seconded the Motion. He observed that this was a Measure whereby an important and meritorious body of public servants, numbering 30,000, sought by means of the great principle of self-help, to provide for their own superannuation. They sought by means of percentage deductions from their salaries to provide for their old age, and they were prepared to make this sacrifice, although they possessed an equitable statutory claim to superannuation under the Bill of 1864, whereby all of them might, and only 80 per cent. of them had, actually received superannuation. The Act of 1864 had been liberally interpreted throughout the country. The Poor Law Officers desired to make this sacrifice because they wished to eliminate the element of uncertainty which at present prevailed as regarded superannuation, which caused considerable discontent throughout the service, and which led to a certain number of cases of hardship. This Bill was opposed, probably by some Members on those Benches on principle. He was not ashamed to admit that his Radicalism was of a socialistic tendency. He was in favour of old age pensions, and he was delighted to observe that the hon. Member for Somerset, who did so much useful work in this House, had recently introduced a Measure whereby members of benevolent societies might become possessed of old age pensions. If the Bill was to be opposed on principle, and if he, on the contrary, upheld it, it was because he looked upon it as one of the greatest blots upon their present social state, that worthy and honest citizens who had, perhaps, done as much for the welfare of their country as those who were more fortunately circumstanced, found themselves in this position, that not infrequently a man who had led an honourable and honest life, who had contributed largely to the welfare of his country, found himself, through no fault of his own, in his declining years obliged to become a burden upon his nearest relatives or friends, or occupying the still more degrading position of coming upon the rates or even being constrained to enter within the walls of the workhouse, to be placed upon an. equality with the vagrant, the dissolute and the worthless. He would do everything in his power to prevent a citizen of this country being placed in that degraded position. Let those who opposed this Bill on principle carry their argument to a logical conclusion. They would not deny that in all civilised countries it had been found expedient in the interest of the State and the public to grant superannuation to public servants. There was a notable exception in the case of the United States, but would those who knew the United States contend that it gave to that country a better or more honest civil service than ours? Let them go one step further. If they left the men of our Army and Navy without provision for old age, they would never be able to man either without the blood tax of conscription. The sufferer would be the working man, who paid, directly or indirectly, out of all proportion to his means. He would be compelled to pay twice over, because human nature being what it was, some proportion of improvident people would come on the rates, and they would be taxed more heavily, from an Imperial and local point of view. If, therefore, there was no opposition to the principle of the Bill, he would ask the House to pass the Second Reading on the understanding that when the Bill went into Committee its promoters would readily accept any Amendment which they might be reasonably expected to. English and Welsh Poor Law Officers had for 10 years been working to secure the repeal of the Act of 1864, and to secure a better method of superannuation. The Bill was based on a scheme which both Front Benches acknowledged was desirable in the interests of the public service. It was based on the experience of large public bodies, such as the Municipalities of London and Liverpool, 30 years' experience of the old Metropolitan Board of Works, etc. It had been found that the deduction of a percentage of 2 or 3 per cent. from the salaries of the officials would, in all probability, cover every outlay as regarded superannuation, whereby the rates would be relieved of any extra tax thrown upon them in future. The English and Welsh officials were anxious to bring within the scope of the Bill the Irish and Scotch Members, but as there were no means of collating or collecting the opinions of the latter, they were obliged to leave them out. Of the 651 Boards of Guardians in this country, only six had expressed themselves against this Bill. More than 400 petitions had been presented in favour of it, and not one against it, and now that the Irish and Scotch officers came forward to be included in the Bill, an Amendment would be accepted including them. This Bill was in the interests of officers whose duty it was to watch over the interests of the most necessitous, to promote sanitary conditions which would ward off disease and death from the community, and tend to the general welfare of the people. It was most important to obtain for the purpose of these duties men of great ability, high character, and undoubted incorruptibility, and to provide them with a certain provision for old age was the surest method to obtain a constant supply of such men for the ranks of this body. By doing so they would lead to the continued competent administration of those laws on which, to his mind, in a great measure the progress and prosperity of the country depended.

said, he had opportunities of hearing wide expressions of opinion upon this Bill from Ireland, and he could say there was a very general desire on the part of Poor Law Officers in Ireland to lie included in, and have the advantage of, this Bill. It was quite true that, unfortunately, Poor Law Officers generally had not been organised in such a way as to take effective action. No doubt before the Bill went into Committee that defect would be removed. The Irish Poor Law medical officers had an association, and had expressed a desire to be included in the Bill. So he hoped those in charge of the Bill would consent to have ''Ireland'' struck out of the excluding clause, and in Committee allow any provisions to be inserted which would meet the requirements of the case.

said, he would be glad to include Ireland in the Measure.

, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said, he objected to the Measure simply and solely in the interests of local self-government. If Boards of Guardians were to be compelled to pension their officials with money which the House would not provide but which came out of the local rates, with considerably more justice the House, seeing that it provided a large portion of the funds for education, might compel School Board managers to pension all their teachers, who were equally as deserving a class as assistant overseers and rate collectors. He doubted whether the House had power to compel local authorities, over whom the House had no immediate control, to pension officials, over whom the House had no influence, out of money the House was not called upon to provide, and over the existence of which that House had no controlling voice whatever. From the point of view of local self-government, this Bill was a high-handed proceeding, and was bound to weaken the development of that spirit of local self-government in the country, which it had been the wise and legitimate aim of legislation, passed in this House in recent years, to develop. Personally, he was strongly of opinion that local authorities at the present moment possessed far too little power over their officials, and he spoke as one who had taken some share in local self-government in the country. He ventured to say that if any private firm in this country endeavoured to carry on their business with a higher authority, such as the Local Government Board, exercising controlling power over the appointment and dismissal of their servants, that that private firm would lie in the Bankruptcy Court in six months. Yet this Bill proposed to further curtail the limited powers the local authorities already possessed. If such a Bill as this were to be entertained, then it was useless to pass such Measures as the Local Government Act, 1894; it was useless by one Act to give to men in country districts powers to manage local affairs and then to take it away by another. As things now stood boards of guardians possessed ample powers to pension their servants if they deemed it wise to do so. He objected that this Bill would make it compulsory upon them to do so whether they thought it wise or not. Under the existing Act Poor Law Officers possessed an equitable claim to a superannuation allowance after ten years' service, provided that the guardians, in the exercise of their discretion, chose to recognise the claim; and for the last thirty years the majority of the boards had recognised the claims of their officials. It was true that in some cases allowances had been withheld. This Bill was asked for in order to do away with uncertainty; and it was just because he did not wish to do away with it that he opposed the Bill. To do away with it was to deprive the guardians of all discretionary power. This was an arbitary interference with local authorities, and, in order to enter his protest against it, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

seconded the rejection of the Bill, and said that the whole question of pensions and of superannuation was in an unsatisfactory condition. The time had arrived when, both for local authorities and for the House itself, some guiding principle should be laid down by a Committee or a Commission, on which equal justice could be done to all classes of officials. The Bill attempted to do a bad thing in a piecemeal sort of way. In England there were two currents at work. Fairly paid officials combined and organised to obtain privileges and pensions; on the other hand, local authorities and large sections of the community demanded that privileges and pensions should be done away with altogether. The worst way to get old age pensions for all was to give privileges and pensions to a few. An artisan before a board of guardians seeking relief would be asked why he had not laid up against a rainy day; and he would, perhaps, be offered the house at the instance of clerks and officers who were organised to pass this Bill. As to its being merely a form of self-help, its object was to enable officers to help themselves at the public expense. Let the theory be applied to them that was applied to a workman seeking relief. The Bill was based on the principle, "To him that hath shall be given." These men had easy work, free from anxiety, and why should we do more for them than for our soldiers and sailors? The law already gave to chaplains, clerks and labour masters what was denied to assistant foremen, engineers, surveyors, and others. Already Poor Law Officers enjoyed privileges which were denied to others, for they could not be suspended or dismissed by boards of guardians, and most of them lived upon the premises and had rations for themselves and their families, and generally were well treated. In 1894 there were 133 officers, whose salaries had been, over £14,000, and with rations, etc., £20,000, receiving £8,285 in superannuation allowances; and there were, according to the same Report, 133 who had resigned under constraint, and who under this Bill would probably have been in receipt of pensions for inefficient services. Between 1857 and 1892 the cost of in and out pauperism in London had risen from £542,000 to £938,000, and the cost of rations, salaries, &c., for officers had risen from £82,000 to £528,000, or 6½ times. He contended that those figures indicated that Poor Law Officers, generally speaking, were in a better position to provide for their own superannuation and their own pensions, except in those exceptional cases where they were not provided for under the Act of 1864; and in those cases Poor Law Officers must do whatever citizens were compelled to do—he must run the risks of accidents, of misfortunes which befell people of every station of life. Boards of Guardians were, to his knowledge, generous to their officers to a fault—indeed, in many cases to the point of positive abuse in the way of squandering public money, and he thought the wise and discretionary power which they possessed in regard to pensions under the Voluntary Act of 1864 ought to be left to them. The House had no right to pass a Bill of this kind, which struck at the very root of our local administration. If pensions and superannuations were to be granted on just and equitable terms to all officers who served the State, let it be done in such a way that all competent officers should be allowed pensions and superannuations under uniform conditions. The hon. Member for West Newington had said that the granting of pensions led to trustier and more capable service on the part of the men pensioned. That he disputed; it frequently led to the retention of the very worst men. He had intimate experience of the local government of London. The County Council, a body which employed nearly 6,000 officers and men, had abolished pensions and superannuations altogether; and he ventured to say that in regard to efficiency and honesty arid excellence of work done no comparision could be instituted between the officers of the London County Council without pensions, and the officers that had been employed under the late Metropolitan Board of Works with its pension scheme.

The London County Council pensions the firemen.

said, the Fire Brigade men had their pensions under the statute by which they were created, but outside the firemen, no officers of the County Council were pensioned; and he thought that what was good enough for the London County Council ought to be good enough for boards of guardians. The Bill pre-supposed the permanence of pauperism, with its army of officialism. This Bill made for the consolidation of a defect of our social system that was best regarded as temporary and transitional. It was because the Bill pandered to the lowest elements in the constituencies; because it afforded an illustration of the way in which candidates during elections promised everything, above and below, to their constituents—[laughter]—because it was brought in under pressure from men who were well able to provide for themselves in their old age out of their own resources, and who ought to be satisfied with the voluntary and discretionary powers conferred on boards of guardians by the Act of 1864 in regard to the granting of pensions to Poor Law Officers. Because it sought to fetter the hands of local authorities, and was calculated to open the way to nepotism and jobbery, and was another bribe to the bureaucracy, he thoroughly opposed the Bill. [Cheers.]

said that the hon. Member for the Harborough Division, in moving the rejection of the Bill, was flying in the face of two-thirds of the local authorities, whom he professed to defend. The fact that 400 out of the 600 Boards of Guardians had petitioned in favour of the Bill was a sufficient answer to the statement that the attack on the Bill was in the interest of local self-government. [" Hear, hear! "] His hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, in his eloquent speech, had pointed out that, according to the Local Government Board Return of last year, 133 Poor Law Officers had been pensioned, and the same number dismissed; and had jumped to the conclusion that the officers dismissed would, under the Bill, have been equally eligible for pensions as the others.

said that what he had contended was that, as the Bill was obligatory, a considerable proportion of the 133 dismissed Poor Law Officers might have got, under the Bill, money in the way of pensions which they would not otherwise receive.

said, that would not be the case under the Bill. The majority of the men dismissed were new hands; and, until a man had been 10 years in the service of a Poor Law Board, he would not be eligible under the Bill for a pension. His hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, had also drawn an unpleasant picture of the way in which poor applicants for relief were spoken to by Boards of Guardians as to their want of thrift and their neglect in providing for their old age. But two wrongs did not make a right. The unfeeling conduct of some Boards of Guardians was no reason against the introduction of a legitimate Measure for the relief of a well-deserving class of public servants. His hon. Friend the Member for the Harborough Division had declared that he was in favour of Old Age Pensions, but that he did not care for the advance in the direction of Old Age Pensions made by the Bill. But, surely, that objection was as ridiculous as the objection of a man who, wanting to go to Edinburgh, refused to be carried as far as York. He had had the honour of introducing the first Bill dealing with Old Age Pensions; and it was because he regarded this Bill as a step in the direction of securing that all who served the State in a public capacity, and in a private capacity also, should be placed above want in their old age, that he supported it.

Begin with the lowest, with the twelve shillings-a-week men.

said that, if his hon. Friend introduced a Bill with that object, he would support it. He believed that this Bill would largely add to the efficiency of the public service of the country. While at the Local Government Board his attention was called to many deserving cases of public officials who suffered great hardship on account of the permissive character of the existing law. There was the case of the Clerk to a Board of Guardians, who was really incapable through infirmity to discharge his duties, and who employed a clerk of his own to do his work because he could not afford to lose the salary of the office. It was not desirable that men should be retained in offices from which they would long have been discharged, if there were any provision for their superannuation. The advantage of the Bill was that it was based, in the first place, on the principles of self-help. The officers themselves would contribute largely to the funds necessary for the superannuation, and he believed that the burden on the rates would be less than it had been under the permissive Act of 1864. It was matter for regret that the Poor Law service of this country had failed to attract men of the best class. There was even some difficulty in obtaining the best men to serve as Poor Law Guardians; and yet no function was more honourable than that of looking after the poor. In old days the prisons were managed by some of the worst specimens of humanity, but now the position of governor of a prison was one which any gentleman might hold. Why should the position of the master of a great workhouse be less honourable? He wanted to see men of high culture and benevolent spirit controlling the great Poor Law Institutions, and administering the Poor Law with grace, kindness and Christian sympathy. To secure this class of men it was necessary to offer them the same advantages as other civil servants with respect to the future. The certainty assured by such a Bill as this was one of the greatest incentives to efficient administration done in the best spirit. The Bill would add a great attraction to the Poor Law service, and he should heartily support it.

said that the object of the Bill was to put on a satisfactory basis the superannuation scheme which already existed. The Act of 1864 had beyond doubt been administered in a very unsatisfactory way. Its great flaw was its uncertainty. The great part of the money provided by this Bill would come out of the pockets of the officers themselves. Ireland, it had been stated, would consider its inclusion in the Bill a hardship, but Ireland, as a matter of fact, asked to be included in the Bill, and he believed that the promoters would have no objection to extend it to Scotland as well if it were generally desired. The principle of pensions and superannuations had already been conceded under the Act of 1864, though that Act was permissive and otherwise unsatisfactory. A large number of Boards of Guardians had petitioned in favour of the Bill, and on the Board with which he was associated he had never heard any objection to the terms under which the officers asked for the advantages of the Bill. The sum which would be subscribed by the officers towards the superannuation funds was much larger than he had at first supposed. Of course, if the whole of the officers liable to super- annuation became chargeable at once, there could be no doubt that the fund to be raised from the rates would be more than had been anticipated. But that was not likely. It was calculated that of those who subscribed not 20 per cent. would come on the superannuation fund at all. The figures as to the subscriptions of the officers had not been arrived at haphazard. Of course, it was impossible to get any actuarial advice upon this, because the statistics with regard to the value of these appointments in salaries and emoluments were beyond the power of any actuary to get at, but the scheme was founded on the experience obtained from other schemes. The Municipal Officers' Association, the Metropolitan Board of Works, after 30 years' experience, found that 1½ per cent. would pay all their superannuation allowances. The Corporation of London deducted 2½ per cent., and they returned the payments in case of deaths. The Police Superannuation Fund required 2½ per cent., and granted a more liberal rate of remuneration than the Bill did. Birmingham paid £28,600 a year in salaries and emoluments; they would receive at once £715 a year, or a net gain of over £400 a year. The parish of Kensington paid £572 a year on salaries of the value of £16,000 or 3½ per cent.; St. Pancras £718 on salaries and emoluments of £30,000; Fulham, out of £12,000 in salaries and emoluments paid £380 in superannuation. Taking nine parishes and unions, paying salaries and emoluments to the amount of £156,000, the general result was that superannuation allowances were granted to the amount of £3,748 or exactly 2½ per cent. No doubt under the Bill, an increased number of officers would become chargeable, but the rate of subscription would be sufficient to meet anything like an ordinary call, and it was practically impossible that all these officers could become chargeable at once. Under the present system, officers were sometimes afraid to apply for superannuation lest they should be refused. He had known them hold office long after they were unfit for it, simply because they were afraid to ask to be superannuated, having heard, perhaps, that their case was not likely to receive favourable consideration. He had known cases where officers had been refused after long and meritorious service simply because their application had gone before a board without experience, or which had been re turned pledged to economy. This was exceedingly hard. The present uncertainty would be removed by the Bill; certainly would be regarded as the greatest boon which these deserving officers could obtain under it. He believed examination would show that the fears expressed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side with regard to the Bill were unfounded; although he admitted it would require some amendment in Committee. The Poor Law Officers were practically unanimous in support of the Bill. What they asked was praiseworthy to themselves, and by passing it the House would do an act of justice to a class of officers who were of the greatest possible value to the public good.

said, he had been in considerable doubt as to what his attitude towards to the Bill ought to be, but the statement made by the hon. Member for West Newington that he and his Friends would be prepared in Committee to give favourable consideration to all reasonable Amendments made his way clearer, and in these circumstances he proposed to vote for the Second Reading. He felt that the working of the voluntary Act of 1864 had not been satisfactory, and it was also a material circumstance that the Poor Law Officers themselves now came forward and offered to make out of their salaries a very substantial contribution to effect a settlement of this long-vexed question. At the same time, having considered the Bill with some care, he thought great exception might be taken to certain parts of it. In the first place, its supporters had not been quite frank and ingenuous in the statement of their case. In the memorandum he found this statement—

"Under the provisions of the Act of 1864, Poor Law Officers at present possess an equitable statutory claim."

That was altogether a misleading statement, and he was surprised that the supporters of the Bill, in penning the Memorandum, did not make the House understand that it was not all Poor Law Officers who had this equitable claim, but only those officers who devote their whole time to the service of the local authority. That made a substantial difference. Then there were registrars and rate collectors, and so far as his experience went these very seldom devoted their whole time to the service of the guardians. Such men were usually appointed late in life, and after ten years' service they might run away with one-third of their salaries. Under such circumstances he thought the pension list would be seriously increased. He desired to emphasise the difference between the two classes— those who gave their whole time to the service of the guardians and those who gave a part only. Were they going to put those who had an equitable claim under the present law on an equality with those who had not an equitable claim? He thought they were entitled to call on those who had no equitable claim to make some contribution equivalent to the equitable claim, but no provision of that kind was made in the Bill. They ought to contribute a larger percentage of their salaries than was required in the cases of men who had equitable claims. Clause 4 enabled officers to aggregate their terms of service under different Boards of Guardians, however short the service in each case; but the Police Act, 1890, provided that no service under a separate authority should be reckoned unless it continued for at least three years. He thought they ought to consider this point. There was this further peculiarity in the Bill, that the whole of the pension was to be provided by the Board of Guardians under whom the officer last served, so that they would have this anomaly, that a man who served 20 years under one board and five years under another board would have his pension provided by the board under which he last served for the smaller period. ["Hear, hear!"] That differed from the Police Act, 1890, which provided that a proportionate part of the pension should be provided by each of the local authorities under which the officer served. No doubt it might be said that there would be a balance in these matters, that in some cases boards would have to pay pensions for services not rendered, whereas in other cases they would receive services for which they would not have to pay pensions. This system would, however, seriously retard the facility for transfer as it exists at present. Boards of Guardians would be very chary of taking into their service a gentleman who came from another board shortly to be qualified for a pension, which they would have to pay. It was for the Poor Law Officers themselves to consider whether this provision would not materially interfere with the facility of transfer and promotion.

said, the Government shared entirely in the sympathetic views expressed by the hon. Member for Ilkeston; but, on the other hand, he was surprised at the heat displayed by the Member for Battersea and the observations which fell from him. The case seemed to him to be exceedingly simple. Under the existing law every Poor Law Officer, under certain conditions, might receive a pension from the local authority under the sanction of the Local Government Board, and those conditions were that he must have served a certain time, that he was incapacitated by infirmity or old age, that he gave his whole time to the service of the board—but he had no legal right to compel the giving of a pension, that being entirely at the discretion of the local authorities. It was not alleged that the local authorities had behaved otherwise than generously in the matter, but sometimes cases arose where pensions were refused, and here the grievance was felt. Sometimes guardians were changed, and they did not know of the good services rendered in former days by the man who had become old. Again, officers were debarred from any pension if they held any other office, of whatever kind, however trivial. That was a grievance which was particularly felt by medical officers. That was the existing law, which the Bill proposed to alter in this way—that pensions in the future were to be claimable of right for all officers who were appointed in the future and all existing officers who chose to avail themselves of the new Measure. No assent of the Local Government Board would be required, and it would not be necessary for the officers to give their whole time to the service. There was another condition—contributions were required from the officers. That being so, it appeared to him that there should be very little difference among them as to the advantages and benefits of the Bill, and, so far as he had been able to gather the sense of the House, they were, with a few exceptions, unanimously in favour of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He attached considerable importance to the suggestion of his hon. Friend as to the obtaining of the services of a higher class of officers, and clearly that would be promoted by this Bill. As to some of the objections raised, he referred those who resisted the Bill to Clause 7, which carefully guarded the discretion of the authorities in the case of any officer who had misconducted himself and rendered himself liable to forego his claim. As to the suggestion that the Bill should be extended to Ireland, probably there would be no objection. The Government, therefore, would support the Second Reading of the Bill, which they hoped would become law with as little delay as possible. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that he had very few-observations to make with regard to the Measure that was before the House. In the first place he might say that the principle upon which it was based, had his most hearty support. He trusted that in due time, and when an opportunity occurred, attention would be given to the case of Scotland in relation to the subject of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, had taken objection to the Measure on the ground that it would take certain powers out of the hands of the local authorities, but in his view that objection had been fully met. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman, who had seconded the Amendment, was that no provision ought to be made for the superannuation of the Poor Law officials mentioned in the Bill, until provision could be made for the superannuation of officials all over the country, but the result of the House accepting such a view would be that the hard working class of officials for whose benefit the Measure had been introduced, would never be provided for. Nearly every hon. Member was in favour of the Bill being read a second time, and therefore lie should give it his cordial support.

said, that whatever view the representatives of Scotland might take as to the desirability of some Measure of this kind in relation to Scotland being introduced, it ought not to be allowed to interfere in any way with this proposal to provide for the superannuation of public servants in England. It had been suggested that the provisions of this Measure should be extended to Scotland, but he could not give an absolutely unhesitating approval of that proposal, because owing to the fact that this Bill, when drafted, applied solely to England, there had been no opportunity for the rating authorities in Scotland to consider the subject in relation to that country. One of the main arguments in favour of the Bill was that its principle had met with the approval of the rating authorities in England, but as he had said, the rating authorities of Scotland had not had the Bill under their consideration. He might remind hon. Members that the last deliberate expression of Scotch opinion on this subject, when a proposal was put forward before the Committee of 1894 to give superannuation allowances entirely out of the rates, the proposal was negatived by a large majority independently altogether of Party lines. It was a question whether in Scotland the principle of superannuation ought to go beyond certain well known officials. Whilst to that extent he was favourable to the proposal in regard to the Scotch Poor Law officials, he desired to reserve his criticism until some proposal with respect to Scotland was actually before the House.

wished to express his hearty and entire concurrence in the proposals of the Bill. He was glad that those in charge of the Measure were agreed that its provisions should be extended to Ireland. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Battersea object to the Bill on the ground that the House, ought not to do something for somebody because it did not do everything for everybody. The Poor Law Guardians in Ireland were strongly in favour of the Bill, and some of them had unanimously passed resolutions in support of the proposals it contained. For instance, the Report of the Special Committee of the Belfast Board of Guardians appointed to consider the the Circular forwarded by the Irish Medical Association respecting the granting of pensions to Poor Law Officers when no longer fit to work, contained the following recommendation:—

"That the Board of Guardians, upon the consideration of the provisions of the Union Officers' Superannuation Bill now before Parliament, is of opinion that its principle is equitable, and its provisions practical; and that it would be desirable that the Measure should be extended to Ireland, in order that a permanent settlement of the Superannuation Question may be thereby arrived at.

We are of opinion, also, that the Bill should be amended so that, in the event of an Officer dying in the service, his next-of-kin surviving him may be entitled to the moneys contributed by such Officer under this Act."

That recommendation was subsequently unanimously approved and adopted by the Board of Guardians. In these circumstances he could say that the proposal to extend the operation of this Bill to Ireland would meet with the hearty concurrence of Ulster.

regretted that no expression of opinion with regard to this Bill had fallen from the Irish Nationalist Representatives. The proposal to extend this Bill to Ireland appeared to have received the approval of all sections in Ulster. Probably, however, the Irish Nationalist Members might be willing that their previous speeches on Bills introduced for the purpose of providing pensions for Irish Poor Law Officers should be referred to. The Unionist Members from Ireland had expressed their opinion very strongly, and the Nationalist Members by their silence had given their consent. If no Nationalist Member rose to object to the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill, then he should assume that they gave a hearty assent to it, and that it was only their natural modesty which prevented them from speaking. The House might, therefore, take it that the Members from Ireland were unanimous for once in a strong desire to have this Bill extended to Ireland.

wished to say that in his humble judgment this Bill seemed to afford a fair measure of relief to a class of men who were eminently deserving of the consideration of the House. Something had been said with regard to pensions. That he admitted at once was a very delicate subject, but, so far from creating pensions, this Bill merely repealed the Act under which, in existing circumstances, Poor Law Officers might obtain relief. It would also remove the elements of uncertainty which existed at the present time, and in return for the certainty of superannuation, these officers would accept a considerable reduction in their salaries and emoluments. He sincerely hoped that the Bill would pass into law, as it was to his mind an act of justice, and if carried through would merely give a measure of relief to those who were deserving of it.

thought that the principle of the Bill was both sound and equitable. In many respects it was drawn upon the lines of the Superannuation Act of 1869, which had operated so justly in the case of Civil servants generally. Though there were some matters of detail which might be fairly discussed in Committee, such as the question whether officers whose whole time was not given up should be entitled to pensions. In most of the County Acts there was a provision that only officers who gave their whole time should be eligible for pensions. He knew that the medical profession in Ireland was much interested in that portion of the Bill which related to medical officers. Some of the most influential members of the profession had been agitating for years to get a Measure of this sort. For these reasons, and on the assurance given on behalf of the Government and the promoters of the Bill that no opposition would be offered in Committee to extending the Act to Ireland, he should most certainly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

admitted, with the hon. Member for Battersea, that he would have preferred that the principle of superannuation and old-age pensions should extend to the working classes, but, unfortunately, this Bill only dealt with a higher grade in society, and he did not think that because they were unable at present to benefit the whole of the working classes of the country, they should deny their support to one very worthy class of the community. If the hon. Member would bring forward a practicable and workable scheme to enable the working classes to avail themselves of the principle of superannuation, he felt confident that hon. Members on his side of the House would give such a scheme the fullest consideration. He ventured to ask the hon. Member to think twice before he blocked progress towards old-age pensions by supporting the Amendment before the House. He supported the Bill because he believed that, by supporting the application of the principle to an inner circle like this, in course of a little time the circle would be enlarged so as to include the working classes, and, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he had no hesitation in giving his support to the Measure.

said that, as representing the largest medical constituency in Ireland, he wished to echo the words which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Tyrone, about Poor Law medical officers in that country, and to say what keen gratification this Bill would give to a considerable number of his constituents. He had had the privilege of talking to some of the first doctors in Ireland on the subject, and they told him that their profession was practically unanimous about the evil of the present system. One effect of it was that the best medical students refused to go into Poor Law business; another and still worse effect was that there were a great many cases in which men having nothing to fall back on remained in their position as Poor Law doctors when they were far too old and infirm for the work. This was a great medical question, but it was also pre-eminently a poor man's question. Probably the best thing legislation could do for the poor was to give them, as for as possible, the same chances of health and life as the rich. If they raised the standard of the poor man's doctors they would have contributed very materially to that end.

supported the scheme, because in the first place it was self-supporting, and secondly, because it would keep out of the public service those who were not fit to work. With regard to the application of the Bill to Scotland, they had now got a Bill before them, and he was sure that the ingenuity of his hon. Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland and others would be quite equal to the task of making it applicable to Scotland.

said, he was fully in sympathy with the Bill, and contended that there was no part of Scotland where it was more needed than in the West Highlands.

thought that teachers in elementary schools had the first claim to consideration in respect of pensions.

Order, order! The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the case of teachers.

explained that he was about to say that he supported the Bill. He hoped that in time a system of pensions would be established for all servants of the State, and that the system would gradually be extended so as to apply to the servants of great companies and firms.

said, that the proposed extension of the Measure to Scotland was not a matter to be settled offhand, because Scotland was not in the same position as England with respect to this subject. An equitable claim existed in England and was recognised in the case of 80 per cent, of the officers to whom the Bill related. No similar claim, however, existed in Scotland, and in the case of that country, this Bill would introduce a practically new principle. A very strong case had been made out for passing a Bill of this kind for England, but the question had not been submitted to Scotland in any form. A good many representations with regard to Scotland had no doubt been made to hon. Members, but as far as he could ascertain, all those representations had come from officers under the Parish Councils, and he had not heard that any Parish Council had as yet, itself expressed any opinion on the subject. They had been told that 400 out of 600 Boards of Guardians in England had declared themselves to be in favour of this Measure. Well, they ought to wait to hear what the opinion of the Parish Councils in Scotland was. The change extending the Bill to Scotland could only be made while the Measure was in Committee, and he trusted that in the interval which must elapse before the matter could be taken in hand the Scotch Parish Councils would consider the question carefully, and that hon. Members from Scotland would send copies of the Bill to their constituents. He hoped that those hon. Members would not commit themselves to an acceptance of the proposed extension of the Bill to Scotland before the Bill had been considered locally.

trusted the House would not forget that this was an English Bill, and that England was entitled to it even if Scotland or Ireland did not desire it. If, when the Bill had been further considered, Scottish or Irish opinion should warrant its extension the promoters of the Measure would not oppose such extension. Ireland, he might observe, was in precisely the same position as England in regard to this matter, for the Boards of Guardians had a permissive power to grant retiring allowances, and in many cases they were granted, whilst in others they were withheld.

observed that the promoters of the Bill assumed that the scheme was going to pay for itself. In regard to Scotland, however, hon. Members would not be satisfied with an assumption of that kind, and would require proof that the scheme was solvent. There ought to be a close investigation into the actuarial solvency of the scheme, and as it might be difficult in Grand Committee to conduct an investigation of that kind, he suggested that the question should be referred to a Select Committee.

said, that as it appeared to be the general opinion that the Bill ought to go to a Grand Committee, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. The Debate, however, had not convinced him of the desirability of the Measure.

said, that after the speeches which had been made, it was obvious that the Standing Committee ought to be reinforced by an addition of English, Scotch and Irish Members.

That is always done in cases of this kind.

hoped that four or five weeks would be allowed to elapse before the Bill was considered in Committee, in order that the opinion of Scotland might be ascertained.

agreed that an interval would be desirable.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill said, that those hon. Members, who at the last General Election stood for agricultural constituencies, and who might therefore be said to be in touch with those engaged in agricultural pursuits, would be aware that legislation in the direction indicated in this Bill, was looked upon as a primary necessity by those who had suffered most from the prevalent depression. What was the state of affairs which called for such legislation? He would take the question of meat first. There could be no doubt whatever that there was much misrepresentation as to the country of origin of meat by salesmen and dealers, to the great and obvious detriment of the home producer. That this was a fact that could not be gainsaid became certain on perusal of the evidence which was laid before the Lords' Committee on the marking of foreign meat. Meat which found its way into the English market was of four kinds—fresh meat produced or fattened in this country, fresh meat imported alive and slaughtered at the port of entry, meat imported in a chilled condition, and meat frozen hard for purposes of distant transit. There might be considerable difference of opinion as to the ease with which those who had given attention to the matter could distinguish between these various classes, but there was very little doubt that in many cases it was almost impossible for the non-expert, the ordinary buyer, to tell the difference. The Report of the Lords' Committee gave several cases. According to that Report, the Birkenhead-killed beef from America had so much similarity to our own that the public could not tell the difference once in a hundred cases. As a typical instance, the case of Southport was cited before the Committee. In Southport, where there was a well-to-do population, able to pay a good price for meat, although there were 54 butchers in the town, there were only, to use the words of the Lords' Report, three English animals killed during the week; "and," said a witness,

"if you go there to-day you will find two shops out of every three with nothing but Birkenhead meat (that is foreign meat) in them, and it is sold for English."?

So conscious were the working classes in this district of the extent to which they were prejudiced by misrepresentation of this nature, that for some time past working men's associations had been in the habit of passing resolutions praying for legislation to put an end to it. Then these paragraphs were found in the Report of the Lords Committee:—

"Some of the meat imported from the Continent is most difficult to distinguish, even by the experienced. This is especially the case with German mutton, Dutch veal, and Dutch legs of mutton, which are frequently sold as Welsh mutton." "In a largo West End establishment, professing to sell nothing but English and Scotch meat, only six sides of Scotch were said to have been sold during a whole year, the rest being American. In other shops in the City and West End, three-quarters of the beef sold as English is said to be American. Meat imported and killed at Deptford, is often labelled 'Prime English.'" "In all these cases, it appears that the prices charged were those which would be justified only had the meat been purchased wholesale at the price commanded by the best home-killed meat."

The evidence laid before the Committee, unshaken by any of a rebutting nature, showed the enormous extent to which misrepresentation existed, or at any rate, the prevalence of a state of affairs, under which the buyer was constantly induced to purchase foreign meat as home-fed. It might be said that in suggesting such legislation as was contemplated in this Bill, they were making wholesale charges of deliberate dishonesty against the butchers as a class throughout the country. But he would protest against such a suggestion. He would not prefer a sweeping and general charge of deliberate deceit. No doubt, in view of the evidence, there were many cases of intentional and deliberate misrepresentation, there were many instances of the sin of commission. But it was the sin of omission which was far more prevalent, omission, on the part of butchers to inform their customers of the source of origin of their meat, leaving it to be inferred that such meat was home-fed. In 99 cases out of 100, the buyer probably asked no questions, but it was assumed that home-fed meat was going to be supplied. This state of affairs was palpably a great injury to the consumer. Whatever might be the quality of the imported meat, he surely was entitled to know whether he was supplied with English meat when he paid the price of English meat, and if he chose to buy imported meat, it should be at a price commensurate with its source of origin. But it was the agricultural community, he considered, who had an especial right to appeal to Parliament for legislation in this connection. Agriculturists believed and, he thought, rightly believed, that their interests were seriously injured by the present state of affairs, and that if the purchaser could, in all cases, be made aware of the origin of the meat he was buying, meat produced in England would be in greater demand, and command a better price. It was not altogether a question of whether imported meat could compare with English meat; apart from that question a large number of consumers would prefer to buy homefed meat. Sitting as he did for an almost purely agricultural division, that of South Devon, he knew the extent to which English farmers were prejudiced by the present state of affairs. Members for agricultural constituencies, who had been in the habit of attending the markets in country towns, would know that butchers no longer came down to the country from great towns to the extent they used, but when foreign consignments were arriving were to be found instead at the foreign lairages in our seaports. That British farmers, who had of late years had such a hard time of it, had most legitimate cause for complaint in this connection, could not for one moment be denied. There must be a large proportion of hon. Members who had never been brought into any true contact with those engaged in agricultural pursuits; to them it might seem that the British farmer was only too ready to cry out and appeal for help in this direction or that. Those intimate with the real state of the case, would know how unfair was such a deduction. The farmers for many years past had been struggling with their growing difficulties in a spirit of self-dependence, and with a determination not to yield to adverse circumstances. In this, as in other matters, the farmer asked for no favour, no exceptional treatment, no unfair preference; he was not afraid to meet the foreign producer on equal terms. In this, as in other matters, he only asked for fair play. The Bill itself was comparatively a simple one, consisting of two main provisions so far as meat was concerned. It proposed to enact:—Firstly, that every piece of foreign meat exposed for sale shall be labelled "Foreign meat" or " Colonial meat," as the case may be. Secondly, that every person having in his possession for sale any foreign or colonial meat shall at all times place in a conspicuous position in the front of his place of sale the words "Dealer in Foreign and Colonial meat," and shall register himself in a register to be kept by the local authority as such. Failure to comply with these provisions of the Bill entailing a fine, for the first offence, not exceeding £5, and for the second or subsequent offence, not exceeding £20. The local authority shall keep a register of persons selling or exposing for sale foreign or colonial meat; this registration being executed free of charge to the person registering; such register to be kept at the office of the local authority, and to be open to inspection by any person free of charge. The local authority is to appoint and remunerate Inspectors for the purpose of seeing that the Act is properly carried out, such Inspectors being given power of entering any place where meat is exposed for sale for the purpose of ascertaining its nature. The local authority is also given power to prosecute in cases of failure to comply with the provisions of this Bill; power of prosecuting being also reserved to any private person. The Bill finally provided that the expenses of carrying this Act into execution shall be provided by the sanitary authority, as the case may be. The Bill also dealt with the case of foreign cheese, in favour of the marking of which, he was informed, there was no less strong a case, and upon this other hon. Members would be competent to speak with greater authority than he could. At present, American cheese came over here to compete with English cheese in the market, not depending on its own merits, but assuming the guise and wrongfully appropriating the designation of English cheddar. He did not think it would be disputed that misrepresentation prevailed in the cheese trade to an extent that called for legislation. It was provided, therefore, in the Bill that Sections 4 and 6 (i.e., so much of the provisions of the Bill as stipulate for the marking of foreign meat exposed for sale and lay down a penalty for non-compliance with such stipulation) shall apply also to foreign and colonial cheese. Those were the main provisions of the Bill before the House, and he could not but hope that they were such that Her Majesty's Government might feel themselves at liberty to accord it their support. When the late Government were invited to express their opinion as to the desirableness of such legislation, they expressed a wish for further information, and, with the object of gaining it, appointed a Select Committee to inquire. Now that that Committee had reported so strongly in favour of action, and recommended that very system of registration and inspection by qualified Inspectors which the Bill proposed to set up, he trusted that the Leaders of the Opposition might see fit to support the principle of the Bill. The fear that the Bill would entail considerable expenditure for Inspectors and other purposes was groundless. Mr. Walter Tyler, a member of the Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, expressed it as his opinion that they could carry out the provisions of an Act compelling all butchers to label foreign meat with little, if any, increase in their staff. This Bill being brought forward primarily in the interests of the consumer and the agricultural community, it became necessary to ascertain what might be the attitude towards such legislation of other classes concerned. What was the opinion of the foreign and colonial importer, what the view of the butcher? There was a difference of opinion, he believed, as to the desirableness of legislation among foreign and colonial importers, but this did not arise from any objection to the identification of the foreign meat, but rather from fear that trade would be harassed by any regulations as to marking. On the other hand, colonial opinion seems to be agreed that any system of marking which should be cheap, effectual, and not vexatious, would be welcomed rather than otherwise. As to the butchers, there was no really strong feeling against the principle of marking foreign meat, if they were to take the officers of the Butchers' Federation as expressing the opinion of the trade. As to this he would quote from the Report of the Lords' Committee which declared:—

"The Committee concur in the opinion expressed by Mr. Elliott, Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, that the feeling on the part of the butchers' trade is not so distinctly opposed to the principle of marking as might have been supposed."

Mr. Elliott's opinion is borne out by a letter read before the Committee from the President of the Butchers' Federation, advising that society not to assume an attitude of direct hostility to the Bills for identification of foreign meat, and stating it as his opinion that they should accept the principle. The Committee also took the trouble to take a poll of the smaller retail butchers in a typical district of London, where, out of 100 butchers, 52 favoured some system of marking, 26 directly opposed it, 18 were neutral, and 4 partially favourable. If then, there was such a preponderating consensus of opinion among the butchers themselves in favour of some means of identification, he did not see from what quarter opposition to the principle of this Bill could come. It could be shown, then, that none of the classes interested could be injuriously affected by the Bill, while the general consumer would be materially benefited; and they were being always told in these days that the consumer was the person to be con- sidered. It had been objected by some that prices would be raised by such legislation, but he believed that the tendency would be in a contrary direction, because at the present time so much imported meat was sold as homegrown, at home grown prices. But whatever the effect upon the price, he did not see how the average price was to be disturbed; the only result would be that the consumer would be called upon to pay a price more strictly adapted to, and more truly commensurate with, the quality of the meat. He would no longer be buying in the dark; he would no longer run the risk of buying unawares meat which was deficient in quality and flavour, and especially largely deficient as regarded nutrition. And this was a point of great importance to the working classes. To give the technical explanation of the loss of nutrition in refrigerated meat, it appeared that the freezing process broke the small globules which held the real substance of the vitality of the meat. They burst, and the meat lost its flavour, with the consequence to the consumer that he got less vitality out of his food. All the more important was it, therefore, that the consumer should know what he is buying. Knowing from constant communications the strong feeling that existed among the graziers in Ireland on the subject, he was confident that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would give the Bill a hearty support. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech elsewhere, last Wednesday, said:—

"The agricultural interest has been suffering from most severe disasters, and we have great sympathy with all classes interested in the cultivation of the soil."

He was sure, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who acted with him, would be glad to seize the opportunity of testifying to that sympathy by supporting the principle of this Bill which aimed at removing one of their most legitimate grievances. As he had said, the British and Irish farmers were not afraid of facing their difficulties and tackling foreign competitors in the open, but they had a right to insist that the competition which they had to meet should be above-board. All they asked for was a fair field and no favour. He had little fear but that the House would agree with him that this was the least they were entitled to, and would consent to the Second Reading of a Bill so deeply affecting the interests of agriculturists, so unassailable by valid objection on the part of other classes concerned, and so manifestly necessary in the interests of the consumer.

seconded. Speaking as a Member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, he said that there was almost an unanimous feeling among British farmers that they should have the legitimate protection which would be afforded to them by a Bill of this kind. The farmers had a right to ask Parliament to give them a fair field and no favour, to give them fair play in the sale of their produce. They must produce the very best produce to meet the foreign competitor, and when they did that they were deprived of their legitimate profit through having to meet the unfair competition which undoubtedly now existed. A Lords' Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, and he was sure evidence enough was brought forward to show that a considerable amount of fraud went on as regarded the selling of foreign meat. Therefore, they asked that, if it were possible, the English producers should have the right of placing their produce on the market and having it sold for exactly what it was. For his own part, he did not think the consumer would be in any way injured by this Bill. In fact, if anything he would be benefited, because he would then know what he was buying. At the present moment it was almost impossible for the consumer to know what it was he was buying, when he was brought face to face with all the misrepresentation that undoubtedly did exist. And while it would benefit the consumer, no honest butcher would take any exception to the Bill. The Lords' Committee, in paragraph 93 of their Report, said the self-same thing. He wished to impress on the House the necessity of giving the agriculturists, who were undoubtedly suffering from a very long and severe depression, this fair and legitimate protection of their interest. There were some of the provisions of the Bill which he was afraid would not be quite strong enough to carry out the objects which they were intended to do. He would not go into those, but would content himself with expressing the hope that the Government would accept the Bill and have it referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Agriculture, and that they would have no dilatory process such as would be involved by referring it to a Select Committee. He could assure the President of the Board of Trade that nearly the whole of the hon. Members opposite were pledged to the principle of this Measure, and, that being so, he hoped they would carry out their pledges and vote for the Second Reading.

said, that, in rising to move the rejection of this Bill, he desired to say that he did not do so from any want of sympathy with agriculturists, but because he believed the effect of the Bill would be something very different to what was supposed by the friends of agriculture; that it would not be to the advantage of the consumer at large, and that it would be a very serious interference with those employed in the meat trade. Both of his hon. friends who had supported this Bill had founded themselves pretty completely on the Report of the Lords' Committee that sat three years ago, but in its provisions this Bill went far beyond the recommendations of the Committee. Those recommendations were (1)

"That every person dealing in imported meat should register as such and should affix a notice plainly exhibited over his shop that he is registered as a dealer in imported meat;"

And (2)—

"That the inspection of retail butchers' shops be made in the same way as under the Food and Drugs Act by duly qualified inspectors."

This Bill provided not merely for this registering, but laid down that

"Every person who sells or exposes for sale, or who hawks or offers for sale any foreign or colonial meat shall cause to be attached to each carcase or piece of such foreign meat a label or mark containing in printed capital letters the words ' Foreign Meat' or 'Colonial Meat,'"

And he was liable to a heavy penalty if he did not do so. That was a provision which had been included in many such Bills, and it was discussed by the Lords' Committee, but after full consideration and argument they rejected it, and only made the smaller recommendations of the registration of the sellers and the notice on the outside of the shop. It seemed to him that this Bill as dealing with foreign meat—and he was referring especially to the meat that was killed when it arrived at their ports—proceeded on a wrong basis altogether. It proceeded on the assumption, in the first place, that meat of that kind is an inferior article to meat grown, fattened and produced at home; and, in the second place, that meat of that kind could be distinguished, after it had been killed and got into the butchers' shops, by anybody from British meat. Both of these assumptions, he submitted, were incorrect. Under the definition of the Bill, foreign meat was made to include—

"all meat and flesh of cattle or sheep of any kind or age which shall be imported into any part of Great Britain and Ireland."

At present, the Bill would cover, as he understood, all meat of every beast, whether imported in the shape of store cattle, or whether imported to be slain on arrival, or whether imported in the shape of frozen meat. Of course, nobody need be told that stores were indistinguishable from other beasts; while the cattle from Canada or the United States which came here, after a reasonably good passage, and were then killed at the port of debarkation, was indistinguishable from a piece of an English or Scotch beast. That being so, how were they going to carry out the provisions of their Bill? How were they going to discover whether the piece of beef they bought in a butcher's shop was English beef or foreign or colonial beef? The only machinery provided by the Bill was a process of taking samples. They would have Inspectors whose business, he supposed, it would be to watch, in a general way, what was happening; but the only specific power they would have was to go in and take samples. To some extent, that would apply to frozen meat; and he thought there would be very much less objection to the Bill if it applied to frozen meat only, and not to all the meat that came into the country. Even in regard to frozen meat there was a very serious difficulty, because some of the very best meat that was to be had in London was Scotch mutton which came up here, was killed, and then was hung for a week or fortnight, or longer, in refrigerator chambers. Then it became perfectly indistinguishable from New Zealand meat. In regard to the beef that came into this country alive, it was probable that, for the very best quality, they would take Scotch; but when they got beyond the very fancy qualities the two were indistinguishable. Neither the wholesale nor the retail price was different. It was just an accident of the market whether, at any particular date, United States or Canadian meat was higher in the wholesale market, or whether it was English meat. The Report of the Lords' Committee bore out what he said in this respect. If it came to a question of putting consumers on their guard against inferior qualities, he should say it would not be the foreign beef, but the Irish beef, that would need to be labelled. He had the honour of sitting on a Departmental Committee in which they had that matter fully discussed, and evidence was put forward by a number of butchers that Irish beef came to the market in so unsatisfactory a condition that they were buying Canadian or United States beef instead. The evidence was that Irish beef was falling in price, and that Canadian and American beef was coming more and more into general use. That seemed to him to show the fundamental fault of the Bill. It was all very well to have this kind of marking and registration where they had an article and a good imitation of the article itself. For example, he had not the slightest fault to find with the requirement that margarine should be marked as such, and sold as such. There was nothing inquisitorial about that. The stuff was there on the shelf, and all they had got to do to ascertain whether it was margarine or butter was to take it away and examine it at their leisure. But they could not do that with regard to meat, and in order to have any certainty on the matter it would mean an inquisitorial inquiry, which he was quite sure the people in this country would not stand. It was perfectly right to impose restrictions of this kind when it could be done with effect. Under the Merchandise Marks Act, for instance, goods of a foreign origin were required to be marked as such. In the cases where they could distinguish what the goods were by taking a sample and then making an investigation, the principle might be right, but here they could not so distinguish. Where the cattle came to this country alive, and were afterwards killed and cut up, to require that every piece of meat shoud be stamped under pain of penalties, when the man who sold it could not know whether it was home or foreign, would require an inquisitorial system that would go far beyond what would be supported by public opinion. There were many points about the Bill which tended to show that it had not been very well thought out. In Glasgow the strongest hostility had been shown to the Bill on the part of the fleshers; and in regard to Scotland he would point out that, while provision had been made as to the working of the Measure in the rural districts, no such provision had been made so far as Glasgow and the other large cities and boroughs were concerned. His contention was that frozen differed from fresh meat. Ordinary people could tell which was which by the appearance, and if they insisted on frozen meat being labelled it did not greatly matter. But when meat came to this country fresh, it was accepted by the customer at large as being equally good whether it had been produced or this side of the water or on the other. Indeed, it was quite possible that if the Bill were passed the farmer would fine a result that he did not at all expect, which was that foreign meat might get to be fancied more than home meat, and that instead of there being a kind of stigma placed upon it, they might be insisting on their butchers giving them the best United States or Canadian meat. He regarded the system of inspection proposed as an entirely unnecessary interference with the whole course of trade, which would bring no advantage to the consumer, whilst most of the other provisions were unworkable. It was because he regarded the Bill as an impossible Bill, and one which was dangling merely delusive hopes in front of the unfortunate farmer, whilst it would do him no good, that he begged to move that it be read that day six months.

seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. The main argument in support of the Measure, he observed, was the desire to prevent foreign meat being sold as British, and so obtaining an advantage over the home production. He was afraid, however, that this smacked somewhat of an endeavour to obtain Protection by a side wind, and to raise the price of the article that was produced in England. If the promoters of the Bill hoped by their proposals to induce customers to buy less of the foreign article, he was afraid they were doomed to disappointment. It was quite clear that the best of this live meat was as good, and in many cases better, than that produced in England. This was a matter in which his constituents were deeply interested, and although the Butchers' Association might have stated before the Committee that they would not oppose the principle of the Bill, he knew that the butchers around Birkenhead were very strongly opposed to its provisions. They pointed out, for instance, that it would be exceedingly harassing to have this constant inquisitorial inspection, and that it would be impracticable to distinguish between foreign and English meat. There was a great inducement to buy foreign in preference to English meat, because it was hardly ever infected with tuberculosis, whilst English meat frequently was. If a butcher purchased an English beast, and the meat was afterwards condemned, he lost the whole of the price he had paid for it, but he did not run that risk with regard to foreign meat, or, if he did, it was to a much smaller extent. Whilst he agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken that it would be quite practicable to distinguish between foreign frozen meat and the home article, he failed to see how any system could be devised which would enable them to distinguish between foreign and home meat in cases where foreign beasts had been brought to this country alive and afterwards slaughtered and cut up. It was ridiculous to suppose that foreign meat which had been imported alive was in any way deficient in the principle of vitality. On the contrary, such cattle were landed in this country in splendid condition, as he knew from experience, and whilst the importation of American cattle might have been a hardship to the British farmer, it had been a great boon indeed to the working classes of this country. He hoped that, in any legislation they might pass upon this subject, they would confine themselves to preventing fraud, but be careful to do nothing that would in any way check the importation of cheap food for the working classes. So far as the prevention of fraud was concerned, he was at one with the introducer of the Bill, but if the hon. Member imagined that by making the butchers who sold foreign meat declare they were selling foreign as well as English, and by marking foreign as distinct from English meat he was going to help the producers of English meat, he would find himself mistaken. The Merchandise Marks Act was intended to provide against fraud, but it had simply been an advertisement for foreign goods. There was little doubt Germany could produce certain goods superior to English. He only hoped, for the sake of English agriculture, that the effect of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Devonshire might not be to lead English people to discover that foreign meat was better than meat produced in this country.

said, hon. Members who represented boroughs had not only to think of the interests of their constituents but the interests of the districts surrounding; their constituencies, for the prosperity of boroughs must depend, to a large extent, on the prosperity of these. He was in favour of the first part of the Bill, but not of the second part. He was heartily in favour of everything that would promote fair dealing, and it would be just that every butcher and dealer in meat should have a notice in his shop that he dealt in foreign as well as English meat. It would also be fair that there should be a register of such dealers, that all who went to the shop might know that the dealer sold both kinds. But he was against marking, simply because, from the inquiries he had made, he believed it to be utterly impossible to carry it out fairly, and he did not think it would be wise to employ inspectors to do what a large body of testimony asserted was impossible. He had made inquiries, not only amongst butchers and others in his own constituency, but amongst large salesmen in the Smithfield Cattle Market, and amongst many consumers who were likely to know belonging to the working classes. He believed much foreign meat, and especially frozen meat, was not consumed so much by the working classes as in the large establishments of the well-to-do. Therefore, to the part of the Bill relating to this he was in opposition, simply because, from the evidence he had obtained, it was impossible to carry it out fairly. He believed the advantage of this Bill would be to the consumer rather than to agriculturists, in fact, those hon. Members who had quoted from the Report of the Commission had given rather a one-sided account of the evidence. He had read the Report carefully, and the evidence seemed to show that the best English meat, might obtain a slightly higher price. There was then a large quantity of English meat which obtained the price of best English meat, which would in the opinion of the Lords Committee be relegated to a second, third, or fourth position in the market, while to the second class would be assigned much of the meat brought to England in a live state and killed at the port of debarkation, and in the end, British agriculturists, unless they improved the quality of their meat, would not receive much benefit. But if in the different places where they sold foreign meat customers knew foreign meat was sold there, he believed it would be a great advantage to the consumer. He had had much experience in connection with the working of the Merchandise Marks Act as an importer of goods from abroad. It was no use deceiving themselves as to the patriotic motives of the consumer. He liked to know where articles came from, and as a matter of fact, the Merchandise Marks Act had had the effect, where a good article had been imported for the consumer, if he liked it, to ask for it again, whether it was "made in Germany '' or not. After all, our Free Trade Policy was built up on this principle. We could not produce all we required for ourselves, and the public knew that for a number of articles we were dependent on the foreigner. Therefore, let them not run away with the idea that the proposals of the Bill would mean enhanced prices. If the Bill could be restricted to notification as to the sale of foreign as well as English meat, and the registering of the dealer in both kinds, he hoped it would become law, because he believed it would be greatly to the benefit of consumers and fair trading throughout the country.

said, the principle of this Bill was prominently before the country during the last General Election. It was supported by candidates of both Parties in agricultural constituencies, and no Conservative or Liberal Unionist candidate, when asked if he was in favour of the marking of foreign meat, said ''No.'' That being the case, he hoped they would be able to get this Measure read a second time, for it would go some distance towards the settlement of a vexed question. When farmers were told they must produce the best article, it was a mockery when they had done their best to allow them to be cheated in the open market. One half of the county he had the honour to represent was devoted to growing meat, and he said, with all respect to his Scotch friends, that it was about the best meat in Great Britain. [''Hear, hear!"] The other half of the county was devoted to the production, of Cheddar cheese. For some time Somersetshire did not feel agricultural depression as it was felt elsewhere, but owing to the home market being flooded with inferior foreign stuff, the farmers were more and more handicapped every year. It was said that if a distinction was made in every shop between British and foreign meat, purchasers would, in preference, buy foreign meat because it was cheaper. If this was so, how was it that butchers—who were no fools—did not sell British meat as foreign or colonial meat? He had resided in Australia two years, and, speaking from experience, he could say that Australian beef and mutton was vastly inferior to English meat. As to marking foreign and colonial meat, his Bill on the subject got as far as a Second Reading, but it subsequently came to grief owing to the assiduous attention of hon. Members. But they had since then ceased to belong to the House. [''Hear, hear!"] The question of marking foreign and colonial cheese affected producers in a large number of counties. Producers had had a hard struggle to make the manufacture of cheese pay, and they found it harder every year. The marking of cheese from abroad affected the consumer as well. The chief consumers of cheese were the working classes. It was very important that they should have cheap and unadulterated food, and there was not the slightest doubt, from the evidence of the inspectors, that a very large proportion of the foreign and colonial cheese was adulterated with fat, and even more deleterious compounds. In 1894, the weight of cheese imported from abroad was greater than that of the beef, and nearly equal to the mutton, and its value was greater than either the beef or the mutton imported. That proved that cheese formed a large amount of the food of this country, especially among the working classes. Four-fifths of it came from America and Canada. In grocers' shops there was a certain amount of American cheese described as Cheddar. Whether this was a fact or not, it was right that the working classes should know what they were buying. There could be no doubt that cheese was more easily adulterated than any other article of food. The farmer in England could not adulterate; it was not easy for him to do it; if it were, he was too honest; and if he were not, he had not got the brains. If this Bill became law, adulterated cheese would be driven out of the market, or it would be known as adulterated, and the customers could either refuse to buy it or to give the same price for it as unadulterated cheese. The Bill would be welcomed all over England by consumers, and therefore he would give the Second Reading his hearty support.

said, that he should be very sorry to support a Bill which would have the effect of raising the price of meat, but he could not see how any proposal in the Bill could have that effect. It was, at all events, a most reasonable requirement that customers should be allowed to know what it was they were buying. He was aware that the subject had excited great interest in the agricultural districts throughout the country, and that interest was manifested during the late General Election. Some of the best meat of this country was produced in Aberdeenshire, and all the efforts of the producers to produce good meat for home consumption might be thwarted by the ingenious frauds going on in London and elsewhere. While giving a general support to the Bill, he admitted it was open to Amendment, and he would warn its promoters against expecting too much from its practical operation. Clause 4, requiring foreign meat to be marked as such, appeared to be on the whole unworkable. As it was not practicable to mark meat in the way suggested, he would recommend that the clause should be dropped. To come down from a carcase to a "piece" raised the question what was meant by a "piece"—whether it was the side of a bullock, a mutton chop, or a miserable fragment taken by the poorest purchaser. He was strongly in favour of Clauses 5 and 6, requiring a vendor to say that he sold foreign and colonial meat, and not to sell imported as British or Irish, because, although there were differences of opinion as to whether experts could distinguish home grown from imported meat, the requirement of the clause would have a good moral effect upon dealers, and the enforcement of a distinction would allow purchasers to exercise a choice, and would operate as an incentive to home producers to produce the best meat when they found its quality really appreciated by British consumers.

in supporting the Second Reading said, that the subject excited the greatest interest in every village in South Warwickshire, where the people were anxious for legislation. Unfortunately in Parliament, agriculturists were fed only with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. If they stood up for great measures like Protection or Currency Reform, they were told they were sinning against economic law; therefore, there was the greater reason why a small Measure like this should be granted willingly. He did not consider that the marking of imported meat and produce presented insuperable difficulty, but he believed it to be just as practicable as that which was done in France with Birmingham buttons which were everywhere sold as "Made in England." The supposed difficulty was greatly diminished because butchers' meat passed through very few hands before it reached the shop of the retailer. If the best home grown meat and cheese were appreciated, a stimulus would be given to the agriculture of this country, which the people generally desired to support and encourage if they were afforded the opportunity, not by paying a higher price for the same quality, but by paying the same price for a better quality. At any rate, this was a matter that would soon settle itself under fair competition. There was no hardship in a butcher or grocer having to mark meat or cheese as imported, and he had great pleasure in supporting a Bill, the passing of which would great satisfaction to his constituents.

said, that as the Bill applied to Ireland it was only right that some Irish Member should speak upon it. He might claim for his constituents that in their opinion Ireland as a meat producing country did not stand behind Scotland or England; on the contrary, the midland counties of Ireland fed some of the best cattle, and, therefore, the Bill would affect Ireland considerably. It was said that the Bill would introduce Protection, and would raise the prices of the food of the people. He was bound to say that, so far as Ireland was concerned, Protection would be, in many respects, a very desirable thing. But the Bill did not touch the question of Protection at all, and he was convinced that it would not injuriously affect the price of food. It simply gave the farmers fair play and justice. It also insured justice and fair play for the consumer, for it was to the interest of the consumer that goods in the market should be clearly marked, and that there should be no doubt whatever about the nature and quality of the food they were buying. It was said that the New Zealand frozen meat was not largely consumed by the working classes; that the working classes preferred the homegrown article. That was a great argument in the interest of the working classes in favour of the Bill, because the Bill would secure that they were not supplied with foreign meat instead of home-grown meat, for which they paid a higher price. He asked the opposers of the Bill what objection could a dealer, who desired to act honestly towards the consumer, have to the marking of foreign meat in his shop as foreign meat? If a dealer in foreign meat meant to act honestly towards his customers he could not raise any reasonable objection to having himself registered as a dealer in foreign meat. If it were true that in many cases it was difficult to distinguish foreign meat from home-grown meat, that was a good argument in favour of the Bill. The objection was raised that it would be difficult to mark the meat, because it was difficult to distinguish foreign meat from home-grown meat. But that was another reason for passing the Bill. If it were true—as it was true in many cases—that foreign meat could not be distinguished from homegrown meat, that was a good reason for securing that foreign meat should not be supplied to the consumer instead of the home-grown meat he desired. He thought the clause dealing with cheese should also be extended to butter. Cheese was not made in Ireland, but butter was very largely made there, and there were tons upon tons of foreign butter sold as Irish butter, to the great loss of Irish farmers. He thought the Bill was a very fair Bill, and he could not see how anyone could object to it. It would not compel anyone to buy home-grown meat instead of foreign meat. It would only secure that everyone got what he wanted—cheap and foreign meat, or the clear and homegrown meat.

said, there was one aspect of the Bill that had not been treated of in the Debate He referred to Clause 11, which dealt with the making of cheese. Whatever might be said in reference to the marking of foreign meat, he thought that no case had been made out in favour of marking foreign cheese. He spoke as a practical man on the subject, because he was a grocer; and he had been deputed by the Grocers' Association to lay their views before the House. He was surprised at the ignorance displayed by many hon. Members, and he regarded the statement that foreign cheese was sold as home cheese as a serious libel upon a most honest body of shopkeepers. There was not a boy or a girl who was accustomed to buy groceries that could not distinguish the difference between English cheese and American cheese. [Cries of "No, no!"] He made that statement deiberately—for the colour and taste were different. The tendency of many Bills introduced by Members was to increase, he price of the food of the people; and he warned the House that if this Measure were passed it would seriously increase the cost of cheese. ["Hear, hear!"] The 4th section of the Bill provided that every piece of cheese that was imported from abroad—whether from foreign countries or from the colonies—must have a label placed upon it. Now, in many grocers' shops they would find whole cheeses cut up into 11b. or 21b. pieces, and thus exposed in the windows, and if every one of these pieces should have a label, it would mean thousands of pounds of expense on the part of grocers in order to procure the labels. The hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield believed that we ought to have a commercial union with our colonies. Now, the largest importation of cheese was from Canada. While the importation of American cheese was decreasing, the importation of Canadian cheese was increasing year by year; and, therefore, while the hon. Member supported a commercial bond between the mother country and the colonies, he was anxious at the same time to injure the production of cheese in the colonies. He hoped the House would reject the Bill, because, if passed, while it would not effect the purpose in view, it would harass a large section of respectable tradesmen.

, said that this Bill, so far from increasing the price of the people's food, would be of great advantage to the consumer, and especially to the working-class consumer. It would not deprive him of foreign or colonial meat, if he wanted it, but it would ensure that he got what he wanted. The Canadian manufacturers of cheese had no desire to obtain a market in this country by false pretences. Their cheese was of good and improving quality. No previous speaker had mentioned the very remarkable Report made to the Foreign Office by the former Secretary of Legation, at Copenhagen, as to the system of marking meat adopted there. Sir Francis Denys' Report was dated 18th March 1893. It described how in Copenhagen, meat was divided into two classes—the first including meat of the perfectly healthy animal, and the second that of the in-inferior animal. The stamp used was an ordinary metal stamp with a wooden handle; the colour used for the marking was specially prepared, dried quickly, adhered well, and was only effaced with difficulty. An ox was marked in 12 different spots, the stamps being put in such places as had proved most suitable with respect to the sale and division of meat. Sir Francis Denys spoke of this system as being highly advantageous on sanitary as well as on economic grounds. He said—

"The system works admirably, and humanly speaking, is almost perfect. The incalculable benefit to the population of all classes from this control cannot be over-estimated."

It was because he thought that the same results might be obtained in this country, that he should heartily support the Second Reading.

, in a maiden speech, said that he had heard with astonishment an hon. Member accusing the promoters of this Bill of desiring protection. He wished to contradict that assertion, and he would do so out of the hon. Member's own mouth. After saying that the object of the Bill was to raise prices, the hon. Member proceeded to say that the effect of the Bill would not be to raise prices. Both things could not be. All they asked for was fair play for the English producers, and a security that the consumer who wished to buy foreign meat should be able to do so at foreign prices, and not at the price of English meat. Agriculture at present was in a very grievous condition, and this Bill would do something to assist English agriculturists.

said, that as a representative of a cattle feeding district he should support the Bill. The price of prime home-fed meat would slightly rise as a consequence of the Bill; but the well-to-do people who preferred it would not mind paying another penny or twopence a pound for it. The price of foreign meat would at the same time go down, if it separated in its sale from the home grown. The reduction in price would be a direct benefit to the poor people, and the foreign producer would not suffer, because the cost of the reduction would come out of the pockets of the butchers who were now making an uncommonly fine thing by selling foreign meat as home grown. If this system of licensing and registration contained in the Bill were carried out, he saw no difficulty in distinguishing between home and foreign meat. No expert would have any difficulty in deciding between them.

said, that having regard to the importance of the Bill, he hoped the House would come to some conclusion upon it. [Cheers.] It was evident that the general consensus of opinion in the House was in favour of some legislation of this kind. Hon. Members on both sides of the House had borne witness to that. The hon. Member for East Wilts had disavowed any idea of protection, and he did not think that such an idea had entered into the heads of the promoters of the Bill. They simply believed that it was desirable to insure by legislation that a consumer asking for a certain thing should get it. If a fair and just Measure could be framed which would prevent misrepresentation in the sale of food, he thought that the producer was entitled to that amount of protection. Whether or not it would be advantageous to him in the long run was another matter. As to its influence on the consumer, the House had heard from more than one quarter that the result would be to make the seller of foreign meat content himself with a much smaller profit than he now took. [Cheers.] It was clear that if the seller was able to pass off foreign meat as English meat he would obtain a higher price for it; and therefore if the foreign and the English meat were compulsorily separated, the foreign meat must be sold at a considerable reduction in price. The producer was the best judge of whether that would be for his interest. He himself had very considerable doubts on the subject; but his hon. Friends were content to take the risk, and rested themselves on the principle that by some means or other a man ought to be able to know what it was that he bought. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the means adopted in the Bill, he was bound to say that he did not think its provisions were workable. [Opposition cheers.] The practical difficulties in connection with the marking of the meat, however small the quantity, were extremely great. He doubted very much whether it was possible to overcome them, and he would point out that the proposal now recommended to mark all meat was negatived by the House of Lords Committee, so that his hon. Friend could not look to the Report of the Lords Committee for support to the mode he proposed of dealing with the matter. At the same time he agreed with his hon. Friend in the desire to secure, if possible, by some means or other, the punishment of fraud or misrepresentation in regard to the sale of meat. The law at present was this. If any man went into a butcher's shop and asked for meat and got a bill to say that the meat was English meat and it turned out to be foreign meat, then the seller was under penalty. But no one did ask whether the meat was English, and very few bills were taken, and therefore the law was to a large extent inoperative. It might be desirable to amend the law so that when a person buys meat the butcher should declare to the buyer, if he was not giving English meat, that the meat was foreign, and that, if he was guilty of misrepresentation under these circumstances, there should be an action or punishment by fine. He did not, however, wish to commit himself to any particular mode of dealing with the subject. If the hon. Member would be content to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where the whole question could be thoroughly examined, he should be willing to support the Second Reading; and he hoped the House of Commons would also be prepared unanimously to read the Bill a second time on that understanding.

said, the Select Committee had already collected evidence on this question, and he failed therefore to see why the time of Members of Parliament should be wasted in further inquiry. No doubt the Bill was a well-intentioned Measure, much in favour with agriculturists, but in his opinion its provisions would be inoperative and vexatious. In order to show its impracticability, he would point out that it applied not only to butchers, but to grocers, bakers, hotel-keepers and railway refreshment rooms, because in all these places meat and cheese were exposed for sale, and if all these people were compelled to exhibit in capital letters, as the Bill enacted, that they were dealers in foreign or colonial meat or cheese, the Bill would become a sign-writer's Bill. They were told that the Bill should be welcome because the administration would be cheap, but all the experience they had of the ways of local authorities tended to show that they were not working the Acts already entrusted to them in the direction of getting purity of food, and did not exert themselves to give effect to the Acts of Parliament. He thought, therefore, that if agriculturists relied upon the local authorities for the effective working of the Act they would find themselves disappointed. An inspector was to be invested with plenary powers to go into a shop and take samples without paying for them, and he was not called upon to leave a corresponding sample with the shopkeeper, so that there would be no identification possible after the moat or cheese had left the shop. Again, it was to be competent to bring a prosecution within three months. How could meat be identified three months afterwards? He was in the fullest possible sympathy with the agriculturist Members in looking forward to getting all the protection they could against unfair competition; but he objected to the Bill, not in a sense of extreme hostility, but because he thought its provisions were impracticable; he did not think it would work, and, if worked, it would be extremely vexatious to those who would have to bear the consequences of it.

agreed very much with the observations of the President of the Board of Trade, but not with his conclusions. In spite of the disclaimers of the promoters, the Bill was substantially a Measure of a Protectionist character. ["No."] Nearly all the arguments which had been advanced in support of it might just as well have been used in defence of a Measure for protecting, not domestic meat, but domestic corn. [Cheers and counter cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Parliament should, if possible, enact a Bill which would protect the purchaser against any fraud being practised upon him by way of representing that to be English meat which was, in fact, colonial meat, was one with which nobody would quarrel. They should all be glad to see a Mea- sure passed which would give additional protection against fraud. There was protection against fraud already whenever any false representation was made. The President of the Board of Trade suggested that that principle might be extended so as to lay down in future that whenever a man sold meat without giving an express stipulation as to its origin people should assume it to be home grown. He did not think silence ought to convey as much as that; but that, however, was not a provision of the Bill. That was a suggestion which, if made, ought to be made in a Bill to be introduced by the Government for the purpose. They must deal with the Bill in reference to its contents, and they found in it a number of provisions which were admitted to be unworkable. He believed that the more the Bill was examined the more it would be found that not only were the provisions unworkable, but that the result of its operation would be the very opposite of that which the agricultural Members desired. Why did he believe the Measure would not carry out the wishes of those hon. Gentlemen? It rested on the assumption that whenever the purchaser knew that meat was foreign grown he would prefer to purchase home grown meat. It was said by the promoters of the Bill that in some instances the difference between the price of foreign meat and that of home grown meat was as much as from 4½d. to l0½d. a pound. Did hon. Members believe that where a purchaser could get meat which was practically indistinguishable to his own taste from home grown meat at 4½d. a pound, whereas he would have to pay l0½d. a pound for home grown meat, he would prefer to pay the additional 6d. for the sake of having home grown meat? One had only to state the proposition to show its absurdity. Even the patriotism which animated the hon. Member for Sheffield would hardly be found equal to paying 6d. a pound extra.—[Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "It is," and laughter.]—It was perfectly clear that the only effect of the Bill would be to disparage the sale of home grown meat, and to increase the sale of foreign and colonial meat—in other words, the British agriculturist would be worse off than he was now. If the Bill would not benefit the agriculturists, was there any reason why the House should pass it? Was there any reason why the House should even refer it to a Select Committee? He considered that where they had a Bill which contained unworkable provisions, where its action would result in the damage rather than the benefit of the interests which asked for it, and where the Bill embodied principles which would lead them on to further protection, the House ought to pause before they gave the Measure its sanction.

said, that as to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that farmers were being taken in by the Measure, and that the British public would prefer foreign meat, he could only say the British farmer would be only too glad to try the experiment. At the present time thousands of pounds of foreign and colonial meat were sold as British, and that was what the promoters of the Bill vanted to prevent. They wished to prevent fraud; there was no idea of protection. Lord Playfair stated at the time he was a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that wilful misrepresentation of a gross and fraudulent character had been indulged in with regard to the sale of foreign meat, and the Government were anxious to see the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act carried out. It was a striking fact that in several countries, beginning with Belgium, every lot of meat was marked, and that with very little trouble and expense. The marking of meat was carried out in certain of the United States, in Italy, in the Netherlands, in Germany, and in Denmark, and therefore it was perfectly ridiculous to say it could not be done. The hon. Member for Devonport had said cheese could not be marked. Clause II. referred to cheese, and if it were found unmarkable, the only thing to do was to strike it out. The chief object of the Bill was that meat should be sold for what it was. If the British public liked foreign meat at 4d, or 6d. per lb let them have it. His hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading was prepared to have the Bill sent to a Select Committee, on which he would be quite ready to agree to any reasonable Amendments.

who rose amidst cries of "Divide," was surprised the House should be so anxious to come to a decision when so vital a question as that involved in this Bill was at stake. The Bill had not been fully discussed, and he, as the representative of a large consuming constituency, maintained he was entitled to put forward his views in regard to it. This was one of a series of Bills of the same description. He did not think any one or any large section of Members would have the courage to attempt to put a duty upon the foreign food supply of this country, but he was sorry to say there were many Members who were anxious to bring about that end by a different method. What was the Prison-made Goods Bill, of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir Howard Vincent), but a Bill of this description? What was the Resolution with regard to Bimetallism which they discussed last night, but one containing the principle of protection for Lancashire? What was this Bill but one to protect the meat grown in this country as against foreign imported meat? He maintained that if they accepted this Bill, they would be obliged to protect all food. They would have Bills brought in insisting on the marking of eggs, butter and cheese, and every baker in the country would be obliged to certify that his loaves were made of English wheat. There would be great difficulty in carrying out the Bill even if it were passed.

interupting the hon. Gentleman, moved "That the Question be now put.'

said that if he saw any symptoms that there was any considerable number of hon. Gentlemen prevented from expressing their opinions he would not accept the Motion; but the Debate appeared to be exhausted, and, although he regretted to interrupt the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he accepted the Motion for Closure.