resumed his speech, interrupted at midnight on. Monday, in support of his Amendment to insert in Sub-section (12) alter the words "either party," to insert the words "on special cause shown." He said that this was a question on which miners and mine-owners, employers and employés were entirely at one. He hoped it would not have been necessary for him to have moved this Amendment, nor would it have been had the Lord Advocate inserted such a clause as he promised at an earlier stage, giving effect to the wishes of the people of Scotland. He very much regretted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had seen fit to depart from that very important clause which prevented lawyers being employed in connection with these cases. The right hon. Gentleman had executed a complete volte face. That clause having now been struck out of the Bill, it became necessary for him to insist that so far justice should be done to Scotland, and so prevent the scandal which hall so long existed, of needy and adventurous lawyers threatening employers that if they did not compensate their workmen their cases would be taken to the Court of Session. He had supported this Bill right through, largely in consideration of the declaration of the Colonial Secretary, that this would not be a lawyer's employment Bill, but that its first object would be to avoid litigation. Resolutions had been passed at all the miners' meetings in Hamilton and Fife that in no case should cases be appealed to the Court of Session without due cause being shown, and not only the Miners and employers, but the highest legal luminaries in Scotland had declared in strong terms against trivial, paltry cases being taken into the Court of Session, and thereby involving in costs two or three times the amount of compensation at issue. He quoted the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk in connection with a paltry case in which a mine-owner was dragged into the Court of Session. A man, having met with a slight accident, brought an action in the Sheriff Court for £195 under the Employers' Liability Act.

invited the hon. Membcr to address himself to the question before the House, which was whether a limit should be imposed on the power of stating a case for the Superior Conrt.

said he wanted to show the vexations nature of the proceedings which might be taken under the Bill if the clause was not altered in the sense he indicated. In this case £195 was demanded, and there was an appeal to the Court to have the case tried by a jury. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, but the victory cost them £50 for expenses.

That really has nothing to do with the Amendment.

quoted the opinion of the Lord Justice Clerk to the injustice of trivial cases being taken from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. In the course of the Debates the Lord Advocate had admitted the great evils connected with this course of procedure, and promised to give effect to a remedy in the clause.

said it was exceedingly difficult for him to give any reply to most of what the hon. Member had urged without at once being ruled out of order. The hon. Member, he felt sure, would have been ruled out of order much sooner if Mr. Speaker hail been as familiar with Scottish procedure as he was with English. [Laughter.] The point to which the hon. Member had been directing his remarks was that of certain abuses consequent on the removal of cases of small value from the Sheriff Court to the Court of Session. But that would go on to-morrow just as it did to-day, even if the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried. The only point in the Amendment was whether words should be inserted qualifying the right of a person in an arbitration before the Sheriff to get a point of law stated for the determination of the Supreme Court. The only reason why he resisted the Amendment was because he thought everyone would agree that it was in the highest degree inexpedient to have in a Bill applicable alike to the two countries any differences of between them. Differences of procedure there must, of course, be; and as the House had already determined that the appeal confined to a question of law only was absolute in England, there was no reason why it should he qualified in Scotland.

said that the Amendment of the hon. Member, if adopted, would give rise to a discussion before the Sheriff as to whether or not there was a point of law involved worth taking to the Court of Appeal, and accordingly there would be an additional stage of procedure introduced. Amendment negatived.

moved, in Sub-section (12), to leave out the words "if they consider that the point involved is of general importance." Amendment agreed to.

moved to add to Sub-section (12),— "No action in which a claim is made under this Act shall be removed from the Sherin s Court to the Court of Session except in the manner provided by Section six of the Employers' Liability Act 1880." He said that there was a grave abuse in Scotland with regard to the administration of the Employers' Liability Act which was unknown in England. In both countries it was intended under the Act of 1880 that a similar procedure should be adopted—in England the County Court, in Scotland the Sheriff Court. The procedure had worked well in England, but in Scotland a "back door" had been discovered. Under the Judicature Act a method was discovered by which it was possible to remove an action simply on claim that it should be removed, and there was no discretion on the part of the Court of Session to say what was or what was not suitable to remove to the higher Court. There was a power in the higher Court to order that if the action was one which ought properly to have been discussed in the Sheriff Court, the costs should be reduced to the lower scale. A return issued a few years ago—he understood there was another in preparation—showed that in the four years 1888–91 there were in England 711 cases, of which just 27 were moved into the High Court. In Scotland, in the same period, there were 676 cases, of which 184 were removed into the High Court. In Glasgow alone, out of 371 cases, 115 were carried up to the Court of Session. The practice was one which had been spoken of in the strongest terms by the Judges of the Court of Sessions, and he imagined that every Scotch lawyer and every person who was conversant with the working of the Employers' Liability Act in Scotland, in that House and elsewhere, could hold but one opinion about it. Very strong representations had been made in the past; and at the time when the Employers' Liability Bill of the late Government was before the House, the late Home Secretary accepted Amendments which he himself put on the Paper, and which he knew met this defect by preventing cases being carried in this way into the Court of Session. Yesterday the Attorney General spoke very warmly of the low-class agents who in England got hold of unfortunate men and set to work on them simply to run up costs. Now it was a great deal worse in Scotland, for of course there was a richer field in that country. These agents got hold of men who had been hurt—they had no bowels of mercy at all—they had no desire to get compensation for the injured men, but simply to run up costs for themselves at the expense of the employer. It actually came to be a question of blackmail. Even though there might be a perfectly good defence to the case, the agent went to the employer and represented to him that it would be a great deal cheaper to settle the claim than to defend it; that to defend the case successfully would involve him in an expenditure of £200 and £300, and that it would be a great deal cheaper to compromise the matter for £100. He need hardly say that there was nothing more irritating to employers, nothing more calculated to anger them, than to be blackmailed in this way, not for the benefit of the men who were hurt, but in order that nine-tenths of the money might go into the pockets of the men who had got hold of them and ran their cases. That, he assured the House, was a matter on which there was a very strong opinion in Scotland, and which had elicited very strong representations from organised bodies. ["Hear, hear!"] There must be some way of dealing effectually with this abuse. They had dealt with various classes of actions under the Employers' Liability Act. They had, for example, cut out a number of cases—they had taken from the workman the power of using the Employers' Liability Act in those cases where he could not allege "actual personal negligence or wilful act." They had said in Sub-section B of the first Section of this Act that the employer should not be liable to pay compensation independently of the Act except in the case of such personal negligence. In that way they had altered the incidence of the Act; and, therefore, he hoped they might consider it within the scope of their present duty to amend the Act in this respect also. The proposal he had down on the Paper was limited to actions in which a claim was made under the Act. Of course it might happen that an alternative claim would be made for compensation under the Employers' Liability Act at common law; and be thought that when they were giving these additional rights they might very well take the opportunity of regulating the conduct of actions in a manner which it was perfectly certain was the intention of Parliament at the time the Employers' Liability Act was passed. Such a course, he was sure, would carry universal opinion in its favour in Scotland. ["Hear, hear!] If they did not do it now, the case would be worse than ever; there would be a tendency to carry every action into the Court of Session, because there would be more security for the man's costs. He would never find himself absolutely left in the lurch, because if he failed to establish a claim under the Employers' Liability Act, yet he would get compensation under this Act, and the agent would thus be confident of getting hold of some part of the compensation and thus covering himself in the matter of expenses. He urged that this was a most important practical point. He was certain that it was fur the good of the workman that it should be introduced, and it would do more to reconcile employers in Scotland to the Act than a great many concessions which would be really at the cost of the workman. He therefore begged to move the Amendment.

said he had admitted from the beginning the great abuse of process in connection with the Employers' Liability Act in Scotland, and he did not go back in any way from that statement. The abuse arose in this way. At the time the Employers' Liability Act of 1880 was passed, a provision was made, applying both to England and to Scotland, that the actions should be raised in the County Court and in the Sheriff's Court respectively, with powers to remove to the Higher Courts upon special conditions and on certain special terms as to expenses. The persons who had charge of that Bill at the time forgot that the term "move" did not cover another operation known in the old times as appeal for jury trial, which could be resorted to under the provisions of the 14th Section of the Judicature Act of 1825; and that accounted for the abuse to a large extent. Ho was willing to do anything he could to put that right; and accordingly the hon. Member would not think he was in sympathy with a great deal of what he had said. But he was in this matter in a position in which he confessed he saw no way out. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire approached him on this same matter, with the same object in view. They had put their heads together, and he was afraid they had been only able to draw an Amendment which the Speaker had ruled to be out of order. [Laughter.] He had no doubt that the Speaker had rightly ruled, and to his decision he, of course, paid proper deference. He confessed he was not himself without doubt whether he was ill order; but he thought at any rate he would try. [Laughter.] Now the reason that the Amendment was out of order was not, he thought, to be found in any want of skill in the hon. Member for Stirling-shire and himself. [Laughter.] He thought he had made it clear that the real thing they wanted to get rid of was the 14th Section of the Judicature Act. Now he understood the Speaker's view to be that in this Act they could not propose to amend Acts of Parliament which had to do with procedure in common-law actions. These actions were not touched in this Act; consequently no amount of sympathy or of verbal alteration of the Amendment would enable him to go to the root of the matter, because he could not go to the root of the matter without abolishinc, the 14th Section of the Judicature Act. Even the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Partick, which the Speaker had held to be in order because it began, "no action in which a claim is made under this Act shall be removed," would, he was afraid, be inoperative. He was afraid that the objection to it would be somewhat similar to the famous chapter on snakes in Ireland—"There are no snakes in Ireland." [Laughter.] What was provided in Section I. was this—where there was negligence, the party injured should have his option; he should either come under the Bill for compensation, or if he liked he might take such common law procedure as was open to him. When he took common-law procedure, he did not make a claim "under this Act," because all that the Bill said was that if it was found in the common-law action that he had mistaken his remedy, then his action should not be dismissed as it would be dismissed in the ordinary way, but he should recover damages which would not be greater than the compensation to which he was entitled under the Bill. The House. would see that it would be impossible to tell whether the action was removable or not, because there was nothing to show it. The action when brought was simply a common-law action, libelling the employer or the person for whom the employer was responsible; and it was only in the up shot, when it was found that the employer had a good defence, that its character was disclosed—and then the workman might come forward and say, "Well, I am a person who, if I had not mistaken my remedy, should have gone to the arbitrator; therefore my action must not be dismissed, and I shall have my compensation all the same." Therefore, although he had every wish to help his hon. Friend, he could scarcely accept his Amendment when he felt absolutely certain as a lawyer that it would have no effect whatever. As he had himself done his best to frame an Amendment, and had not been able to do so, he thought he must ask his hon. Friend to be content for the moment with this expression of opinion. He might also tell him this—that it was the intention of the Department presently to have a Departmental Inquiry into the working of various matters of procedure connected with the Sheriff's Court and the Court of Session; and these matters would have very early attention with a view to legislation. He could assure his hon. Friend and the House that in any form of inquiry as to the necessity for legislation this particular grievance which be had brought before the House and the country would certainly not be forgotten.

said the right hon. Gentleman's answer was of course sufficient for the present, but might he ask his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary whether he would consider the possibility of making some small change even in the present Bill; if not now, then in another place, so as to make some provision against an admitted abuse. In the meantime, with the permission of the House, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to say one word on behalf of a large section of industrial capitalists in Scotland to emphasise what the hon. Member for Partick had said as to the great need for a change in the law. The grievance was also greatly felt by the working classes, for many of the men were not acquainted with legal forms, and they were easily beguiled into forms of procedure, the effect of which they did not foresee, and the result of which was that the compensation they would otherwise obtain was frittered away and absorbed in costs. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to insert, "Sub-sections 5 and 8 of this schedule shall not apply to Scotland." Amendment agreed to.

moved an Amendment providing that awards under the Act should be excluded from the operation of the Stamp Act, 1870. He explained that unless a provision of this kind were agreed to a workman who proceeded under the Bill might have to pay as much as 35s. for stamps under the Act of 1870.

said that this was a question of detail of some interest. The idea of the Government had been that these arbitrations would be so informal that stamps would not be necessary, but it was evident, after what his bon. Friend had said, that stamp fees might be charged, and as it was the Government's desire that justice in these cases should be as free as possible, the point raised by the hon. Member certainly deserved consideration. He did not like to accept this particular proposal on the spur of the moment, but he would see whether some Amendment of the kind could not be inserted in the Bill in another place. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill to be Read the Third time upon Thursday, and to be printed.—(Bill 312.)

moved to leave out the words "Commissioners of Customs," and to insert the words "a Police Magistrate." He wished to provide that the character of the goods must be proved before a Police Magistrate. The Commissioners of Customs, he argued, might not be qualified to sift evidence and to decide as to the relative value of conflicting testimony. Difficult cases would probably arise, and with these a Police Magistrate with his legal training would be more competent to deal than the Commissioners. He thought, therefore, that it would he expedient to transfer to Police Magistrates the duties which the Bill as drawn would impose upon the Commissioners.

said that it would be most unsatisfactory to delay decisions under the Bill until a Police Magistrate could be consulted. If every case was to be argued before a Magistrate the Bill would be of little use. He thought the Commissioners who were accustomed to weigh evidence might be trusted to discharge fairly the duties imposed upon them by the Measure.

observed that the Measure might lead to at great deal of legal trouble, and that the proceedings taken under it would, sometimes be of an important character. In his opinion, the Commissioners of Customs were not qualified to decide the cases of difficulty that would arise. The supporters of the Amendment wished to improve the Bill. Question put, "That the words 'Commissioners of Customs' stand part of the Clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 198; Noes, 102.—(Division List, No. 290.)

moved to omit the words "by evidence tendered to them." There should be some definition of the evidence required. The Merchandise Marks Committee were strongly opposed to unnecessary interference with importations, and it was absolutely impossible to prevent the importation of these goods unless there was interference with the import trade of the country. The Committee should understand what the value of the evidence was to be upon which the Commissioners of Customs should take action. In his evidence before the Merchandise Marks Committee the Chairman of Customs staed that undue interference was very much affecting the shipping trade or the country. Naturally the prompt dispatch of goods to the importers was of the utmost importance to trade, and if goods were liable to be stopped at the port of landing on the information, true or false, of somebody who suspected the prison origin it would be a very serious matter indeed. The President of the Board of Trade objected to the last Amendment on the ground that inquiry by a Magistrate would greatly delay the dispatch of goods, but the laxity of this clause might lead to detention of goods without any just cause. There had been no explanation as to what was the contemplated operation of this clause. A strong reason for moving, the omission of these words was that they might obtain some definite statement from the Government as to what evidence they proposed to act upon with a view to bringing this Bill into operation.

said the hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, in his last observation, that it was the Government that had got to be satisfied.

explained that he meant the Commissioners of Customs.

said that, as the Commissioners of Customs were, by the Act, compelled to be satisfied with regard to the question before the detention took place, it must be for them to express their opinion upon the evidence which was tendered to them as to whether it was sufficient to justify them in detaining the goods, and not for the Government. The Government must object to the omission of these words.

thought a still more important question than the nature of the evidence which was to be taken as sufficient to satisfy the Commissioners, was whether the evidence was to be on oath, or was it to be mere hearsay evidence which might be supplied by any discharged servant or malicious trade rival? ["Hear, hear!"] He thought this was a matter on which they ought to have a definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman. It ought not to be left to the Commissioners to say for themselves whether they would act merely on information or whether they would require evidence such as was considered sufficient and necessary in ordinary judicial proceedings.

said he did not know whether it was worth while to make a serious attempt to amend this Bill. On the Second Reading he ventured to suggest that these words limited the power of the Commissioners, took away from them the initiative and prevented them from taking steps of their own to set the Act in operation. That was a limitation of the Act which he for one thought they should do away with. The hon. and gallant Member who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman, and who was supposed to be the begetter of this Bill put down this Amendment himself. He did not know why the hon. and gallant Gentleman had withdrawn it, but he took it that he was in favour of the Amendment, because so far as it would affect the Bill at all it would go to strengthen the Bill. During the Second Reading Debate he asked the right hon. Gentleman across the Table who was to tender this evidence, and his reply was, "The people who have got the evidence." He ventured to say that the people who had got the evidence would in 99 cases out of 100 be the last to tender it, because their knowledge would probably be a guilty knowledge. The Bill was hardly worth the attention of the House. He should support the Amendment.

said that if the Act were properly carried out it might do good. But it might be carried out mischievously by the Custom House officials, and the trade of the country considerably interfered with. He was not in favour of taking out these words because he thought they were very useful in limiting the scope of the operations of those who would be likely to interfere with the trade of the country. At the same time he thought they ought to have some guarantee that the evidence was reasonable evidence. He thought the insertion of the word "sworn" before "evidence" or of the words "on oath" after "tendered" would provide such a guarantee.

could not regard this as a trivial Measure for two reasons. In the first place they must remember that the Customs House officers, in order to ascertain when prison-made goods came into the country must examine all goods. If the Measure was to be carried out properly it would affect the whole Custom House operations, and they would have greatly to increase the staff. That was the experience in America. They had an Act of this sort there, and they found it absolutely impossible to carry it out. The second reason was that he thought the Committee which inquired into the matter omitted one important class of goods. He thought the words "on oath" would be quite acceptable and would put things right. The absolutely absurd nature of the evidence which might be tendered in connection with this matter was disclosed in the Blue-book embodying the Report of the Committee. More absurd statements sifted by the Committee it would be impossible to conceive. Ono witness declared that 2,000 men had been thrown out of employment in the Brush trade by the goods which were received from Europe, but it was proved without a perhaps or peradventure, that the number of operatives in that trade had increased 45 per cent. within 10 years, and were never more prosperous than at that moment.

The hon. Member is rather treating the matter from a Second Reading point of view. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading has been accepted by the House.

thought it was exceedingly important that the character of the evidence should be clearly stated.

said he understood the Amendment was proposed with a view to strengthening the Bill. He did not want to strengthen it, because he regarded it as a very foolish and insincere Measure. He strongly deprecated any revival of a system of Custom House oaths.

confessed Hint his own feeling with regard to this Bill was that it was purely mischievous. [Opposition cheers.] He hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman opposite would think twice before he pressed his Amendment to a division, because, in leaving out these words, they would simply give the Commissioners of Customs unrestrained discretion as to the operation of the Bill if it became an Act, and would remove the check that the Bill proposed—that there must be some evidence tendered before they could take action. One hon. Member suggested the addition of the word "sworn," but he would remind him that the Commissioners of Customs had no power to administer oaths or to cross-examine. They had better oppose the Bill in a manner more or less rational instead of doing what they could to make it more offensive and more likely to interfere with free trade than it was as proposed by the Government. He must demur to the position taken up by his right hon. Friend that this Bill would not be administered by the Government. The Commissioners of Customs were a department of the Executive Government—["hear, hear!"]—and they did all their work under the direction and control of the Treasury. If any fault were found with, the administration of this Bill on the part of the Commissioners of Customs and that fault found expression in that House, the form of expression would be by a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Treasury would have to review the action of the Commissioners. He urged the hon. Member not to press the matter to a division. If he did he should unfortunately find himself unable to support him.

thought they had some cause to complain of the only answer given by the Government up to the present, and he agreed with all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. He believed the object of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was to obtain some expression of opinion from the Government as to what they meant by these important words. They had not received that expression of opinion yet. If anyone had risen from the Government Bench in response to the appeals just made it would not have been necessary for him to have troubled the Committee. The traders of the country and the Commissioners of Customs had dealings with one another every day and it was of the greatest importance that the relations between the two should be pleasant. His hon. Friend was entitled to a better answer than the very brief reply he had received from the President of the Board of Trade. The Members on the Opposition Benches regarded the Bill as one of great importance, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman not to be too cursory towards their efforts to make the Measure a little less bad than it was.

said he had not the slightest doubt his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was correct in his definition of the relations between the, Government, the Commissioners of Customs, but the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to observe that what he said was that it was for the Commissioners of Customs and not the Government to be satisfied.

The aggrieved person can always appeal to the Treasury.

said that that might, be the case; but clearly the question was in what way the Commissioners, were to be satisfied. He had no particular fancy for the words in question, but they were inserted to satisfy the Commissioners. of Customs—["hear, hear!"]—and he certainly would not be a party to their omission without consulting the Commissioners. It was impossible for him to say what evidence the Commissioners would be satisfied with; they must judge for themselves what would satisfy them. Neither could he accept the words "on oath," as the Commissioners had no power to administer oaths in such cases.

said it was the fact that the Commissioners of Customs and Inland Revenue were bound by every order and every direction of the Treasury, and in the last resort in this matter it would be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who would have to decide whether a brush was made in a prison or not. It would be most inadvisable that this Amendment should be pressed. An enormous new duty was about to be cast on the Commissioners of Customs—namely, that of ascertaining the origin of goods. In this case the duty was much snore difficult than that which was cast upon the Prize Courts, for the Commissioners of Customs had not only to ascertain in what country goods originated but in what budding. ["Hear, hear!"] The late Lord Stowell, the President of the Prize Court, would have been appalled if he had had such a duty cast upon him. If the Commissioners were to have this duty cast upon then the more conditions that were imposed to regulate the exercise of the duty the better. As to the general question, were the House aware of the ready and easy going manner in which Commissioners were satisfied? Anything would satisfy a Commissioner if he wanted to be satisfied, and nothing would satisfy him if he did not want to be satisfied. That was the nature of a Commissioner, whether of Inland Revenue or Customs, and there had been far too many things left by statute to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of Commissioners already. The Committee ought certainly not to add to them.

said it was obvious that the Committee went discussing this Bill under most disadvantageous circumstances, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill had said the Measure was one for the administration of which he would not Ito responsible. The only Member of the Government who could tell theta what they wanted to know was not present. What they wished to ascertain was on what principle and in what way the Bill would be administered. To such information they were fairly entitled in view of the fact that the Bill would certainly interfere with the present system of freedom. of trade. As regarded the Amendment now before the Committee he joined in the appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw it. Without the words proposed to be omitted they might have all sorts of inquisitorial investigations into all goods simply on the chance of their being prison made.

said it seemed to him that the proper answer to the question why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present was that the right hon. Gentleman had too much sense to be here. [Laughter.] All the discussion upon this Amendment had proved to him, beyond the power of contest, what probably every Member of the Government knew perfectly well—namely, that the Bill could not be carried out in practice, and what was more, that it was not intended to be carried out. It was part of the whole tactical policy of the present Government.

Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman is now making a Second Reading speech. [Laughter.]

said that as it seemed to him the only sort of speech worth making at all was a Second Reading speech he would resume his seat. [Laughter.]

said he bad no intention of pressing the Amendment. He simply moved it for the purpose of eliciting information, and now he begged leave to withdraw it. Amendment negatived.

moved to leave out the words "or in part," so that the Bill should read "produced wholly in any foreign prison." Not only was this a bad Bill, it was the worst Bill that could possibly be produced. Under the Bill a whole consignment would be implicated by one prison-made brush. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yarns might be made in a prison—[laughter]—but if these were mixed with other yarns—[laughter]—the whole would have to be excluded. He was willing to omit "wholly" as well as "or in part."

believed that it would be inexpedient to accept the Amendment. Whether it be good or bad, the principle of the Bill was to prevent the importation of prison-made goods to compete with the free labour of this country. [Cheers.] According to his information, to accept this Amendment would be to lead to a larger importation of goods made in foreign prisons. ["Hear, hear!"]

desired to put a case. In Argentina bags were made in prisons. Having received a good deal of wheat from Argentina, he asked whether, under this Bill, the wheat in those bags would not have to be kept out?

Certainly not.

said this showed the singular position they were in. If the prison-made goods were allowed in one case, why not in all? If they kept out the brushes, why admit the bags?

said he came from a part of Scotland where they received many boats from Norway and Sweden, the boats being caulked with prison-made oakum. Would they have to reject the boats? They went to Scandinavia for these boats because there was so much timber there, and it would be a very serious thing for the fishing industry if the boats could not come in because they were caulked as he described. The Bill was full of defects. ["Hear, hear!]

said hon. Members might wish to defeat the Bill, but he rusted they would not proceed with these trivial Amendments such as they had just heard. The hon. Member must know that although the caulking was made in the prison, the boats were not, and they would come in as before.

said that under the Customs Consolidation Act the bags could be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. They would not destroy them, they would "otherwise dispose" them, and every one of those bags would be an acquisition to the Revenue of the United Kingdom. [Laughter.]

said if the bags were stopped and the grain put into other bags that would enormously increase the cost of delivery of the wheat.

did not believe that this Bill would in the least defend their industries. There was a great pretence, but it was not genuine. They all knew something of the competition English trades had to undergo from German schools, from industries abroad and American inventions, and, for anything he knew, all other great industries might depend for their very lives in the future on the protection afforded them by this Bill. He was very grateful to the Government that they were going to do the heroic in sins matter. But, while he congratulated the Government, he felt free to vote for an Amendment limiting the Bill to importations wholly made in foreign prisons; and he did so on this ground—that he did not think it made a straw of difference to the trade of the country whether this Bill passed or not. [Laughter.] Question put, "That the words or in part ' stand part of the clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 109. (Division List, No. 291.)

in whose name the next Amendment stood on the Paper—namely, to leave out the word "foreign"—said that that word being retained in the title of the Bill, he presumed he would not be in order in moving the Amendment. He proposed, therefore, to move to insert the words "and colonial" after "foreign." He did not think that we ought to impose on friendly nations rides and regulations which were not enforced in regard to the Colonies. He contended that they ought to exclude prison-made goods altogether, and that there was no reason why they should admit goods that were made in prison in India, Burma, or any of the colonies. He had asked for a return of prison-made goods brought from India and sold in our own or other countries, and it appeared from that return that from every part of India there was a trade of more or less importance done in prison-made goods. He begged to move his Amendment.

said he was for once in agreement in principle with the hon. Gentleman. If they were to exclude prison-made goods coming from foreign countries he did not see why they should admit them from our colonies. But the word "foreign" in this Act, as. in the original Act, included "colonial."

asked what was the section in the original Act?

said it was the 42nd Section. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at that section he would see that the word "foreign" was obviously used as denoting anything outside the United Kingdom, and the Customs had invariably acted on that view.

moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, that the words "and Indian" should be added, so that the words in the clause might be "foreign or colonial and Indian."

said he was strongly opposed to the addition of these words.

said he doubted very much whether the original Amendment was in order after the explanation which had been given.

pointed out that there was an immense amount of work done in the prisons of India and of the native States, including the making of superb carpets. If the right hon. Gentleman included India he would do India a very great injustice.

said that, in addition to the advice of the Solicitor General, he had had the advice of the solicitors to the Customs with regard to this matter, and he had been informed that the words in the Bill would include any part outside the United Kingdom. They had had a correspondence with the Indian Government on the subject, and the Indian Government stated that they had made inquiries of all the local Governments and Administrations, and that from the information at present before them they saw no ground for objecting to legislation against the importation of prison-made goods if Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable, and they added that they presumed that such a prohibition would not apply to goods not intended for sale.

said the Bill included all goods, whether for sale or riot. ["Hear, hear!"]

said it was evident from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that there was some doubt as to the interpretation of the word "foreign." He did not understand that the Amendment had been ruled to be out of order. The great difficulty which the Committee was under in dealing with this Bill was the way in which it was made to hang upon an existing Act. He could not understand why the Government should not accept the Amendment unless their object was to get the Bill through without a single Amendment.

confessed it was a new light to him that "foreign" should include "colonial," because primâ facie that would not be the case. [" Hear, hear !"] The position of Indian prison-made goods was absolutely different to that of any other prison-made goods which they were considering. The goods made in the prisons of India were not of low-class workmanship, but, on the contrary, of the very highest class. Some of the finest Burmese carving was executed in the gaol of Benares, some of the finest Indian carpets were made in the gaols of Lahore and Benares, some of the finest furniture was made in the gaol of Agra, some of the best work in copper and brass in the gaols of Rangoon and Mandalay. The Government of India assumed that the Bill only applied to goods that were sent to this country for sale, but he did not think the Bill did anything of the kind. [" Hear, hear !"] The actual things that were sent from the gaols to be sold in England were very few, but almost every travelier in India bought some of these prison products and brought them home with him. What the Bill was intended to do was surely to prevent articles being introduced into this country which would compete with the struggling industries of this country. [" Hear, hear "] He hoped that, whatever might be the opinion of the Government in regard to European prison-made goods, they would at least exclude Indian goods of that character from the purview of the Bill.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He thought the Government should have obtained from some one connected with the Customs some information as to how the Bill was going to be enforced in the case of prison-made goods from India.

said the President of the Board of Trade had raised a new and a large point. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government of India had no objection to the Bill, provided there was no prohibition of the importation of prison-made goods that were not for sale. He believed that was an entirely new interpretation of the Customs Act. Under that Act there was nothing about selling. It instructed the Customs authorities to seize and destroy certain goods; and the object of the Bill was that there should be added to the table of restriction the goods described in the Bill. Prison-made goods from India would, therefore, be stopped, even though they were not intended for sale.

said it was perfectly true that the 46th Section of the Customs Act would apply to those goods, but at the same time it was the mischief of the importation of prison-made goods for sale against which the Bill was levelled.

thought the Committee were placed in a rather worse position by that explanation than they were before. They were now told that if this Bill were passed, the goods, even though not for sale, would not be allowed to come in This showed the difficulty of dealing with a subject which had been placed hurriedly before them.

I do not see how that point can be raised by the Amendment before the Committee. It will require a separate Amendment. Amendment to the Amendment withdrawn.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

objected.

, speaking on the Amendment, said the Indian Government were under the impression that their goods would not be prohibited if they were not for sale; but it was not clear whether that would be so or not.

I have just pointed out that that question really does not arise on this Amendment. It will require a separate Amendment.

then asked whether the Government had made any inquiries as to the views of the Colonies in regard to the Bill; and whether they had got a similar answer to that from India, that if the Bill did not apply to prison-made goods which were not for sale the Colonial Governments would not object.

said the Committee were in a rather bewildering position; and as they had got a declaration from the Government that the word "foreign" applied to all goods made outside the Kingdom, he thought the hon. Member for West Islington should be allowed to withdraw his Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

, in order to make it clear that the Bill was not intended to prohibit the importation of prison-made goods not for sale, moved to insert after "goods" the words, "intended for sale which are."

We have passed three lines beyond that point. [Laughter.]

moved after "prohibiting," to add—

"provided that this prohibition shall not extend to any ropes, mats, cases, or other packages used in the conveyance of goods."

said the words were absolutely unnecessary. Ropes, mats, cases, or other packages could not be considered as anything but the accessories of the goods imported, and would not be affected by the Act.

proposed to move to add to the Amendment the words, "nor to any goods not intended for sale."

That would be a very inconvenient form in which to raise the question in dispute. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to add after "penitentiary" the words, "and to have been sold there from at less than the current market price." Those interested in prison reforms had during the last few years come to be more unanimous, perhaps, on this than on any other point, that if any real change was to be made in our prisons there must be some amelioration of the conditions under which the training of prisoners took place. At present prisoners were confined to work which had no interest for them, and which trained neither mind nor body. It would be a great advantage if they could be taught some productive trade.

I rise to order. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the mode of administering prisons in England?

I cannot say that the hon. and learned Member is out of order. ["Hear, hear!"]

I am sorry I have not been able to get an idea into the head of the hon. Member. [Cheers and cries of "Withdraw!"]

said that that remark was not in order.

apologised for what he had said in the heat of the moment. The evidence before the Prisons Commission showed that the trade unions did not object to prison-made goods, if they were not sold under the market price. If the Bill passed in its present form it, would deal a heavy blow at the useful employment of prison labour.

said that there was not the least objection to foreign countries employing prisoners in labour which would not degrade them. All the Government sought to prevent wits foreign prison-made goods being sent to this country. Let foreign Governments sell those goods in their own countries. [Cheers.] English prison-made goods could hardly be said to exist in the markets. They had of late been very greatly reduced, in view of the evil which was properly complained of.

said that there was a large and increasing sale of these to the Government Departments. It was a recommendation of the Prisons Commission that the production should be stimulated provided that the goods were nut put on the market at less than the market value.

said that there would, no doubt, be difficulties in the administration of this Bill; but what possibility was there of carrying out the provisions of the Amendment? How could the Customs find out whether the exporter of prison-made goods had paid the market value for them?

said that, as he understood, this was a small Bill for the protection of English manufacturers. The arguments in its favour amounted to this, that the present competition was unfair. Why was it considered to be unfair? Because owing to the position of the workers in prisons they were able to undersell the goods made by the working classes. It was in fact the competition of subsidised labour. ["Hear, hear!"] If the Bill were a workable Bill he had every sympathy with its objects; but if the Committee rejected this Amendment and insisted upon protecting workers in certain small and limited trades, he should ask why did the House leave the Irish butter manufacturers unprotected against the competition of bounty fed butter from abroad? ["Hear, hear!"] If the House passed this Bill they would be met with the demand which on no logical ground could they resist, that they should extend to the agricultural producers of Ireland the same justice and protection as this Bill was intended to accord to some English industries. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he could not support this Amendment as there wits an economic heresy at the bottom of it; and it was a great pity that the party to which he belonged had not sufficiently denounced that heresy in earlier days. The heresy was that this country could possibly be injured by receiving things from abroad at a cheap rate. The fact was that goods were paid for by goods, and the cheaper foreign goods were, the more had to be given to us in exchange. If we allowed our own prison-made goods to come into competition in the market, then an injury might be clone; but if a foreign Government were foolish enough to give us cheap goods by means of prison labour or a bounty, why should we refuse the gifts that the gods sent?

said that the hon. Member's speech was really in favour of the Amendment. If the President of the Board of Trade adhered to what he said on the introduction of the Bill—that this Bill was introduced in the interest of the working classes—he would accept the Amendment. The Amendment simply proposed that the Bill should only affect goods sold under the market price. The Bill afforded no protection for British labour where the price was less than the current market price. Question put, "That those words be there added." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 166.—(Division List, No. 292.)

moved an Amendment providing that the prohibition referred to should "not extend to any goods not intended for sale." He remarked that this was the understanding on which the Indian Government approved of the scheme, and it seemed to him to be a very necessary and reasonable Condition in regard to the working of the Bill. It was one thing to import in a wholesale manner goods intended for sale in this country, but an entirely different thing for tourists or persons travelling about the world to have in their box of curios a few articles which had been made in gaols. When once a thing had been bought for private use and had become the property of an individual the mischief aimed at by the Bill ceased, but the mischiefs of undue inquisitiveness and interference with personal freedom might come in.

expressed his sympathy with the object of the Amendment. It was not intended that the Bill should interfere with the private collector, and if it did words should be inserted to prevent it. But he could not at a moment's notice accept the words of the Amendment. He would have to consider them to see that they only did what was desired and no more. Between now and the future stage of the Bill he would carefully consider what words could be inserted which would best carry out the object of the Amendment.

Will there be another stage of the Bill?

Certainly.

said that the President of the Board of Trade had made an important admission of the standpoint from which he had been acting all through. He had promised to accept an Amendment which would deal a subtle blow at British trade. Any dealer would only have to go across the Channel and erect, an emporium for foreign prison-made goods and send them to pare lasers in England, and the Customs could not interfere with them at all. What difference could it make to the British working man if the goods came into this country although they were wit sold by British tradesmen? Why should the right hon. Gentleman have a feeling against British tradesmen in favour of foreign tradesmen? He had admitted that if one went to Belgium and bought anything made in prison for his, own use the Custom House officers would let them in.

said he had admitted nothing of the kind, and that was the reason why he had refused to accept the words of the Amendment. All he had sail was that if people coming from. abroad brought home a piece of old carpet, its importation in those circumstances ought not to be prohibited.

, continuing, said the right hon. Gentleman could not know anything about the carpets to which he was alluding, otherwise he would not describe them as old carpets. How could an old carpet he made in a, prison to-day? [Laughter.] The Amendment had been accepted in principle, and that would enable those goods to be brought into every household in England so long as they were not bought from British tradesmen. And once those goods were in, how were they to prevent their being dealt in?

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

protested against this way of carrying· on legislation. Committee was the proper stage for consideration, of such points as those raised by the hon. Member, and to adjourn the entire consideration of the matter on the promise that it would be brought up on Report was au improper method of conducting business in this House.

could not see how the Custom House officers were to know When they were to enforce the prohibition and when not. The question was surrounded with difficulty, and he should like to hear that the House would have an opportunity of dealing with it on the Report stage.

commended to the right hon. Gentleman the precedent adopted by the Colonial Secretary, and that was to accept an Amendment reserving the right to take it out on the Report stage.

advised the right hon. Gentleman, before he made up his mind as to the precise words to be introduced, to have an interview with one of the Liverpool Custom House officers, when he would find there would be great difficulty in administering the Act. There was a time when America used to put on a tariff of from 20 to 40 per cent. against English boots and clothing. This, instead of stopping the injury to the New York tailoring trade, only brought into existence a class of agents who travelled regularly from Liverpool to America bringing over 50 pairs of trousers, 50 dress coats, no end of waistcoats, and pot hats galore, and protested to the Custom House at New York that they were for their personal use. Thus the law was evaded and a systematic traffic set up. So it would happen under the proviso in question.