that these great blots on the Church system should be done away with. First, with regard to stopping sales by auction of Church livings, that, of course, was not absolutely correct—it was the next presentation; but not being a lawyer he could not see much practical difference, for it really was the sale of the living. In the first clause of the Bill it was provided that it should not be lawful to sell or offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage. It seemed unnecessary to use arguments to enforce that principle, though he could cite a great number of instances showing the abuse and scandal of public advertisements in connection with the sale of next presentations. One was, "A charming preferment for a man fond of sports and country life;" price, with early possession, £2,000; another, "An attractive living, not far from a fashionable seaside resort;" and a third, which seemed the worst of all, where there was "A population of 1,500 persons, but the congregation small." A large price was asked, as there would not: be much to do. Such a state of things ! as this was an absolute scandal to the nation. Church patronage could not be said to be really property in the ordinary sense of the term; it was a sacred trust which should be exercised only for the welfare of the persons in the district to which the living belonged. Such advertisements were revolting, and all would agree that the whole system should be done away with. The remaining portion of the clause abolished the system of trafficking in livings, did away with the system of encumbering livings with charges, and so on. There was to be no charge on the incumbent, and no transfer unless it was a transfer of the whole right of the living, and certain other restrictions were dealt with which at present prevented many livings from becoming-available for the good of the district in which they were situated. One of the common systems of trafficking was that part of the price might remain on mortgage of the advowson and this system of trafficking ought to be abolished as a great evil. In some instances the traffic was soflagrant that the vendor of the living actually covenanted, on receiving the price for next presentation, that he would pay interest until the living became vacant by the death of the incumbent. He appealed to Churchmen as well as Dissenters to support these proposals. Communications had been sent him complaining that the patrons would be ruined. That was strange language to use in connection with such matters. The third main branch of the Bill was that the Bishop of the diocese should obtain some power to prevent improper persons from being presented to any benefice; but the power which the Bill conferred in this respect was hedged about with considerable safeguards. First of all, the Bishop had to ascertain that the patron had complied with the provisions of the Act; next, the Bishop, before he instituted any presentee to a new living, was asked to find out what that person had been doing since he was ordained, and it was proposed that he should receive testimonials from three beneficed clergymen in favour of the applicant. Those could not be considered unreasonable precautions before a man had a Church living handed over to him. The Bishop must next give a month's notice to the Churchwardens of the parish that he intended to institute such a person, and, during the lime allotted, any parishioner might, in writing, give reasons against his being instituted. No one, he thought, would say that this was an unreasonable precaution. The Bill further provided that if on certain definite grounds the Bishop considered that the person so proposed to be instituted would be injurious to the interests of the parish, then he had not only a right, but was instructed to refuse to institute him. Many people seemed to be afraid of this provision. But what were the grounds on which the Bishop would act in refusing to institute to a benefice? The Bill enumerated six reasons for which a Bishop could refuse to institute a clergyman to a living. They were—that the clergyman had not been ordained one year, that he was unfit through physical or mental infirmity, that he was in great pecuniary difficulties, that he had been guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty in offices which he had previously filled, that he was leading an evil life, or that there was a grave scandal or evil report affecting his moral conduct. To these six grounds for a Bishop's intervention be did not think that any Churchman or Dissenter could object. To provide against the possible abuse of power thus put in a Bishop's hands a right of appeal was given to patron and presentee, so that when they were dissatisfied with the reason given for a Bishop's refusal to institute they could bring the case before the Archbishop. Where the refusal occurred in an Archbishop's diocese a special court of appeal composed of three Bishops would be constituted. So that there was every protection against tyranny, and the danger was not that the Bishops would act unreasonably or unfairly, but that for the sake of peace, quietness, and kindness they would not act as firmly as they should. These were the chief provisions of the measure, which some might think ought to go even further than it did in the direction of reform. He was himself in favour of preventing any person from receiving any consideration at all for the exercise of Church patronage, and no doubt in ordinary employments it would be held to be an outrageous thing to sell patronage. If any hon. Member found that a friend, recommending to him a secretary or clerk, had stipulated that he should receive a large payment out of the man's salary as commission for having got him the appointment, it would be considered almost a criminal offence. He agreed with the Lord Chancellor, who said in the House of Lords last year that there was something repugnant in the mere idea of the sale of a sacred trust. This Bill, then, he admitted, was a comparatively humble one; nevertheless, it would do a great deal to check great abuses, and therefore he warmly recommended it for acceptance not only to Churchmen, but also to Dissenters, who were, he felt sure, convinced that it was most desirable in these days to put an end to all forms of scandal connected with religion. He begged to move the Second Beading of the Bill.

moved—

"That this House declines to proceed further with a Bill which, while recognising the sale of Ecclesiastical Patronage in the future, deprives the present holders of ecclesiastical property, without compensation, of rights to which they are by law entitled."

He said, that he did not ask the House to assert that the sale of ecclesiastical patronage was a right in respect of which compensation ought in all circumstances to be paid. What he did ask them to say was that by a Bill which recognised, in a most mischievous manner, the sale of ecclesiastical patronage it was not just to take away existing rights of sale without compensation. He could quite understand any ecclesiastical or social reformer coming to the House and saying this was an unholy traffic in a sacred trust—that, in the words of Shakespeare, "The offence is rank and smells to Heaven," and that it should be swept away altogether, without talking about compensation for a right which ought never to have existed in this world. When the Bill of the Home Secretary for disestablishing the Welsh Church was introduced, and the right hon. Gentleman said that Welsh patrons would only be entitled to one year's compensation for the loss of their patronage, a visible shudder of horror passed through the Opposition Benches. But if it was unjust to take away patronage whilst giving one year's compensation, how much more unjust must it be to take away the right of sale of patronage without giving any compensation at all? What would the Bill take away? The right of the sale of patronage, the only right which in the case of patronage had any pecuniary value. Now he came to the Bill itself, which he did not think had been quite accurately described. The hon. Member for North Islington had stated several grounds for the acceptance of it, one of which was that it was favourably regarded by the majority of the Bishops. That statement was very possibly correct, because, if the Bill passed, their rights of patronage would be considerably increased. But that was no sufficient reason for passing the Bill; neither did he consider the fact that Convocation supported it was sufficient reason, because Convocation was a purely clerical body based upon imperfect representation. The House of Laymen had been referred to, but this was not a matter which could be decided by any body merely representing the Church. The hon. Member for Islington described the Bill as one calculated to promote the spread of the Christian religion, but apparently that desirable end was to be attained by preventing the sale of livings by public auction. He could not see how they would spread the Christian religion by doing in private what they were ashamed to do in public; if it were a right thing to do, it should be done in public; if it were wrong, it should be prohibited altogether. The hon. Member had described this as a Bill to prohibit the sale of the next presentation by public auction, but what it really did was to prohibit the sale of any patronage by public auction, and to prohibit altogether the sale of the next presentation. But why was the sale of the next presentation worse than the sale of any other presentation? If it were wrong, if it were immoral, and if it were contrary to public policy that the right of presenting the succession to a benefice should be made the subject of barter, what did it matter whether the sale was of one appointment or of an indefinite number? He should have thought that the sale of the whole advowson was the worse of the two transactions. The truth was, that this was a tinkering Bill designed to hide and not to prevent scandals. There was a most curious point connected with the sale of advowsons, for the second sub-section of the clause provided for the transfer of the right of presentation, and laid it down that the right should not be exercised for two years after the transfer. What was the meaning of that? Why was it more sinful to exercise it within two years of the sale than after two years? The chance of what might happen in two years made it a gambling transaction. No doubt it was discreditable to the Church that there should be speculations on the life of an incumbent, and why Parliament should step in and permit and encourage such practices he could not understand. Again, he did not see why these rights of patronage should be transferred to the Bishop of the diocese. Bishops, he supposed, were considered public patrons, but public rights were often put to very private uses. A worthy old Bishop once put this question, the correct answer to which he had not yet been able to determine. He asked why an excellent young man should be prevented from having a good living merely because he happened to be his son-in-law. He invited the attention of the House to that problem. Probably the only practicable answer was to take the Bishop out of the way of temptation. It was all very well to try and prevent by any Act of Parliament a clergyman from buying a living, but he believed that one might just as well try to prevent by legislation a clergyman running race-horses. He would run them, if so minded, in another person's name. There were persons he knew who believed that as soon as a man was admitted a priest a peculiar virtue at once attached itself to him, and that he became peculiarly fitted for the exercise of certain functions. He would not now discuss that point, but he could not understand the effort of the operation being postponed for a year. He would also ask why, if hon. Members thought that any patronage to livings was bad, and it had undoubtedly caused many evils, did they not bring in a measure which would entirely prohibit it, instead of a half-and-half measure such as the present Bill was? The fact was, that the Bill dealt with a great subject in a narrow spirit. Let them remove these evils from the Church, for by so doing they might weaken the cry for disestablishment. It was not sufficient merely to withdraw these evils and abuses from the cognisance of that public opinion, which was, after all, the most wholesome purifier. One very remarkable provision of the Bill was that which dealt with the Law of Libel. He did not pretend to say how far that provision would alter the existing law. As he understood the Law of Libel, it was not so much the statement which was privileged as the occasion, and the privilege depended upon the use made of the occasion. He hardly thought that a Bill dealing with Church patronage was the proper place in which to modify the Law of Libel, and to restrict the civil rights of Her Majesty's subjects. He would tell the House what he believed to be the proper remedies for the existing state of things. He believed the proper remedy for these evils was to leave the Church free and unfettered by legislation, and let her manage at her own discretion her own affairs. He was astonished that the Church Party, from whom apparently this Bill proceeded, should be willing to stand by such a measure, and by doing so they had turned themselves into nothing loss, in his opinion, than a "confiscation party." As hon. Members, however, had taken up their present position, he presumed that henceforth they would not denounce the Government up and down the country for proposing to pay Welsh patrons insufficient compensation. If the Bill would apply any cure to existing evils, and if it would in any way promote the efficiency of the Church, he would be the last to oppose it; but inasmuch as he believed its effect would be to drive abuses into dark corners, he was bound to protest against it as an insufficient and mischievous attempt to deal with a great question, and he therefore moved the Amendment standing in his name.

I beg to second.

said, he was sorry he could not agree with the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. The hon. Member had admitted that the state of the law in regard to patronage was by no means satisfactory, and Churchmen agreed that there was much which needed reform in that regard. He as a Churchman regarded this Bill as a reasonable attempt to put a stop to patronage scandals, and on that ground he asked the House to read it a second time. He could not understand the assertion of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh that the Bill was a paltry tinkering attempt to deal with the scandals of the Church; but as that was answered with anticipation by the Mover of the Bill, he thought it unnecessary for him to dwell upon that. He looked on the Bill as admitting the right of parishioners to have some voice in the nomination and selection of their ministers. This was the first time that such a right had been recognised in a Bill; and while he was prepared to admit that the recognition had not been made in the most satisfactory manner, he thought that in Committee it would be possible to introduce some desirable Amendments, and therefore he was prepared to support the Bill. Some objection might reasonably be raised to the power which it was proposed to place in the hands of Bishops in regard to presentations, because although they were willing as Churchmen to trust those dignitaries, they were not altogether satisfied with the manner in which they were chosen. They were nominated by the Crown, and were the nominees of a Leader of a political Party, and it was quite possible men might be raised to the office who were not in full sympathy with the Church itself. Still, the Bill would remove obvious evils. It was a gross indecency to see in the papers advertisements like those read by the hon. Member for North Islington. He would like to see all these sales stopped, and in Committee on the Bill he should feel it his duty to endeavour to carry an Amendment by making it unlawful to sell or offer for sale any living either by auction or otherwise. He would also be willing to give compensation to patrons for the loss of their rights. It seemed to him that the property of the Church was very unevenly distributed. The best incomes were attached to those livings in which there was very little work to do, and consequently in those cases the patronage was a very valuable property. As the Bill would remove glaring scandals, be hoped the House, by reading it a second time, would do something towards purging the Church of England—an act for which all Churchmen should be grateful.

said, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh had dealt with a very important subject in a most superficial manner, and while he was grateful to the hon. Member for Maldon for the support he had given to the Bill, he was unable altogether to concur in the grounds on which that support was tendered. He did not share the views expressed against lay patronage. There was a great deal to be said for it. It enabled the Church, which embraced a great many varieties of opinion agreeing in the main but differing in detail, to be widely representative, and he did not think that an Ecclesiastical Committee would be able to exercise patronage in a more satisfactory manner. Therefore, they ought not lightly on a Wednesday afternoon to doom the system of lay patronage. He denied that the Bill was in any sense confiscatory, and he believed that if they abolished altogether the sale of advowsons it would produce evil. Was it not far better when the patron of a certain living sold his property in the neighbourhood of that living and went to live in a distant part of the country, he should be enabled to part at the same time with his right of patronage? It often happened that a patron was unfortunate and lost his money; he would not in that case be able adequately to perform his duties, and it would be far better to get rid of him.

Why?

said, it might be a temptation to him to present the living to an unsuitable man. A Committee of the House of Lords, a Committee of the House of Commons, and a Royal Commission had all agreed that the sale of the next presentation never did any good. The House would understand that he made the broad distinction that the sale of an advowson was one thing and the sale of the presentation another. To take away the right of selling an advowson would be a confiscatory measure. He did not think the Member for Edinburgh had studied the law with regard to next presentations, or made himself acquainted with past legislation. As a matter of fact, the sale of the next presentation was an evasion of that which had been the law of England ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The House must be aware that it was not possible for a clergyman to buy the next presentation to present it to himself. It was not possible for any person to give a sum of money to secure the presentation to a particular individual. All this revealed a spirit in the law of England that it was contrary to the law that any one should give money to procure a spiritual charge. Persons engaged in this disgraceful traffic knew that they were sailing as near the wind as they could. The Bill, therefore, was not of a confiscatory character: what they proposed was to interpret what was the spirit of the law. They knew that the meaning of presentation was the presentation of the clerk to the Bishop for approval. It is not intended to seriously alter the law in this respect, but they proposed to give to the Bishop the right institution where a clerk was obviously unfit to take the charge. At present the Bishop was unable to refuse institution. Technically he had the power, but practically he had not the power. They proposed to make the power effective, so that where a Bishop found in a proposed incumbent any of the faults enumerated in the Bill he should be able to refuse institution, and he thought that was a perfectly just proposal. In case there was any feeling that injustice had been done there would be an appeal to the Archbishop, which was to be heard in open Court. The cases of death or infirmity were also provided for. He hoped the House would give the Bill a Second Beading, because it embodied what was really an earnest attempt to remedy abuses in the Church system. He trusted the House would not think it worth while to make the cruel retort that the Church was corrupt. It did not follow that the whole Church was corrupt because very occasionally some of its members were corrupt. The remedies which they proposed in the Bill were directed against evil-doors, and would not affect the well-doers. He repeated that this was an earnest and anxious effort in the direction of reform. They desired to avoid confiscation, and wished to do something to help the Church of England. They did nor believe it was necessary to wait for disestablishment. It was quite evident from experience that the whole sense of the community—of Episcopalians and Nonconformists, of Conservatives, Liberals, and Radicals—was against a, factitious opposition to a Bill which merely had for its object the better government of the Church of England and the benefit of religion generally. If objections were pointed out—if it were shown that the Bill went too far in protecting the rights of property—that it gave too much or gave too little authority to the rulers of the Church—he, for one, should he only too willing to consider any Amendment that might be moved; but, in the hope that it would not he treated as a species of partisan legislation, he confidently commended it to the House.

said, so long as the Anglican Church was content to submit its sores to such a tribunal as that House, he maintained it was the duty of every Member of Parliament, however strong his opinions might be as to the tenets and doctrines of the Church of England, to give his earnest support to any proposals to remedy grievances and abuses as much as possible. He, there- fore, should not think of taking upon himself the responsibility of voting against the Second Reading of the Bill; on the contrary, he deemed it a pleasure to give it his support. But those who were alive to the abuses of patronage and of the sale of livings might be excused if they called attention to the lame and limping manner in which this Bill dealt with the subject. So far as the views of his hon. Friend (Mr. Paul) were concerned, he thought he was obviously right when he pointed out that this Bill did confiscate certain rights at present enjoyed without giving any compensation at all. He did not understand that his hon. Friend regretted that that should be so. On the contrary, he was sure he thought with him that such rights were not proper subjects for compensation. The noble Lord might be right in saying that the sale of next presentations was contrary to the spirit of the law, but he could not deny that the right of sale was exercised every day, and this, therefore, was a confiscatory measure, although the right confiscated might not be a proper subject for compensation. This was only one of many rights of property, including rights of landlords, which had grown up contrary to the spirit of the law, and the title to which could not be made good if you went back three or four hundred years. The fact remained that people undoubtedly did make money by the sale of next presentations, and that right was interfered with by this Bill without a halfpenny of compensation being given. He thought with regard to that point there was a distinction when you were disestablishing a Church and taking away from patrons the right and privilege of nominating to the cure of souls, because, in that case, it might be fairly said compensation ought to be paid for interference with the rights of property. But, so far as the Church of England was concerned, no one was now proposing to interfere with any such rights; there was no interference with the privilege of nominating to the cure of souls, a right which patrons would continue to enjoy as heretofore. He regretted that the promoters of the Bill did not have the courage to say that, so far at all events as next presentations were concerned, there should be no sale of them at all—in fact, that no money should be made out of them. Had that been done he did not think that any case could have been made our, for compensation, and they would have satisfied not only Nonconformists but also most members of the Church itself. The fact was, there had been a great heightening of feeling on this subject, and what used not to shock people 20 years ago did so now. He remembered that when he began practice as a conveyancer, it was the ordinary form in a settlement, when a young cleric was engaged to be married to a lady of property, to authorise the Trustees to apply some portion of her property for the purpose of purchasing a living to which her husband was to be presented; and he usually inserted a clause to that effect, taking it from the common text-books. The last time he did so was two or three years ago, when he received from the bridegroom to whom the draft was submitted so violent a letter that he had never since had the courage to insert the clause in any such settlement. That showed that things which used to pass muster without thought or consideration years ago now excited great antipathy and strong feeling. He rejoiced that that should be so, but he could not help advising the promoters of this Bill to take more courage and go to the full length of their convictions as faithful members of the Church of England. So far as the general measure was concerned, he must say he entirely agreed with the criticisms to which it had been exposed. Its spirit was intensely cowardly in reference to public auctions and advertisements, as though the minds of Churchmen were more affected by the publicity of the scandals than by the existence of the scandals themselves. The shame was not in the publicity which these evils obtained, but in their existence; not in the fact that tender consciences were wounded by the perusal of advertisements offering livings for sale, for that was no justification for coming to Parliament upon the question. He should advise the promoters of the Bill to so amend it in Committee that the sale of next presentations would be stopped altogether, and not merely by public auction. He put it with all gravity to the supporters of the Bill whether there was not something cowardly in driving sales of this de- scription into the private parlours of the clerical agents, simply in order to avoid what was considered to be a public scandal, while the traffic was allowed to remain the same as before. It seemed to him that if they had the true interests of the Church at heart they should rather maintain alive these public auctions, in order that pious Churchmen might never forget what was going on in their midst, or cease to agitate for reform. He agreed with the noble Lord as to the value of lay patronage. It was most desirable in the interests of the Church of England that patronage should not become more and more vested in the hands of Public Bodies or officials. Lay patronage, to his mind, was better than that of Bishops or Public Bodies, and he was not at all sure that it was desirable to transfer to the Bishop of the diocese the increased patronage which he would possess under the Bill. He was not sure which was the worse patron, the Crown or a Bishop; therefore, he hesitated to substitute the Crown or the Lord Chancellor for the Bishop. It seemed to him that the subject required careful consideration with the view of determining who was the proper person to be invested with patronage. He did not know that it was desirable that presentees should be dependent for induction upon a testimonial from three beneficed clergymen, countersigned by a Bishop. If they required a condition preliminary of that sort, he should like to see a little lay opinion introduced. He did not object to the three beneficed clergymen, but he confessed he thought the opinion of the laity was at least as valuable. No doubt the power of the Bishops would be increased by the Bill, and, so far as that increased power was to be used for the purpose of keeping out persons obviously unfitted for the discharge of certain duties, he did not think that any sensible man could object to it. But ho thought that some of the language of the Bill was vague, and would require careful consideration in Committee. He supported the measure, but, at the same time, he did not think it reflected great credit on the courage of its promoters.

said, that as one of the promoters of the Bill, he could not refrain from thanking the House for the very favourable consideration which had been shown to it. He would point out that the Rill had not only received the sanction and authority of Convocation, of both the Northern and Southern Provinces, and of the Houses of Laymen of both Canterbury and York, but also of other authorities which, in the minds of some Members, would probably possess greater weight—a Committee of the House of Lords which sat in 1874, a Committee of the House of Commons which examined the matter in the year 1884, and a Royal Commission which dealt with it in 1879. The effect of these Reports was practically to recommend the substance of the present Bill, and many of the details were identically the same as those recommended by those bodies. He could not agree with the hon. Members who spoke of the Rill as one of confiscation. He could not admit that the right of patronage was an unqualified right. On the contrary, it was qualified in the most severe manner by conditions involved and implied. The Committee of the House of Lords in 1874 spoke in these words of patronage—

"We are of opinion that all legislation affecting Church patronage should proceed upon the principle that such patronage partakes of the nature of a trust to be exercised for the spiritual benefit of the parishioners, and that whatever rights of property originally attached, or in process of time have attached to patronage, must always be regarded with reference to the application of this principle."

One of the objects of the Bill was to obtain publicity, and to prevent those private, hole-and-corner proceedings which were a greater scandal to the Church than the open sale of livings. There was a provision in the Bill to the effect that all transfers be recorded in the diocesan records, which he believed were open to the public so that every transfer would be well known to all whom it might concern. Another provision declared that no transfer should be valid which did not transfer the whole rights of the transferor. If the sole right was a next presentation that right might be transferred, as otherwise confiscation was necessarily the result. Another remark that had been made was that the Bishops had an increase of power under this Rill. The question to consider was not whether the Bishops had an increase of power, but whether that increase tended to the good of the Church. He could not conceive anything more painful to a Bishop than to be compelled to institute a gentleman whom he knew to be unfit to exercise the great duties of an incumbent's office. The Bishops bad full power to act in the gross cases referred to by previous speakers. One hon. Member had said that the removal of these evils would not lead to a spread of Christianity. He entirely differed from that hon. Gentleman. Whether the Church of England were viewed in its purely legal aspect or regarded as a great Christian Society, everything in it that caused scandal must militate against the spread of Christianity, and everything that tended to remove scandal must tend to the spread of Christianity. As regarded sales by auction, he could not help thinking that some of the advertisements which had produced scandal were really flourishes of auctioneers. He could not believe that any person who bought a living would for a moment be induced to buy by such attractions as had been quoted. He was of opinion that the standard of clerical duty was fast rising, and that few clergymen could now be found who would take a living because it happened to be near a meet of hounds or near a fashionable watering place. As to the suggested abolition of lay patrons, he believed that the consolidation of patronage in a few hands would be a great evil to the Church. The Committee of 1874 spoke of the importance of lay patronage as securing variety and independence, and helping to continue that liberality and width of thought which characterised the clergy of the Church of England. He believed lay patronage to be a source of strength to the Church. Some hon. Members complained of the period during which a man must have been in priest's orders being limited to one year. He did not say that one year was sufficient, but he thought that one year's experience as a priest, combined with a year's experience as a deacon, would be a great advantage in many cases. If the period were extended too much the result must be to inflict hardship upon the clergy without conferring any benefit on the Church. He did not contend that the Bill did everything that ought to be done, but it was a step, and in an old country like ours we must move one step at a time. The Church of England was the only Religious Body which came before the House, as it were, living in a glass case. All that was done in the Church was known, and when evils were found to prevail in the Church an endeavour was made to remove them. He rejoiced to find amongst gentlemen opposite a feeling that if the Church of England were to exist it ought to be left free to do good work during the continuance of its existence as an Established Church. The efficiency of the Church, whatever may be its fate, was intimately blended with the efficiency of religious teaching in this country. He was quite sure that the scandals which the Bill endeavoured to remove were a hindrance to the progress of Christianity, and that if the Bill passed religion would abound more in those parishes which would be affected by it than it had hitherto done. He hoped, therefore, that the House would consent to the Second Reading.

cordially agreed with the last speaker, that the cause of moral reform and true religion must be materially advanced by the removal from the institutions of the Church of England of such practices as those that had been brought before the attention of the House in the course of the discussion. Hon. Members had just been reminded that this was an old country which moved slowly. Its Legislature apparently moved still more slowly. As long ago as 1870 Lord Cross, then a private Member of the House of Commons, brought in a Bill for the removal of these very abuses, and in 1877, when Home Secretary, in answer to Mr. Leatham, he stated that, in his judgment, the abuses ought to be at once swept away. Inasmuch as the Conservative Party had since that important declaration been for 12 years in Office, commanding in each House a very considerable majority, one almost wondered how it was that no serious attempt had been made by the laity of the Church of England to induce the House to deal with the question. It was not because they had failed to receive the support of the Nonconformists in the House of Commons because some of the most serious and protracted efforts to remove these abuses had emanated from Nonconformist Mem- bers. They were sometimes told that the Nonconformists of England acted upon jealousy, and nothing but jealousy, of the Church of England; but he thought there was no Nonconformist who was anxious for the spread of religion amongst them who would not gladly assist in the removal of these most extraordinary conditions. What one was particularly struck with was that the measure was such a halting, such a half-hearted and feeble attempt to deal with a notorious abuse. He agreed with very much of what the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) had said, that the impression produced on one's mind was that the supporters and framers of the Bill were anxious to still the public conscience and to rather hide than remove these abuses; because it was manifest that unless they prohibited the sale of advowsons, not merely by public auction, but prohibited the sale of them altogether, they did not go to the root of the evil. What was there to prevent a man privately buying an advowson to-day, presenting it to-morrow to himself, and then selling the advowson? There was nothing to prevent it under the Bill, which simply prohibited the sale of next presentations. Another defect in the Bill, he thought, was its failure to give the parishioners some sort of effective control over the appointment of the clergy. Until they entrusted the parishioners with some such powers as were given to Scotchmen under the Scotch Patronage Act of 1874 they would fail to grapple effectually with this difficulty. But he only rose for the purpose of saying he thought it was the duty of Nonconformists in this House to recognise this as a sincere, though he believed a feeble, effort to reform a long-standing abuse, and on that ground he hoped that every Dissenter would render it his support, so that the Bill might be duly considered in Committee, and amended in a way conducive to true religious progress.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Perks); there ought not to be any feeling of jealousy between the Nonconformists and the Church of England, and he felt quite satisfied that if the hon. Member had had as much to do with the Church of England as he (Sir R. Webster) had had to do with Nonconforming Bodies, they would both be able to appreciate the good that was being done by the various bodies. He did not believe that anyone who had spoken to-day thought there was any feeling of jealousy on the part of the Church and those in other denominations. The statements they had to meet had not certainly been of the character that demanded any lengthened reply. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) with great pleasure, but he thought the hon. Member had not had time to consider the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member said they were simply trying to drive an evil underground, and that the effect of the step they were taking would only be to prevent sales by auction. He did not speak as a promoter of the Bill, but on behalf of those who had considered it: and he thought that if the hon. Member bad made this subject a study for the last few years, he would have seen that it was in connection with the sales by auction that the abuses were most closely allied. Hon. Members who believed the result of this Bill would be to drive underground the abuses at present before the public, had not, he thought, noticed what were the provisions in the Bill, and what would be its results when the clauses were put in operation. The Bill, for the first time in history, provided for the public registration of all transfers, and thus removed one of the difficulties which had always existed in regard to such matters. If the hon. Gentleman had studied the subject he would have known that it was in connection with sales by auction that scandals generally arose. It was, however, impossible to deal with the whole question of patronage without at the same time grappling with the exceedingly difficult subject of compensation. That was a subject which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would hardly come to consider at present, and the funds of the Church were not in such a condition as to enable her to deal with it. He believed that the Bill would be productive of much benefit to the Church, but some hon. Members complained that it did not go far enough. Those who had considered the question felt that it would be impossible and improper to introduce into the Bill any complete change as to the way in which patronage should be exercised. It would in all probability have promoted a discussion which would have had the effect of preventing the possibility of the Bill becoming law. While the promoters could not recognise anything in the nature of an election of an incumbent or minister, they had recognised the principle that the parishioners, not any parishioner, but five parishioners—which was a number that would secure responsibility—should have the right of presenting to the Bishop a statement showing that a, clergyman had become incapacitated from any cause for the due performance of his duties. When the provisions of this Bill came to be considered, he thought even the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Paul) would be inclined somewhat to change the expressions he had thought fit to use. He did not know with what motive the hon. Member spoke of this as a peddling and tinkering Bill; but when the hon. Member came to see that every speaker who followed him had said this was an honest attempt to remove grievances that had been found to exist for a long time in the Church, and when those who were themselves possessors of a considerable amount of this patronage—he referred at present to the House of Lords—had been the first to initiate schemes and proposals for the removal of the evils, he thought if the hon. Member considered the question from that point of view he would be of opinion that though the Bill did not go so far as the hon. Member and some others would like to see, at the same time it would remove a large proportion of those real breaches of the law, though they were not in a legal sense breaches of the law, which so many religious men of all denominations deplored, and which so many Members had expressed their willingness to find a remedy for. There were other provisions in the Bill, but they were mere matters for Committee. He hoped the House, which had received the Bill with such a fair temper, would give it a Second Reading, and that having done so its clauses would be considered, not in any controversial spirit, so that they might be able to say this Session had passed a measure and done something to remove an evil which all Churchmen and all Religious Nonconforming Bodies agreed ought to be dealt with.

, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say—I am not disposed in any way to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. The principles on which this Bill are founded are those which I, for one, and Members on this side of the House have always accepted—namely, that the Established Church has relations with Parliament which entitles Parliament to deal with the Church's property in a way in which it could not deal with other property. Of course, the question of next presentation involves as much property as any other. It is not contrary to the law; otherwise it would be restricted. It is legal property, in which the person who has it has a right to deal as much as with any other property he possesses. When we were dealing with purchase in the Army, the transaction was simply contrary to the law, and we gave compensation. Here you are taking away property confirmed by the law and you give no compensation. Had we done that we should have been called confiscators and robbers. We do not return the compliment; we do not call those who bring in this Bill confiscators and robbers. On the contrary, we hail them with satisfaction as public benefactors, and I hope they will take the same course when dealing with Welsh disestablishment. I am glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite do recognise that Church property does stand in a different position to any other property in the country in respect to the right of Parliament to deal with it. I agree very much with the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Paul), that this is—I will not use any uncomplimentary epithet, otherwise I would call it a sham Bill—but it is a Bill which does not deal with the persons who are to dispense these spiritual offices. You may not sell the next 'presentation to a living, but you may sell the advowson and anyone may buy them. The hon. Gentleman said just now the House of Lords did not object to this Bill. No, because it safeguards all the House of Lords cares about, which is the right of presentation; they do not want to sell; it is part of the appanage of a great estate. A poor man having a living may want to sell the next presentation, but a rich man does not, and this Bill would not prevent him giving it to a younger son or to a neighbour who agrees with him on religious and political matters, and he secures to himself a spiritual oasis around his estate, taking care that all the parsons shall be in political and spiritual union with himself. That is really what is preserved by this Bill. The rich man buys a great estate, whether he belongs to an old family or has become one of the nouveaux riches, and acquires all these rights of spiritual gifts. He would say, "What a nice thing for my son Robert!" or "What a nice thing for my friend!" All that the Bill does not reform. It does not profess to reform the question of patronage at all. Upon the subject of lay patronage I have formed a strong opinion. I have always thought that lay patronage, if properly administered, was a good thing, and I should be sorry to see it episcopalised, for it would be the very worst thing that could happen to allow the Bishops to hold all the power of patronage in the Church. But when you speak of lay patronage as a thing to be purchased in the market, as it is now, and as it will be after your Bill has passed, that, in my opinion, is not the best way of introducing reform into this country. The people who have the best right to a voice in this matter are the congregations, and no system is of any value whatever that allows an individual, merely because he happens to be the proprietor of the soil, to dispose of the spiritual wants of the people who live upon the estate he has purchased in the open market. In my opinion, the loss of that power would not weaken, but would strengthen the Church. Where is the growth of the strength and influence of the Church in this country? It is not mainly in the country parishes, but in the great towns, because in the great towns it is a voluntary Church, and the clergyman depends upon his personal influence with his congregation. In the country the clergyman may be entirely out of harmony with the disposition, the sentiments, and the opinion of the parishioners, and when that is so how can you be surprised there is not that sympathy on the part of the people that there ought to be? Those are the real things which lay at the root of patronage, and a Bill which professes to deal with patronage and does not recognise questions of that character is necessarily imperfect and inefficient. What I complain of in this Bill is that it does not deal with the interests it ought to deal with. It covers up and perpetuates the monopolies of the rich landlord, the rich possessor of the soil. This Bill is made in his interests, the whole of which it safeguards, while it taxes the interests of inferior men who might, by their circumstances, be compelled to make money out of the patronage. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says this is a very small matter. Yes, it is a very small matter, but the principle is a very great matter. I remember a maxim I was taught in my childhood which ran—"It is a wicked thing to steal a pin, much more a sin to steal a greater thing." The Convocation does not appear to think it a sin to steal the pin, therefore the whole monopoly of the great and rich man is to be preserved, and this small area of patronage in possession of the poor man is to be taken away. The hon. and learned Gentleman is naturally in favour of a proposal which increases his own authority and diminishes the authority of other people. As I have said before, this Bill includes the germ of much larger reforms. It includes the principle of dealing for the public advantage with property of this description, and on that ground I accept the Bill. It goes a very little way, and does remove what I think everybody will admit is a great scandal, and in that respect also I am prepared to accept the Bill; but I must join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh in condemnation of the Bill as anything like an adequate or sufficient dealing with a very great matter, and I regard it as the letting out of water which will unquestionably hereafter flow in a much stronger stream.

congratulated the members of the Church of England on the fact that, after the lapse of eight years, they werenowagain asking Parliament to deal with the flagrant evils arising out of the present system of Church patronage. It was 24 years ago since Mr. (now Lord) Cross brought in a measure on the subject, and that period had witnessed a growth of activity, of liberality and of religious feeling, in the Church which made it wonderful that the present evil system had been tolerated until now. The Royal Commission on the subject reported in 1879; but seven years passed before the Primate brought in a Bill to give any effect to the recommendations of the Commission, and then five years more were allowed to pass before the introduction of another measure. During the 24 years only two Members of that House had dealt with the subject; one of these being the lamented Mr. Stanhope, and the other, Mr. Leatham, a member of the Liberation Society, which was supposed by some to have a vested interest in abuses in the Church. There were various reasons for this long delay. The time of Parliament was absorbed by secular matters. Churchmen were divided in opinion. The House of Lords comprised numerous Church patrons, and, lastly, the whole question was indissolubly connected with the rights of property and the existence of an Established Church. While agreeing with what had been said as to the feeble character of the measure, he must admit that it went further and was stronger than any previous measure on the subject. Among its good points was the abolition of donative livings. Perhaps very few Members knew exactly what a donative was, and he would therefore give the House a description contained in a Charge, in 1875, of the Bishop of Peterborough, afterwards Archbishop of York.

"There are 100 patrons in England, not presumably better or wiser than other patrons, who hare the right to keep the parishes in their gift as long as they please without a pastor; who, when he is appointed, need produce no evidence that he is even in holy orders, no testimonial as to his character, and who may buy from one of these patrons the right, without check, hindrance, or so much as a question from any human being, to enter upon a cure of souls, and who, moreover, by that purchase, may have been enabled to complete some nefarious transaction respecting some other piece of Church preferment of which he may be the owner."

It was not surprising that the promoters of the Bill should wish to convert donatives into presentative benefices; the only wonder was that they should have tolerated such a scandal so long. Another point of the Bill, of which he could speak approvingly, was the absence of any proposal to compensate patrons for the di- minished money value of their rights, which would result from the passing of the Bill. It would be a most useful precedent when they came to disestablish the Church. The hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) had spoken of the main principles of the Bill, but he (Mr. Williams) could not find them. Let not the House suppose that this was a measure for putting an end to the traffic in Church livings; on the contrary, it was intended to continue the traffic, but on new conditions, and by abating some of its worst scandals. It simply drove the traffic away from Tokenhouse Yard into the office of that well-known character, the clerical agent. The Bill also exempted two classes of livings from its operations—namely, the livings included in the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Acts, and those in the gift of landowners who owned 100 acres in the parish. These might still be sold by auction, and might continue to be associated with the evils which the Bill professed to cure. There were two questions which he had a right to put to the framers of the Bill. Did they really consider that the right of appointing ministers of religion ought not to be bought and sold? If they did, why did they not apply the principle thoroughly and consistently in the present measure? Or, if they defended the merchandise in men's souls, why should not the transaction be open and aboveboard, instead of being shrouded in secrecy? The results of secrecy had been described by witnesses examined by the Royal Commission. Mr. Lee, the secretary to the Bishops, said that it was difficult for them to prevent corrupt presentations, because "where there is anything irregular it is kept most carefully, not only from the Bishop, but from his officers." Mr. Bridges also said that the clerical agents

"Insist on the necessity of strict privacy, as vital to any arrangements of that kind."

The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) had pointed to the clause in the Bill requiring the registration of transfers and transmissions; but it did not, and could not, provide for the registration of the disreputable transactions which might have preceded a transfer. An attempt had been made to draw a distinction between the sale of advowsons and the sale of next presentations; but there wore Churchmen who frankly admitted that no such distinction could properly be drawn. In the Debate on the Patronage Bill of 1886 Mr. Childers, a Churchman, who was then Home Secretary, said—

"The conclusion to be drawn is, that the sale of livings ought to be done away with altogether. There is no middle course."

In the same Debate another staunch Churchman, the late Mr. Raikes, said—

"Whatever provisions you may make against the sale of next presentations, the ingenuity of the lawyers will get round them. As long as one person has a commodity to sell, and another wishes to buy, it is not in the power of an Act of Parliament absolutely to prohibit the sale."

The framers of this Bill hoped to prevent illegal transactions in future by framing new declarations; but there was abundant evidence to show the utter futility of such safeguards. Among the witnesses examined by the Royal Commission was Mr. Emery Stark, a well-known clerical agent, and this was part of his cross-examination by the Bishop of Peterborough—

"Mr. Stark—Three-fourths of my transactions are with immediate possession, and, strictly speaking, they are nearly all illegal.

Bishop—Knowing it to be illegal, these clerical patrons ask you to help them to break the law?

Mr. Stark—Decidedly; and the matter is completed by solicitors of the highest standing in the country.

Bishop—The clergyman knows what the meaning of Simony is in that declaration; he knows that it is a legal term which means contrary to the Law of Simony?

Mr. Stark—Yes.

Bishop—Knowing that, these moral clergymen, who first of all ask you to break the law, then take an oath that they have not broken the law?

Mr. Stark-Yes."

After such evidence, he ventured to say that the now declarations contained in the Bill would be as ineffective to bind the traffickers in livings as were the green withes by which it was sought to bind Samson. There was one great omission in the Bill which had not yet been noticed. It made no attempt to get rid of immoral patrons. The Bishop already quoted said years ago that

"The very greatest scoundrel in England may be a patron, and his extreme immorality is no bar in law to his acting as patron,"

and that was true to-day. He (Mr. Williams) could name three persons who within the last two or three years had figured most disgracefully in the Law Courts, who had as many as 63 livings in their gift. By means of the lately passed Clergy Discipline Act, the Church had sought to get rid of "black sheep" among the clergy; but the black sheep among Church patrons were left undisturbed. He had to ask himself what was his duty in regard to the Second Reading of this Bill. He was willing to afford to its promoters the opportunity for making it an effective measure, and that could be done by a very few Amendments which would absolutely abolish the sale of livings. If they refused to avail themselves of that opportunity, there would be a clear course before him at a future stage of the measure. He, however, would be wanting in frankness if he did not add that he had no hope that the great and admitted evils of the patronage system would ever be effectually dealt with while the Church continued to be established by law. That was not his opinion alone; it was shared by many sagacious Churchmen. Writing some years ago, The Guardian said—

"It deserves to be again and again said, and urged, that the abuses of private patronage are especially and emphatically due to the connection of Church and State."

That was still true, and he reminded Churchmen who were now passionately protesting against measures of disestablishment that if they succeeded they would be perpetuating evils which they all deplored. The only Christian Church in the world, so far as he knew, which allowed the right of appointing ministers of religion to be bought and sold was the Church of England, and that was because of its establishment. Let it cease to be established, and the system, with all its iniquities, would disappear, as the snow of the night melts in the sunshine of the morning. The Church must first be liberated, and then it would be purified.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which he explained was to establish a Ministry of Labour, to be presided over by a Minister to be called the Labour Minister. These proposals were in no way of a Party character, and had found supporters sitting in all parts of the House, not to mention the great support it had received outdoors at various Conferences, &c. The central idea of the Bill was that the time had now arrived for the union or amalgamation of the various Departments dealing with labour matters and questions, or administering laws relating to or concerning labour, under a Minister of the Crown responsible to Parliament. This proposal had secured the very serious consideration of the Labour Commission, which had been sitting for some years past, and he saw from the newspapers that the subject-matter of this Bill had been dealt with by both the Majority and the Minority Report. The House was not in possession of these Reports, but for the purpose of his argument he would venture to rely on the accuracy of the advance copies which had appeared in the public prints. The Majority Report, unlike the Minority, did not recommend the appointment of a Ministry and Minister of Labour, but it went a long way in this direction by advising the extension of the Labour Bureau of the Board of Trade. The proposals contained in the Bill were not in any way antagonistic to the labour or scope of that Department. The old Labour Bureau was once described by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade as possessing a staff so insufficient that it was only a one-horse machine. The right hon. Gentleman rechristened the Bureau a Department, and undoubtedly considerable increased its usefulness, and it now very creditably collected, digested, and published statistical and other information bearing on questions relating to the condition of labour. It also possessed a much more efficient staff, including correspondents in various large towns, and published an organ termed The Labour Gazette. But admitting and giving credit for all this, the Department was still very far removed from what, in his opinion, a Department, or, as he preferred to call it, a Ministry of Labour should be when they considered the growing importance of what were called labour questions, especially when they remembered what America, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, and Belgium had done in the same direction, but more particularly America, where labour questions and matters and labour legislation and the administration of laws relating to labour had since 1884 been centralised in what they termed the National Ministry of Labour, which, in addition to comprising a Central Department, had 26 Labour Bureaus in the various States all collecting and sifting facts and figures dealing with the social, sanitary, and material condition of the great labouring population, and so paving the way for such reforms as should be found practicable and necessary in an age when no individual country could afford to stand still, and must take part in the great march of progress. He now referred to the recommendations of the Minority Report of the Labour Commission, which was the production of the labour members or labour element of the Commission, and was signed by well known and recognised friends of labour, like Mr. M. Austin, M. P., Mr. J. Mawdsley, and Mr. Tom Mann; and he found that his Bill, although drafted three years ago, and it had been before the House on two previous occasions, almost exactly carried out more or less efficiently the very recommendations of that portion of such Report which recommended that a Ministry or Department of Labour should be formed, consisting of the present Factory and Mines Department of the Home Office, the Labour Bureau of the Board of Trade, and the Registry of Friendly Societies; and the Report went on to recommend that such Ministry should be under the charge of a Minister, who should be responsible for all the branches of administration specially charged with labour questions and matters, and stated that the increasing prominence of industrial problems and the growing participation in politics of the wage-earning class led them to look with favour upon the appointment of such a Minister. Upon perusal it would be seen that these recommendations were embodied in the Bill, with one exception, and that was that the Bill was silent as to whether the Labour Minister should be in the Cabinet, whilst the Report recommended that he should be. This was a distinction which it would be easy to remedy if the House thought fit, and could be very well left to its judgment and decision to be dealt with in the Committee stage, if the House in its discretion should agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. He might say that the constitution of the Board forming the Ministry was exactly framed on that of the Board of Agriculture, which he had taken as a model in this respect, and the formal portions of the Bill were taken from that measure; whilst what might be termed the inquiring clause were taken word from word from the Act under which the American Ministry had successfully worked since 1884. Personally, he would have preferred to do without this Board, and in including it in the Bill he was being governed by precedent. In addition to the matters and duties which he had mentioned, powers were taken in the Bill to investigate the following matters:—

"The causes of, and facts relating to controversies and disputes between employers and employé's as they may occur, and which may tend to interfere with or affect the welfare of the community, and report thereon to Parliament; to constitute a National Arbitration Board, to which all controversies and disputes between employers and employé's may, by the mutual consent of the parties interested, be referred for arbitrament under rules and regulations to be made by the Ministry; to make or aid in making such inquiries, and collect or aid in collecting such information as the Ministry may deem important in relation to emigration and also foreign pauper immigration, and the bearing of the latter on the conditions and circumstances of the native labour market; to make, or aid in making, inquiries, and collect, or aid in collecting information relating to State assisted old age pensions for the industrial classes, and report thereon to Parliament; to establish a system of Reports by which, at intervals of not less than two years, the general conditions of production and other important conditions relating to the leading industries of the country may be learnt; to obtain from other countries such information upon the various subjects committed to it asthe Ministry may deem desirable; and, lastly, to undertake the inspection of and reporting upon any schools which are not public elementary schools, and in which technical instruction, practical or scientific, is given in any matter connected with industrial subjects."

It might be very fairly asked, if such a Ministry was formed, would the taxpayer get his money's worth; and in reply to this query he might say that he thought he would—first of all, by having important labour questions dealt with ably, vigorously, and energetically, and in a way consistent with the best interests of the labouring classes and the community generally; and, secondly, by doing away with costly, spasmodic, and necessarily imperfect inquiries by means of Select Committees and Royal Commissions. On the question of probable cost, it was stilted that the American National Ministry of Labour costs £30,000 per annum; but he took it that the major portion of this sum was spent in equipping and providing for the 26 Provincial Labour Bureaux. It was said that the recent Labour Commission cost, over £50,000, so by doing away with these Committees and Commissions an economy would be effected which would materially assist in paying for the new Ministry or Department. In conclusion, he was of opinion it would be greatly to the benefit of the wage-earner, the capitalist, the social reformer, and the legislator that the administration of all laws relating to labour should be centralised in one Department under a responsible Minister, and that all labour matters, teeming its they do with important, not to say gigantic, consequences to all classes, should be carefully and impartially investigated by such a Department, with permanent and skilled helpers, rather than by Committees and Commissions composed to a certain extent of partizans, faddists, and persons with conflicting interests. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.

said, he had much pleasure in seconding the Motion, for he felt that among all the burning questions of the day none was of more importance to the country or more extensive in its character than the labour question. He hoped the Government would see their way to appoint a special Minister to take entire charge of this matter, as it was impossible for any Government Department that now existed to devote to it the time that it demanded. He was sure the Home Department, which was overwhelmed with work, would he glad to be relieved of all questions affecting labour; and as those questions were numerous and urgent, a special Minister was required to deal with them in a proper manner. He believed it was the want of a Minister to give his entire attention to questions affecting labour which alone had permitted pauper immigration to go on so long without any notice being taken of it by the Government. Nothing did so much to injure the working classes by flooding our labour market with pauper aliens, and he trusted that steps would be taken to prevent the country from being overcrowded with people who came here utterly incapacitated from fulfilling the requirements of civilised society. For all these reasons ho was anxious to see the appointment of a Labour Ministry.

said, in support of the Second Reading of the Bill, that no one could deny that both political Parties when in power desired to do the best they could to advance the interests of labour; but at the present time the Home Office and the Board of Trade, which had charge of labour matters, had more business of another kind than they could well get through, and the result was that labour interests were neglected. The Labour Department of the Board of Trade might possibly do something to solve the difficulty, but he had very little hope that it would. The President of the Board of Trade took great pride to himself for having extended the Labour Department. Certainly some of the Labour Correspondents through the country furnished useful Reports; but there seemed to be no determination on the part of the Government to take action on those Reports, and the mere making of Reports, without anything being done with them, was absolutely useless. At the present time labour was in a very precarious condition indeed. Large numbers of the industrial classes in the constituency which he represented were out of employment, and had been so for a very long time. He bad constantly called the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the matter; but the right hon. Gentleman—who, he admitted, was overburdened with duties—seemed quite unable to deal with it. He therefore thought that if there was a Minister of Labour, able to devote his whole time and attention to the question of the employment of the people, great advantage would ensue. He was sure that his hon. Friend who had brought in the Bill did not consider it so perfect that he would not gladly accept any practical Amendments that might be brought forward. He was sure, too, that the President of the Board of Trade, with his experience in industrial affairs, would agree with him that a special Minister should be appointed to deal efficiently and effectually with the urgent and important questions affecting labour, and he therefore trusted that the Government would see their way to give a favourable answer to the Motion then before the House.

said, that the three Conservative Members who had consecutively addressed the House in support of the Bill did not seem to him to have made out a sufficient case to recommend this large new departure to the favourable consideration of the House. The Mover of the Bill seemed to have the assent of the House in what he said with regard to the Labour Bureau, and if it were only intended, or mainly intended, by the Bill to strengthen the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, he was sure they would all support the Bill. The Labour Department had done immense public service already, and the service it was rendering was greatly increasing; and he was sure it was the wish of the House and the desire of the constituencies in the country that the hands of that Department should be strengthened, and that the Treasury should give a favourable answer to applications for the money necessary for its needs. But while he was anxious to see the Labour Department strengthened and its statistical side improved and brought up to the level of similar institutions in America and in our own colonies, he thought it was a long stride indeed from that point to the proposal of the Bill to set up a separate and distinct Labour Ministry. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had said that the proposed Ministry was framed upon the model of the Board of Agriculture. He doubted that the Board of Agriculture had been so unqualified a success, in the opinion of Members of the House, as to make them desire to see the creation of a new Department founded upon that example. Then the hon. Member had constructed a Board very curiously composed, for on it Scotland was represented and not Ireland, and, indeed, the whole constitution of the Board was un-satisfactory. This was simply a proposal for the creation of a new sham Board, because if it was brought into existence it would no more hold a meeting than the existing Boards ever did. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade would tell them how often his Board had met and what was the character of its deliberations. He remembered that just at the time when some trades were asking for the creation of a Minister of Commerce, the people of France were asking for the creation of a Board of Trade rather than of a Minister of Commerce, as they considered that a Board of Trade, similar to the Board of Trade in England, would do everything needed for commerce, having been under the impression that the Board of Trade was a consultative Department which met from time to time. He believed that if this Ministry of Labour were created, it would be, like the Board of Agriculture, an unnecessary Department. The Mover of the Bill had said that the points this Ministry ought to deal with were arbitration, emigration, alien immigration, and State-aided pensions. As to arbitration, there were Government proposals before the House, and he should not be in order in discussing them; but he would point out that many Trades Unionists, who were in favour of the creation of a Ministry of Labour, doubted the wisdom of the proposals with regard to arbitration. Mr. Mawdsley, a Conservative Trades Unionist of great and well-deserved influence amongst the working classes, had said that an Arbitration Board was unnecessary in the case of well-organised trades, while in the case of other trades—trades in an inferior state of organisation—such a Board would bring great influence to bear in favour of capital as against labour which would have to go to the wall. The House had already debated the question of pauper immigration, and had strongly favoured the view that it was not desirable to interfere with this supposed evil at all. Again, to place State old-age pensions in the hands of a Government Department was to declare beforehand that it was to State old-age pensions they must resort, although it was very probable that the Old Age Commission would report against that view, and would advise that the matter be left to Local Authorities. Finally, the hon. Member who introduced the Bill had said that if his proposals were adopted the taxpayer would get his money's worth. It, was on that point he principally took issue with the hon. Member. He thought that we already had too many Ministers, and he denied that the taxpayer would get any reward for the fresh salaries involved in the creation of a fresh Department. This country had already enlarged beyond all experience the number of Government Departments represented in Parliament, and he asked the House of Commons to pause before it again entered on the path of increasing the number of gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. It was said that labour matters were attended to chiefly by the Home Office, and that the Home Office was overgorged with work. He was pretty well acquainted with the work of the Home Office; but while no one could doubt the enormous weight and responsibility of the functions discharged by the Home Secretary, he was bound to say, and he thought the Home Secretary would agree with him, that the Home Office was not necessarily an overworked Department. There was no doubt, however, that there was a good deal of confusion as to the respective duties, with regard to labour, of the Home Office and the Board of Trade; but that could be set right, and ought to be set right, in a different way from the way pro- posed in the Bill. There was undoubtedly a case for the redistribution of work between the great Departments of the State; but there was no case whatever for the creation of another new Ministry. There was no parallel in the world for anything approaching the number of Ministers who now sat in the House of Commons. There were, he believed, 38 or 39 of them, besides their Secretaries, and as there were really too many and not too few of them, the House should not embark on any scheme for the creation of another new Ministry. It was true that the proposed Minister of Labour would not necessarily have a seat in the Cabinet, according to the Bill, but undoubtedly the pressure of public opinion, which had caused the introduction of the Bill, and might cause the passing of the Bill some day, would be strong enough eventually to get the Minister of Labour into the Cabinet. Now, the Cabinet was altogether too large for the efficient doing of the business of Government, and he believed the modern tendency to create larger and larger Cabinets would result in making it impossible for great subjects of national importance to be well-considered and properly dealt with. There was this, however, to be said in favour of the Bill—it was perhaps the strongest argument that could be advanced in its interest—that the Minority Report of the Labour Commission—signed by the hon. Member for West Limerick, than whom no man was more trusted by the Trades Unionists, Mr. Mawdsley, to whom he had already referred, and Mr. Tom Mann, well-known in connection with the Independent Labour Party—was likely to contain a proposal for the creation of a Ministry of Labour. His belief was that those gentlemen were wrong; but undoubtedly their opinion that the creation of a Labour Minister would tend to lessen the evils which they all deplored was entitled to weight, and it led him to put forward his views with hesitation. In any case, the creation of any more new Ministries ought to be accompanied by a complete review of the boundaries of work between the different Government Departments. He had hoped at one time that the Ridley Commission would have conducted such an inquiry. The Commission touched the fringe of the question, but did not enter upon it. There was certainly room for a redistribution of the work of the various Members of the Government, and the consideration of how far the great Departments ought or ought not to be represented in the Cabinet. In this country we were getting into the habit of doing work through the heads of the great Departments, with seats in the Cabinet, that ought to be done by the permanent officials, as in other countries. Of course, it was right to have the Ministers in the House, but it was not necessary to have that minute sub-division of work proposed by schemes such as that proposed in the present Bill. If there were to be any extension of the system, he submitted that the creation of new Ministries ought to be accompanied by a complete review of the boundaries of work between the different Government Departments. Again, if the Minister of Labour was to be created, there should be created a definite personal Minister rather than a sham Board. He put forward, with great deference, the reasons which led him to think that the House of Commons should pause before entering on the consideration of the Bill. At the present time labour was more effectually represented in the House of Commons than it had been in the past. The President of the Board of Trade had entered into a course of improvement with regard to the Labour Department, and in doing so had been supported by the whole country. The Home Secretary had personally taken a more active interest in labour questions than any Home Secretary in the past had done. There might he ground for some rearrangement of the duties of the respective Departments; but he asked the House to pause before it tried to solve that problem by the creation of a fresh Ministry, in addition to the too many that they had at present.

I had not intended to make any remarks on this Bill until I glanced over its contents and saw that it was one of the most remarkable measures that have ever been introduced into the House, even on a Wednesday afternoon. Looking over the names on the back of the Bill one is not much impressed with the legislative faculties of those associated with the measure. I is a Bill to establish a new Minister in a country that is overridden with Ministers. Nor is he to be a pigmy Minister. He is to have functions as great as those of any other Minister of State. I object to the creation of a Minister of Agriculture, and I hold that agriculture has been under great disadvantages in severing itself from the Privy Council and representation in the Cabinet. It would have been better to have made the Lord President of the Council the Minister for Agriculture, and then agriculture would always have been represented in the Cabinet. The Vice President of the Council would have been Minister of Education, and certainly a Minister asking Parliament for £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year ought to have a Department of his own. Now, I pass to the Labour Minister. First of all, I would say we have got a Labour Minister in the President of the Board of Trade, who discharges those duties with satisfaction so far as they deal with labour matters. To substitute a new and probably a worse Department is one of the most eccentric proposals I ever hoard. What are to be the powers and the staff of the new Department? First, there is to be a Board. That is the regular plan. When you want to conceal a really powerful Minister, you hide him under a Board. The Board will consist of the Lord President of the Council, Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State—so that the Home Secretary will have an opportunity of sitting on it—the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary for Scotland,

"and such other persons (if any) as Her Majesty the Queen may, from time to time, think fit to appoint during Her Majesty's pleasure."

That is the Board. Now we come to the Minister. The Bill says—

"It shall be lawful for Her Majesty the Queen, from time to time, to appoint any Member of the Privy Council to be President of the Ministry during Her Majesty's pleasure."

And what are the powers of this Minister to be? He is to take over

"the powers and duties vested in Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department for the regulation and administration of the laws relating to mines and factories and the appointment of Inspectors under the Acts mentioned in Part I. of the Schedule"

of the Bill. Could anyone conceive a more audacious proposal? This Minister, who nobody ever dreamed of before, is to divest the Home Office of most important duties. Those duties are at present performed with the utmost care and efficiency, and with the general confidence of the public. The staff that carries out those duties must be very large. What about the cost? Are you going to spend money on an effete and an inexperienced Minister, when you have already the best Minister you can get at a reasonably economical rate? But the authors of the Bill do not stop there—and surely legislation of this sort ought not to be allowed in the House of Commons. The duties include

"the powers and duties vested in the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury relating to Friendly Societies and aids to thrifts and providence among the industrial classes in all Acts mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule."

The Friendly Societies and aids to thrift and providence! I suppose that means the savings banks, for I cannot conceive any more powerful aid to thrift and providence than the savings banks. These are all to be transferred to the new Minister. Savings banks are now admirably managed by the Post Office, and Friendly Societies are also under Government supervision. A pretty large staff would be required in the proposed Department to deal with these things. Then the Hill goes on to say—and I hope this does not weary the House—

"The Ministry of Labour shall also undertake the collection and preparation of useful information and statistical details of subjects connected with labour in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word, in relation to the industrial, commercial, social, educational, and sanitary conditions of the industrial classes, and specially to capital, the hours and conditions of labour, the earnings of labouring men and women, with the view of promoting their material, intellectual, and moral prosperity."

Did anybody ever read such a suit-clause as that? But what is the Minister of Labour asked to do in addition to that? He is asked to undertake a task which has baffled the wisest heads in the country—

"The Ministry of Labour shall also constitute a National Arbitration Board, to which all controversies and disputes between employers and employés may by the mutual consent of the parties interested, be referred for arbitrament under Rules and Regulations to be made by the Ministry."

Was there ever a more wild and lunatic scheme for bringing employers and labourers together? I would draw the attention of the Minister of Education to this provision—

"The Ministry of Labour may undertake the inspection of and reporting upon any schools which are not public elementary schools, and in which technical instruction, practical or scientific, is given in any matter connected with industrial subjects, and the aiding of any such school which admits such inspection, and in the judgment of the Ministry is qualified to receive such aid, and the aiding of any system of lectures connected with industrial subjects, and the inspection of and reporting on any examination in such subjects."

Surely this would enlarge the expenses of the Education Department, and bring them we do not know whore. I cannot find out what is to be the status of this new Minister. He is to be a Privy Councillor; but not being acquainted with the Act alluded to in the Bill, I do not know whether he is to take office without being elected. Clause 7 says—

"The office of President of the Ministry of Labour shall not render the person holding the same incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a Member of, the Commons House of Parliament."

I should think not. The clause dealing with the appointment of the staff is also very vague. It says—

"The Ministry of Labour may from time to time appoint a secretary and such officers and servants as the Ministry may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine."

And it goes on—

There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament to the President, if not one of the Officers of State above-mentioned, nor any other Officer of State receiving a salary, and to the secretary, officers, and servants of the Board, such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may from time to time determine. All expenses incurred by the Ministry of Labour in the execution of their duties under this Act, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament."

I see one of the promoters of the measure behind me, and I ask him in all seriousness, Who drew this Bill? I think, on reflection, its authors must see that it is not a Bill the House is likely to assent to; indeed, I cannot imagine how they ever conceived that the House would be likely oven to discuss it. A Department which would have to take over a large part of the functions of the Treasury, and which would have to discharge the most varied functions in all matters connected with labour, would necessarily have to be one of the largest in point of numbers, and would necessarily impose a large burden on the finances of the country, and the result would be that it would discharge duties which are being adequately performed at the present moment. And that is the notion of legislation which comes before Parliament in this extraordinary Session—1894!

I do not propose to say any more than a few words on this Bill, which has suffered very severely already at the hands of the noble Lord opposite. I think, however, I ought briefly to indicate to the House the position the Government take up in connection with the question. I am not one of those who think that, if we had to begin afresh our administrative arrangements, there would be anything unreasonable in establishing a Department that might be called a Ministry of Labour. From an abstract view, and even from that of administrative convenience, there might be advantages in collecting together in the bands of a single Department some of the functions now discharged by various public offices. The truth is, in this and other matters we have advanced in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion. As in the case of education—though the Department is now one of our most important Ministries, and is responsible to Parliament for an expenditure of £6,000,000 annually—we began in a tentative fashion extending the area of administration of the Minister from time to time, so in the matter of labour. The Home Office and the Board of Trade have had from time to time new duties in this direction cast on them by Parliament. After all, we must deal with this as practical men, and I have not heard any argument to show that any substantial inconvenience has resulted from the present arrangements. To take my own Department—and I am the person most interested—the Bill proposes to transfer the whole powers of the Secre- tary of State for the Home Department in relation to mines and factories. Why should they be taken away from the Home Department? Not unless a case can be made out that the powers are either badly or insufficiently used. Has anyone attempted to make out such a case? I speak from only two years' experience in the Home Office, but I have personally paid close attention to the duties of the Home Office relating to mines and factories, and I submit that, though there may be shortcomings, largely due to the imperfections of the legislation we have to administer, there is no reason to think that any one of those drawbacks can be substantially met by the mere chance of another Minister calling himself by another name, with the same staff and with the same powers as I have at the Home Office discharging these duties. The promoters of the Bill then proceed to cut and carve in a similar way at almost all the leading Departments of the State. They propose to take something from the Treasury, from the Board of Trade, from the Foreign Office, and from the Education Department, and to aggregate them in a new Department. To lay the foundation for such a case they must make out either maladministration or inefficient administration. No attempt has been made to establish such a case. The Board of Agriculture has involved the public inconsiderable unnecessary expenditure by taking away from the Privy Council duties that were adequately performed by that Department. This is a more ambitious, a more gratuitous, and ill-founded design than that of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the Secretary for Scotland. In these circumstances, though not out of sympathy with the idea that a Ministry of Labour might be a useful Department in an administrative system, I agree with the noble Lord that new Departments are not to be multiplied without necessity, and I ask the promoters of the Bill to be content with having ventilated the subject, and not to divide the House.

asked whether the Bill was really in Order, seeing that the Money Clauses would arise only in Committee of Ways and Means?

I must point out that the discussion of the Bill on this stage is not irregular; but, as the Bill would involve a charge on the Revenue, the provisions imposing those charges are printed in italics, and technically form no part of the Bill. The Chairman in Committee would not put any questions on those clauses unless the charges to he imposed by them were previously sanctioned in a Money Committee, and the Motion setting up that Committee could not be put unless a Minister of the Crown signified the Queen's recommendation to such charges being incurred. As I understand, the Government are not prepared to signify this recommendation, and the Debate, therefore, is of the nature of an academical discussion, as no effect can be given to it; but the Debate is not irregular.

said, the Bill was promoted for the purposing of meeting a grievance felt in the cutlery trade. It was known widely that the result of there being no legislation of this kind was that frauds were constantly being committed upon the hand-cutters of files. Files which were hand-cut were considered to be superior to files which were machine-cut; but no person who was not an expert could tell the difference between files that were machine-cut and files that were hand-cut. Large orders were given for hand-cut files, and files which were machine-cut were supplied in their stead. The price of machine-cut files was lower than the price of hand-cut files. This measure had the support of the Trades Unions of the country. The file-cutters in the largo towns had petitioned the House in favour of passing the Bill, and inasmuch as the Hill had been brought in by himself, and was backed by his hon. Friend and Colleague the Member for the Hallam Division, the House would see that it was in no sense of a partisan character. It was a modest Bill; it would inflict no damage on any human creature, and had been brought in in the interests of honest trade, and to prevent hand file-cutters being constantly defrauded by the sale of machine as hand-cut files. Its provisions technically agreed with the recommendation of the Trades Council. It provided that the files which were machine-cut should be stamped as such, so that if anyone wanted to have a hand-cut tile he would be able to know it from a machine-cut file.

joined with his hon. Friend and Colleague in saying that there was a very strong feeling on this subject throughout the five divisions of Sheffield. He was sorry his hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division, who took great interest in this matter, was not in the House, but he could hardly have thought that the Bill would be reached so soon, or else he would have been present. He hoped the Bill would have the support of his right hon. Colleague the President of the Board of Trade, and that it would be read a second time.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, it was printed on the first day of the Session.

I have never seen it.

said, that was exactly the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave him last Session. For several months the right hon. Gentleman and he sat upon a Committee which went fully into the matter, and now the right hon. Gentleman told him he knew nothing about the Bill.

I have not seen the Bill.

said, it was the same Bill that had been introduced every Session since 1888. That showed that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to deal with the vast mass of business that came before his Department. The Bill was very simple in its character, and was designed to remedy a defect in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. No one would dispute the good effects of that Act, which was passed by the last Administration, and was promoted largely by the Cutlers' Company of Sheffield, assisted by the Federated Trades Council. Goods could come into this country unmarked, though they might be made in German prisons, and he would presently put into the hands of the President of the Board of Trade the card of an agent who announced himself as an agent for German prison-made brushes. He was going about selling goods in this country, and, when called to task, he said—"It is your own fault, because you allow goods to come in here without any indication of their origin." This Bill had nothing to do with Protection or Free Trade; it was simply that the purchasers of goods in this country might know from what source they came. All they wanted was that the purchasers and consumers in this country should have the option of choosing between English and foreign made articles. Let them choose whichever they liked, but do not let them pay a higher price in the belief that they were paying for an article produced in this country if it were not. The Chairman of the Board of Customs stated to the Select Committee of 1890 that he believed it to be the case that a considerable quantity of goods were imported which wore subsequently falsely marked. It was also clear that in Scotland German cutlery was being sold at English prices, and under English names and designations, as was abundantly proved before the Select Committee appointed by the late Government in 1890 by a leading Labour Representative of Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps tell them that these cases of false trade description were provided for under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887. But the difficulty was in proving the offences, and, as a matter of fact, only 17 prosecutions had been instituted during the last two years, with exceedingly moderate results as to convictions. This was a matter which had been warmly discussed at Trades Union Congresses, and at the Congress in Glasgow a resolution was adopted instructing the Parliamentary Committee to get a Bill introduced in Parliament to amend the Merchandise Marks Act, so as to provide for the marking of goods with regard to origin. There was also a similar feeling expressed by a deputation to the Board of Trade which he had the honour of introducing last May—a deputation representative of the entire trade of the country and entirely non-political in its character. As showing how very strongly this matter pressed on the industries of Sheffield, and particularly of that division which he represented, ho might say he had before him an extract from The Sheffield Telegraph to show that large quantities of foreign goods were being distributed in this country, and re-exported to other countries, under the guise of being of English manufacture. A special instance was cited in which a Manchester merchant received a large order for goods from Australia, got them manufactured in Belgium, had them forwarded to him in Manchester, where all marks were carefully obliterated, and then shipped the goods—iron goods—to Australia as of English production. He had seen the agent who was sent by The Hardware-man to Germany to inquire into the production of goods in German prisons. He had given his name to the President of the Board of Trade, and he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen him himself. From the character of the journal and his conversation with the commissioner himself, he could not but believe that what he stated was absolutely true and incontrovertible. He had visited German prisons, and seen the prisoners producing goods on English models. In one prison he was shown whips which were being made at the rate of three tons per day and exported to England. This might be a small matter, but in these days, when there were so many unemployed persons in this country— there being, unfortunately 8 per cent, of the Trades Unionists out of work—such a system of foreign prison labour competition with English free labour ought not to be allowed. He earnestly invited the House to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill. It had been often before the House; it had been considered by nearly every working man in the country, and, without exception, it had met with favour and support. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept this Bill, which was only put forward in defence of British industry. All he asked was that the consumers of this country should have the opportunity of knowing whether they were encouraging the industries of their own countrymen, or whether they were deliberately depriving them of the means of earning an existence. The Trades Unions of this country had agitated so strongly upon the system of prison manufactures that the Home Office had prevented the prison authorities allowing prisoners to compete with free labour. Let the President of the Board of Trade, at all events, have this mark of origin upon foreign goods, and let him protect the producers of this country from that unfair competition which prevailed at the present time.

I have seldom heard a speech delivered in support of a Bill which had loss to do with the Bill itself, or was more misleading. It would be well for the House to understand precisely what are the proposals of this Bill. It is the same old familiar Bill which the late Government year after year refused to consider, and the hon. Member knows that well.

I know nothing of the sort.

The hon. Member knows that my predecessor was opposed to it.

My right hon. Friend is rather exaggerating the case. I never until now had an opportunity of speaking to the Second Reading. I could only bring it on after 12 o'clock, and the cry, "I object," always came from the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters.

I beg your pardon. The records of Hansard will show that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol repeatedly objected to the principle of this Bill.

When?

Let the hon. Member examine the Parliamentary Debates, and he will see for himself. This Bill does not touch the question of prison-made goods at all. It simply will secure that the goods show the country from whence they come. What is the position? Great Britain is the largest importer of foreign goods in the world. Four hundred millions' worth of foreign goods are imported annually, and a very large quantity of those goods come from our own Colonies. What the hon. and gallant Member demands is that every article of this vast quantity of goods coming to Great Britain, no matter what it is, shall be marked with the place of origin, if it is capable of being marked. I cannot conceive anything more likely to dislocate the import trade of the country than to impose such a condition as this. More than 1,000,000,000 eggs are imported into the country from every part of the world, and, according to the Bill, every one of these eggs will have to be marked. Is not that preposterous?

The Aylesbury Dairy Company find no difficulty in marking their eggs.

Yes, and they get something like 2d. or 2½d. each. But you cannot mark every egg that comes into this country from all parts of the world. But that is only one detail of the Bill. There are tens of thousands of articles imported which are of immense importance to the trade and manufacture of the country, and to talk about requiring every single article to be marked is the most absurd dream that ever entered the mind of man. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill went before a Committee of 15 Members of the House during the tenure of Office of the late Government. How many of the Members supported him? Only one!

The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly misquoted me. This Bill was never referred to a Select Committee. It has never been read a second time.

The Bill itself was not referred to the Select Committee, but another Bill was, and the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to lay the provisions of his own measure before the Committee, with the result that he only got one supporter, who apologised for his action by saying he did not wish to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman left entirely alone. The fact is, that the Bill is nothing more nor less than a Bill in favour of Protection—a Bill to place every foreign nation that imports goods into this country under an enormous disability. It would prohibit the entry into this country of all goods unmarked that are capable of being marked. Now, it is to England that the vast proportion of the foreign products of the world come, and a large proportion of the goods are re-exported, and to enforce such a disability as this Bill proposes would be ruinous to our merchant shipping and import trade. I will put it to hon. Members, for instance, whether it is possible to mark every yard of ribbon brought into the country from all parts of the world or every toy imported from Japan? But there is another phase of the Bill. Suppose every foreign country to which the Bill will apply demands in return the same condition of this country, and insists that every article exported from Great Britain shall be marked, and if not 80 marked shall be prohibited. Such a state of things would be most injurious to British trade, for the foreign importer would then purchase his goods in countries where ho is not compelled to have them marked. Does the hon. Member remember that the master cutler of Sheffield came before the Select Committee and gave evidence against his proposal? The Bill, in short, is not intended to facilitate trade, but to harass and hamper it, and I hope the House will reject it by an overwhelming majority.

said, he felt bound to support the Bill, because year after year the Trades Union Congress had passed resolutions, not asking for protection, which they did not in the least want, but asking in common fairness to the British workman that foreign-made goods imported into the country should be marked with the place of origin. Foreign goods were sold as British goods—that was the complaint. The right hon. Gentleman, who appeared to evince unnecessary alarm, asked what English manufacturers would do if foreign countries demanded that all English goods should be marked. That would be no injury to the trade of this country. It was the pride of English manufacturers that the mark on their goods gave them their value. He was bound to support this Bill, which had been demanded year after year by the Trade Unionists, whose trades were affected by the importation of foreign goods, and which certainly would not interfere with the trade of the country in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he felt very strongly on the subject. In his constituency meetings had been held presided over by the Vice Chairman of the Radical Party, and held under Radical auspices, at which resolutions were passed to the effect of the proposals contained in the Bill, and he had found that the working classes in his part of the country were in hearty accord with the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, in desiring to have these foreign goods properly marked. He had one instance of unfair trading which he would like to lay before the House. A large firm in Birmingham engaged in the metal trade were offered an order for goods on which a certain mark was to be placed. They refused, and the order was given to a German agent in the same street. It was executed abroad, the goods were imported without a mark, in Birmingham they were marked with a mark to which they were not entitled, and then they were sent to Singapore as English-made goods.

was understood to say that the Customs Authorities ought not to have allowed them to enter this country unless they bore the mark of origin.

said, he could only tell the right hon. Gentleman what had actually occurred, and he knew that similar tricks were played in the tin trade. He regretted that the hon. Member for Swansea was not in his place to corroborate that statement. It was most important, so far as our eastern trade was concerned, that the goods should be marked with their place of origin. It was strictly accurate that a more steady price and a greater demand was felt for English goods out there than for goods of all the other nations of the world together. His constituents felt most deeply on this question. Only quite lately 29,000 pieces of carpet were sent to England from America and sold here as of English manufacture. If they had been marked as of American origin their effect upon the English market would have been very slight; but as it was, they took away trade from the English market, and though it was now some months since the carpets were imported he was sorry to say the trade had not yet recovered from this blow.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taken an exaggerated and inaccurate view of the Bill. Its application was not limited to the importation of goods for consumption here. Goods were imported into England from abroad without any mark of origin, and were exported again as British-made goods.

said, this was a fraud punishable with the severest penalties, and the goods were liable to be seized.

said, it was very easy to say it was a fraud, but how was the fraud to be detected? The proper way to prevent the fraud was to prevent goods from coming into this country without bearing a foreign mark, It was a very serious question, and he sympathised very heartily with his hon. Friend and with the working classes of the country. They produced the best classes of goods in the world, and were proud of producing them; and with regard to the marking of goods with a British mark, there would never arise any difficulty on that point, for buyers in foreign countries were only too glad to be possessed of articles of British origin.

said, he could not agree with the great objections which the President of the Board of Trade entertained to this Bill. They were such as could be met in Committee, and probably the promoters would be willing to substitute for the words "incapable of being marked" such words as "inconvenient" or "almost impossible." He was not one of those who would absolutely prohibit the entrance of all these goods into the country, but ho would impose the severest penalties in cases of fraud such as had been described that day. He hoped the Government would withdraw their opposition to the Bill.

said, he must express his surprise at the line which some hon. Members who were strong Free Traders had taken on this question. The Bill was nothing more nor less than a, Bill to protect particular industries, and, if it were passed, it would be to the great disadvantage of the consumers of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had told them that the measure was being brought forward in the interests of the working classes; but seeing that the goods exported from this country were so much greater in quantity than the goods imported, he could not see how the Bill would benefit the working classes. For every man employed in the manufacture abroad of goods exported to England four or five men were working at home on goods exported from England to other countries, and why, in order to protect a particular industry, should they run the risk of losing a large share of that employment? It would be a most foolish policy to promote legislation of that kind, and it would assuredly lead to reprisals, He hoped that no Free Traders would give their support to the measure.

said, if it were Protection to have the truth told as to the origin of goods, then he was a Protectionist, and was, as every honest man should be, in favour of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was against telling the truth. And why? Because he was a party to ordering French shells for use in the British Navy. It was true the right hon. Gentleman professed to know nothing of the matter, and said he had not concerned himself in a question which so seriously affected the trade of his constituency, but—

The hon. Member is entirely mistaken as to the matter of the French shells. I did take a great deal of interest in it, as the correspondence shows.

said, he was, then, unable to understand why at the time the right hon. Gentleman said the reverse. At any rate, after such conduct, he was not surprised to finding the right hon. Gentleman in opposition to a Bill which was likely to be beneficial to Sheffield, the manufacturers of which were peculiarly subjected to these frauds. The right hon. Gentleman threatened them with retaliatory measures on the part of foreign Governments, and he could only reply that they would be delighted at such a course, as "English made" was a phrase to conjure with, and a certain passport to sale, especially in the East. This was a good Bill universally demanded by the workmen of this country, and the fact that it was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman, who, in defiance of the interests of his own constituents, had been a party to the importation of foreign shells for the use of the British Navy, was the most conclusive argument that could be advanced in its favour.

said, ho entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his opposition to the Bill. There was nothing more hindering to British trade than the continual stoppages that took place at the Customs. He believed the Bill was incapable of being carried out in a rational manner. They would have to mark goods not as they came in the bulk, but in such small parts as would be sold in retail commerce. That was practically impossible. The Bill would only cast an additional burden on and hindrance to trade which he believed would be found by importers and exporters to be simply intolerable.

said, he, too, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm. The statement that this Bill was demanded by the Trade Unions seemed to him to indicate a want of faith on the part of the working men in their own power to meet foreign competition. As a manufacturer he had not the slightest fear of the future of the industries of this country if they were conducted in the future with the same ability and honesty that had distinguished them in the past, and he therefore hoped that the Motion for the Second Reading would be defeated by an overwhelming majority.

Order, order! There is still another five minutes in which the Debate can proceed.

said, there seemed to be some misconception as to the existing state of the law with reference to the importation of foreign goods. He agreed that if anything was to be said it should be the truth, and the existing Act was most careful to provide for that; for it was a penal offence, not only in the ease of an importer, but in the case of a British manufacturer or trader, to put a false description upon goods offered for sale. The fault of the Bill was that it enforced a statement as to the origin of goods in cases where such a statement could not be made without placing great difficulty in the way of our import trade.

said, the Bill contained one clause which was of importance to the fishing industry in the North of Scotland, and the Government were willing to accept it as it stood.

I could not hear what the right hon. Gentleman said.

The Bill embodies a suggestion made before the Select Committee which sat last year on sea fisheries. It was moved by the Chairman of the Fishery Board, and agreed to by the other members of the Board. It enables the Board to borrow money and to spread the repayment over a number of years.

said, another Bill was being prepared on this subject, and he moved that the Order for Second Reading be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, he hoped the same indulgence would be extended to it as to the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. B. Coleridge). [Mr. BURT: I object.] Then if objection was taken he would move that the Order for Second Reading be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn, as nothing was to be gained by crowding the Notice Paper. It appeared to him to be wise that, seeing the quarter in which objection was so persistently taken—namely, the Treasury Bench, he should leave the chance of legislation on the subject to his hon. and learned Colleague.

I wish to know, Sir, if the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a speech after objection has been taken to the Bill?

I see no objection.

I would like to know whether any Amendment is to be put down by the Government to the Bill of my hon. and learned Friend?

was understood to say that he could not at present inform the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask whether, a Motion having been made that the Order for Second Reading of this Bill be discharged, it is in Order to move that the Debate be adjourned? If so, I move that this Debate be now adjourned.

I do not know that I could put that. If the hon. Member wishes to discharge the Bill I shall put the Motion.

moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said, it was not in any sense a Party measure. It was backed by two hon. Members on the other side of the House. It was purely a London Bill, and its object was to amend the Valua- tion Bill of 1869 and secure more uniformity in assessments throughout the Metropolis. If the House would agree to the Second Reading he proposed to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

said, the measure proposed to give the authorities in Scotland power to adopt the Free Libraries Act without having to poll the whole population.

I must object.

said, he hoped the right hon. Member would withdraw his objection. This measure was on the lines of a Bill passed last year, which worked admirably.

said, that last year, by permission of the Party sitting above the Gangway, a similar Bill was passed for Ireland. What was good for Ireland might reasonably be extended to Scotland.

It was killed in the House of Lords.

said, this Bill was strongly supported in Scotland, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.

said, he hoped there would be no objection to this Bill, which merely provided that masters of vessels sighting derelicts should report them.