I confess I really cannot make out from the data which are given to the public by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what we are to pay to the company, nor do I believe the right hon. Gentleman, able financier as we know him to be, would be able to do so himself simply upon the papers which we have before us. Under ordinary circumstances, if the House is to exercise any control, the matter would be referred to a Select Committee, and that Select Committee would hear evidence on the subject. It is exceedingly difficult for us to form any opinion (and I say it with all respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer) upon the general speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman, and upon the criticisms thereof which have been advanced. The only fact that is absolutely clear to me is that we have got to pay the sum of £865,000. That is admitted. How, in the name of wonder, is this sum made up? We have first the balance-sheet, and then the administrative expenditure. The first balance-sheet is that of 1884. There we find that the capital of the company amounted to 195,000 shares, which were given to some old company bought out by this company. A little lower down I see £115,000 expended for the goodwill of this old company in excess of this £195,000 worth of shares. The only shares that I can see sold for cash are I shares on which £2 was paid up, and that amounts to £133,350. Then we get into further difficulties when we come to the loan. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that a portion of the money we have to pay is for a loan of £250,000 which the company was authorised to raise, and which was charged on the customs duties. In 1888 this loan is stated at £133,000 and the interest at £6,050; but the greater part of the loan was actually held by the company, and was unissued. It has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the shareholders were given 30 per cent. on their holdings as a sort of bonus.

Not as a bonus.

Well, 30 per cent. was given to them, whether we call it a bonus or anything else, and, as I understand, that 30 per cent. went into the pockets of the shareholders. In no case was it expended on the service of the company. When you get to the balance sheets you find quite a different story. The loan has sprung up to £250,000, and the interest is put down in the revenue account as £12,500 per annum. I would like to know how much of that loan was really issued to the public, and what was done with it. Was it expended on the company or was it not? Certainly the 30 per cent. could not have been.

Shall I explain now, or would the hon. Member prefer to complete his speech?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to explain now he can, but as I have one or two more points perhaps it would be more convenient that I should finish my speech. So much for the capital of the company. One of the things we buy from this company is an assorted cargo of treaties, which they have made with divers chiefs and others in the interior of Africa. I should like to know what was paid for these treaties. I presume something was paid, either in the form of cotton goods or gin, but certainly in regard to about fifty of them absolutely nothing; was paid for them. The company have not bought them in any sort of way, but under them they assumed certain responsibilities, and, as I understand, this country has agreed to pay a certain sum of money per annum. The company have bought none of these treaties, and, therefore, they have nothing to sell. Then there is the question of the purchase of land. It appears that certain lands on the Niger are to be bought from the company. Are we to understand that the company has all the lands on the Niger? Are we to suppose that they have acquired a species of commercial monopoly and can prevent others from having landing and trading places on the Niger? That seems to me absolutely impossible. I do not suppose that these chiefs sold the whole of their lands. They gave the company, in all probability, a specific plot of land on which to build their trading station, but it cannot be supposed that the company own these lands in the sense that a person owns property in this country. If they do, how was it acquired? What did they pay for it? There is another point. The Government have agreed to pay to the company 50 per cent. of all the royalties they may exact—and these really are the speculative chances of the whole thing—in addition to the sum they pay down. Having done all this, and having given the company all these things, what do we get for the money we are paying? It appears to me we leave the company all the advantages it has ever possessed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that others will be able to trade there under the new order of things. But has the right hon. Gentleman himself read the charter? Is he aware that Clause 14 specifically provides that the company shall have no sort of trade monopoly? Anybody may go there and trade with them wider equal conditions. We leave the company the right to trade there, and we do not deprive them of any sort of monopoly. They never had a monopoly, and consequently they cannot sell one. We also give them, so far as I see, the pick of the landing places on the Niger, while we undertake the administration of the country and agree to pay all the administrative expenditure. Why, therefore, We should be called upon to pay any money at all I confess I do not Know. I find on looking at the balance-sheet for 1898, the company expended in subsidies and on matters of administration £15,993. They will not have to pay that in the future. They paid for the constabulary force £41,137, and for steamers, less the amount charged against the company for freight on their own goods, £29,527. They further paid £21,000 for salaries and £7,000 for home administration. On the other side—the revenue—the imports of the Royal Niger Company were £62,794. What does that mean? Does it mean the duties they collected on these imports? The exports were £48,981. Does that mean duty also?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

They received then this amount in duties as against their expenditure. I presume we shall have those duties in the future. But is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that we shall he able to administer the country and pay all these subsidies and constabulary and other expenses out of the total of £113,000? We know perfectly well that the cost will be greater to the imperial Government than it is to the company, which wants to earn as much dividend as it possibly can, and so "skimps" its administrative expenditure as much as possible. We ought to have some explanation of all these matters, for with the information now before us we are not in a position to say whether the sum proposed to be paid to the company is fair or unfair. It seems to me, on such data as we have, to be an excessive sum. Not only have the shareholders already received an equivalent to a bonus of 30 percent. on their holdings, but they are to receive an extra 20 per cent., as the shares are to be bought at a premium of 20 per cent. I am not going to raise the point for the moment of the expediency of taking over this large territory, with its 30,000,000 of human beings, for whose good government we are making ourselves responsible. We are taking over these responsibilities because a chatter was granted to certain persons to trade in this country, and our Government agreed to treaties which the company made with certain chiefs in the interior of Africa. We have, solely in consequence of this, to take over as part and parcel of the British Empire a huge district in Western Central Africa coterminous with the French frontier there, and which, in my opinion, we had far better have left alone. I hope that this will be an object-lesson to the House and to all future Governments not to grant these charters. I do not think this particular charter is the sort of speculative, disreputable, gambling affair which is the case with that of the British South Africa Company, but still we are forced into taking all these responsibilities upon ourselves simply because we have granted a commercial charter to certain persons to trade in these districts.

I must protest against the manner in which this Bill has been brought on. Wednesday is most inconvenient for many hon. Members, and I need only mention the case of the hon. Member for East Mayo, who has taken a very keen interest in this measure, and is opposed to it both in principle and in regard to its details. At this moment he is engaged on a Grand Committee upstairs, and I daresay other hon. Members are in the same position. I came down here at twelve o'clock, but was called out by some of the many visitors with whose presence we are favoured at this time of the year, and when I returned I found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the Bill simply by raising his hat. If it had not been for the vigilance of the I hon. Member for Northampton it would have gone through its Second Reading without a single word of discussion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has. dealt fairly with the House in bringing forward the Bill in that way. The matter is made worse by the circumstance that on the previous occasion when the question was before us stress Was laid upon the fact that that was practically only a formal stage, and as a matter of fact a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman declared that while he would not vote on the subsequent stages of the Bill he felt entitled to do so then as that was a purely formal stage. The result is that this is practically the first opportunity since the formal stage the House has had of discussing this question, and although the Bill involves nearly a million of money, and the acquisition of a large space of territory, and nearly 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of new subjects of the Crown, it is brought on at twelve o'clock on a Wednesday sitting at the fag end of the session. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that this chartered company has some favourable points of contrast with other chartered companies; and I believe it has been free mainly from stock-jobbing operations. At the same time I think I am entitled to make these observations. Some people are noted for their virtues and some attain fame by their vices. I believe that the best argument in favour of this Bill is to be found in some of the acts which can be laid to the charge of the company. I have asked several of my friends to speak in the discussion of the details of this measure, but the invariable answer has been that they are so relieved at the idea of the country being emancipated from the dangers and the practically unlimited responsibilities connected with a chartered company that they are not going to look into the details at all. I interpret that as meaning that the Royal Niger Company has done things which have been so dangerous to the welfare and safety of the country that people are willing to get rid of it at any cost. The right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech gave, as one of the reasons why this company ought to be bought out, that it had brought the country to the brink of war with another nation. A company which brings two great nations to the brink of war is a company which we may very well be glad to be rid of, but that does not afford what I regard as a rational ground for giving one penny more to this company than it is entitled to.

The hon. Member is not quoting me fairly. I did not say the company was to blame; in the action which it took the company was only defending its rights against others.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is a desirable position that a company in defending its rights—I do not think it was defending its rights, as a matter of fact—but does he think it right for a company to be in a position to imperil the peace of two great empires, in defence of its pounds shillings and pence? That seems to me to be a very extraordinary position to take up. As a matter of fact, was the company defending its rights? I think the company was on many occasions exceeding its rights, and if it were not for the natural inclination of people to back up their own countrymen, this company would have been condemned for many of its proceedings. By the very terms of its charter the company was forbidden to exercise any monopoly. That very monopoly on which it relied, and in consequence of which it got into disputes in many cases, was in direct contradiction of the terms of the charter, because the fourteenth clause of the charter is in these words (the heading is "Prohibition of Monopoly"): "Nothing in this charter shall be deemed to authorise the company to set up or grant any monopoly of trade; and subject only"—and so on—"but foreigners alike with British subjects will be subject to administrative dispositions in the interests of commerce and of order." It clearly shows that this company had no right whatever to a monopoly in these regions. My hon. friend has alluded to the treaties. I would just like the House to look at one or two of those treaties, and see how far they are in conformity with the terms of the charter; but before I come to that point I should like to deal with the relations of this company to the Treaty of Berlin. The heading of the clause is "Conformity to Treaties," and the words are:

"The company shall be subject to, and shall perform, observe, and undertake all the obligations and stipulations relating to the River Niger, its affluents, branches, and outlets, or the territories neighbouring thereto, or situate in Africa, contained in and undertaken by ourselves under the general Act of the Conference of the Great Powers at Berlin, dated the 26th February, 1885, or in any other treaty, agreement, or arrangement between ourselves and any other State or Power, whether already made or hereafter to be made."

So that apart from the fact that this company is directly prohibited from establishing a monopoly, it is also under the Treaty of Berlin, which at least agreed upon the free navigation of the Niger River. Now let us look at the treaties, those treaties for which the company paid very little, if anything at all, and which we are now to acquire from them at a large price. If the House will look at pages 22 and 23 of this White Book they will find specimens of these treaties. This is Form No. 1:

"The National African Company, Limited, will reserve to themselves the right of excluding foreign settlers."

In Form No. 2 we find these words:

"The said company reserve to themselves the right of excluding foreign settlers other than those now settled in the country."

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, can the proviso in these treaties stand as in accord with the provision of the charter which prevents them having any monopoly, and with the terms of the Treaty of Berlin? You go through all these treaties, and almost the main provision is the exclusion of foreigners from these territories. The consideration, by the way, is almost always carefully left out, so that We do not know what shape it took or to what it amounted. I do not say that the Niger Company, in defending what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pleased to call its rights against others, was really going beyond the terms of its own charter, and giving just ground for complaint to other countries, but the best commentary on the manner in which it has carried out its work is afforded in these Papers. It would be a mistake to suppose that France is the only country that has had any reason to complain. Englishmen have had nearly as much reason to complain as Frenchmen, because the whole tendency of this company has been to destroy anything like competition with its operations in this district. There are some remarkable figures on the last page of this White Book, in the table of the revenue of the Niger Company, "Imports: Royal Niger Company, £62,794; others, £260." So that of the £63,054, all the rivals together of the Niger Company got exactly £260. "Exports: Royal Niger Company,£48,981"; no other person got any money whatsoever. On licenses, the Royal Niger Company got £480, while all its rivals got, under "Miscellaneous," was £790. It is clear from that that the Niger Company, by, as I hold, an entirely unjust extension of its rights, succeeded in destroying all competition whatsoever, not only of Frenchmen, but of all other nationalities also. That is the reason why I think I am justified in the statement that a great deal of the facility with which this Bill will be passed through the House without any investigation of its details is due to the sense of relief that the Niger Company is to be deprived of the opportunity of embroiling us with foreign Governments, and of practically killing all trade competition. I must confess that I am quite unable to reconcile the statement of the Government with the figures before me. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was asked the other day whether this £443,000 was all money paid up, or whether, to use a popular term, the stock was in any way "watered," and the answer was that it was all paid up money. I find in one of the financial papers a statement made—I do not know whether correctly or incorrectly—that the whole stun paid up by the shareholders was £168,490. If that is so, I think they are making a very good bargain indeed under the terms of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. friend has pointed out how the £443,000 is made up. I will just call the attention of the House again to these figures, because they are very remarkable. "To capital authorised, 100,000 shares of £10 each equals £1,000,000, of which 66,675 shares have been issued, and £2 per share paid, equals £133,350." I understand there have been some more paid shares, which bring the sum up to that mentioned by the financial paper to which I referred, viz., £168,490. In addition to that, the company, claims 31,000 shares fully paid, making £310,000. As far as can understand the accounts, these shares were given in return for the assets of two companies bought up by the Niger Company. Shares given for assets are very different from shares given for money down, and it is quite an abuse of financial terms to describe shares as money paid when they represent simply paper given to rival companies for their assets. What Was the value of those assets? Everybody knows that. "assets" is a Very loose and elastic term, and I think the matter is one we ought to inquire into. I maintain the opinion I formed with regard to this proposal when it was first presented. I believe the company is being over-paid. I believe you are buying the costly and losing part of the company's concern, leaving to it practically intact the trading part, awl finally I object to this Bill because I believe it to be a most dangerous precedent for this House to adopt.

I had occasion to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the, steamers that are to be taken over by the Government, and he referred me to the schedules. I would now like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions with reference to the huge amount which is to be paid for the vessels named in the schedules. In the first schedule there is a hulk at £1,100, another at £1,915, a steam launch at £800, another at £550, and boats at £100, making a total of £4,495 in the first schedule. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman are these old hulks of wood or iron? If they are of wood they are pretty well rotten, and if of iron pretty well rusted. In the second schedule I find £6,900 for two hulks, which are vessels without rigging or engines, and have to be towed about. The only vessel which is being taken over is the "Liberty," valued at £9,500. Then there are five launches for which the large sum of £3,150 is to be paid, and two little pinnaces at £350 making a total of £24,395 in the two schedules to be given for four old hulks, seven steam launches, two pinnaces, and one steamer. I should like also to know whether the Government is taking over the boats that stand on Lloyd's list in the name of the Royal Niger Company. I find in Lloyd's, seven or eight steamers, all a pretty large size, owned by the company. Are these steamers being taken over? If not, the company has retained all its good steamers and handed over the old hulks. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give us a complete explanation regarding this matter. Are the company's steamers standing in Lloyd's list to be taken over?

No, Sir.

Then we are practically paying £24,395 for one steamer. The rest are hulks and pinnaces. If we are not taking over the other steamers in Lloyd's list, the company is going to continue its business with the assistance of its most valuable steamers. I think we ought to have an explanation of the payment of £24,395 for these old hulks.

I should like to ask a few questions re- garding this Bill as it affects the British Exchequer itself. The upshot of the matter as far as we are concerned is that we are adding to the debt of this country the sum of £820,000, which is to be paid off by terminable annuities in thirty years. It may be paid off in a different Way to that in which the National Debt is paid off, but it is an additional burden on the country all the same. It is another instance of the manner in which the present Government is adding to the debt of the country. In addition to the £820,000 there is a further sum of £45,000, and I should like to know whether a Supplementary Estimate is to be passed for that amount during the present session.

Yes, Sir.

Then that means that we are to have an addition of £45,000 to the Estimate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his speech that this amount would be debited against these territories, and he added that he believed that before many years it would he paid off I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far Clause 3 in any way makes this sum a charge upon the revenue of these territories. I do not know what the precedent for that clause may be, but, as I read it, it does not make it clear at all that this sum will he a debit on these territories. What it comes to is that when the territories are amalgamated and the Budget is made up, the Treasury is to examine the accounts presented by the Colonial Office, and in so far as the receipts from the territories administered by the company at the passing of this Act are in excess of the necessary expenses of the administration of those territories, that excess shall be paid into the Exchequer, but with this exception, that the Colonial Office may say "Oh, no. We want this money for the improvement of those territories," and the Treasury is to be empowered to agree. There may therefore be an administrative profit in a portion of this United Nigeria now administered by the Niger Company, and the Treasury may say "It ought to be paid into the British Exchequer in payment of the debt," but the Colonial Office may step in and say, "No; we want this money for the development of these territories."

With the consent of the Treasury.

Certainly. But is that placing a charge on the revenue of these territories? This clause gives no security to the British taxpayer that this money is to be made a real charge on the revenue of these territories. I think if it were meant to he a reality the profits should extend over the whole of United Nigeria. I hardly think the clause as it stands carries out the intention of the Government, because it only applies to the territories administered by the company "at the passing of this Act." That would not include Lagos and other territories. I should also wish for some information with regard to the future administration of these territories. Really, when we are asked to consent to pay £800,000 to buy up the Niger Company, I think we ought to have some kind of assurance from the Government not only that we are getting our money's worth, but that we are to have some substantial improvement in the administration and government of the colony. We have only got some very meagre information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the future administration of these territories.

As I stated the other day, the future administration of these territories will be with the Colonial Office. I merely stated generally the lines upon which the administration would be conducted, and I referred hon. Members to my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary for further details on the matter.

We hope we may get them. As this is a very substantial and important part of the considerations on which we reject or accept the Bill, we have a right to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some fuller statement than we already possess. The Colonial Secretary stated that he would not take part in any further Divisions on this Bill owing to the fact that he was a shareholder in the company, but that does not get rid of his responsibility. As Colonial Secretary it is his duty to come forward and state to the House the mode in which these territories are to be administered in the future, in order that we may be able to judge whether, if we do pay this large sum of money to buy out the company, we are going to get value for it—if not in money, then in the shape of better administration and better government. That has a practical bearing on some of the details in the proposals of the Niger Company. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted me, I was going to quote what he told us some time ago. He said that,

"Throughout these territories, all inland customs frontiers will be abolished, and there will be perfect freedom of trade to all alike. There will be a common arms law throughout the whole region, and a common tariff, except that the importation of trade spirits into Northern Nigeria will be prohibited, as now. For the present, and until a healthy site for a capital can be selected and better means of communication provided, the territories will be divided for administrative purposes into three divisions, all under the control of the Colonial Office. One division will be Lagos, with its present area; the next will be Southern Nigeria, composed of the Niger Coast Protectorate and part of the Niger Company's territories, nearly half as large again as now; and the third, Northern Nigeria, composed of the rest of the company's territories."

Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, as he has already said, that

"for any detailed statement of future arrangements for the government of our territories in this part of the world, I think I ought to refer hon. Members to my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted, therefore, that it was right and proper for Members to ask that some information should be given as to what was to be the future government and administration of these territories. I take it that they have to be amalgamated into one large territory, under one responsible Government, which is to consist of three divisions. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in Northern Nigeria the prohibition of the importation of spirits which at present exists will still be continued. I ask him how that is to be done in the future, for he has told us that the part of the Niger Territory along the coast adjoining the Niger Coast Protectorate is to be amalgamated with the third division, and there is to be one tariff law, and all customs limitations are to be broken down. If you break down all customs regulations between Northern Nigeria and the rest of the Niger Territory, how are you going to continue the prohibition of the importation of alcoholic spirits into Northern Nigeria? If you break down the cus- toms boundary, how on earth will it be possible to keep spirits out of Northern Nigeria? That shows how necessary it is that we should know something of the details of the regulations for the government and administration of these territories. How was it done in the past? It was done in this way: the Niger Company had control over a certain part of the Guiana from the mouth of the Niger River, which is the chief entrance into this vast tract of territory, and they therefore could and did enforce the prohibition of the importation of spirits into Northern Nigeria. It is to the credit of the company, and it distinguishes them from any other trading enterprises in Africa, that all through their career they have taken a very strong and honest line about the importation of spirits. We hear very much about the complaints of other traders, but we must remember that that trade jealousy was largely due to the Niger Company preventing these traders pouring spirits into that part of Africa. The White Paper in the hands of hon. Members tells us the imports and the amount of revenue which the company derived from these imports, but it does not tell us the rates of duty imposed, and particularly the rate of duty on spirits. My recollection is that when some Papers were presented to Parliament two years ago the rate of duties on spirits imposed by the Niger Company was three or four times as great as that imposed by the Territory of Lagos and by the Niger Coast Protectorate. Under this Bill you are going to equalise the tariff all over these territories, and to have the comparatively low rate of 3s. per gallon on spirits. Now, what will infallibly ensue will be an immediate rush of the importation of spirits into the mouth of the Niger River, from which traders would get an entry into the interior of Africa, which has been hitherto practically closed, and you will be unable to maintain that prohibition of the importation of spirits into Northern Nigeria which has been so profitable and commendable a feature in the policy of the company in the past. The Government ought to realise the fact that the Niger Company has been a great agency in keeping out the importation of spirits from that part of Africa. It was only yesterday that the Colonial Secretary in answer to the hon. Member for Flintshire stated that in 1898 the number of gallons of spirits imported was—into Lagos, 1,366,794 gallons; into the Niger Coast Protectorate, 1,164,108 gallons; and into the Niger Company's territories at the mouth of the Niger, 176,068 gallons. Therefore you have imported into the Niger Company's territories only about a tenth of the amount of spirits imported into Central Africa through Lagos, or through the Niger Coast Protectorate; or one twentieth of the amount that goes through the ports of both these territories combined. If you are going to abolish all customs restrictions, I cannot see how it is possible that we shall not have a largely increased amount of importation of spirits into that part of Africa, and how it will be possible for the Government to maintain the prohibition of the importation of spirits, which is one of the inducements held out to us to pass this Bill.

There is one provision in the Bill that does not appear to me to be very well advised, and that is that the amount to be paid to the Niger Company is to come out of the Consolidated Fund, and to be made a charge against the territory. I have lived in many colonies in various stages of development, and I hold that this proposal contains the seed of future trouble, and for this reason, that when Local Government is established, as no doubt it will be in time, a ready grievance will be furnished to agitators, who will say, "We are asked to pay tribute to the mother country." The reason for the advance of this money will be forgotten; all that will be remembered will be that so much money is to come out of the revenues of the country, and to be paid over to the Imperial Treasury. It would be very much better if the colony were at once to create a debt of its own, due to private individuals, and not to the Imperial Exchequer. If that were done, no complaint could be made against the mother country appearing as a creditor. I cannot imagine anything worse than the mother country being a creditor of any of our dependencies. Of course, I quite understand that the colony of Nigeria could not borrow at the rate that the mother country can borrow, but with a guarantee given by the mother country, I can see no difficulty in the debt charge being made no greater than if the mother country raised the money; and there would in future be no occasion for charges of oppression from Downing Street, or from the Government at home.

There is general agreement, I think, with the principle contained in the Bill, namely, that it is an advantage to the country that this Chartered Company should cease to act as an administrative body, and that the Crown should take control over Nigeria. That is perfectly clear; for we have the responsibility of the international relations with France and Germany, and we ought to have the power to enforce our government completely in regard to that district. Then, the case for many years against the Niger Company was that it had a monopoly of trade, and it is about time that that was brought to an end. On the general political principle, therefore, and on the general commercial principle, I am bound to say that there is no possible objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, and I, for one, will give it my support. But I think that there seems to be a good deal of force in some of the criticisms on points of detail. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire pointed out that the validity and goodness of the bargain with the Niger Company depends largely on what we propose to do with the country when we have obtained it. He has pointed out that under the very unfortunate circumstance of the Secretary of State, who is chiefly responsible for this arrangement, being hampered in taking any part in regard to these matters, we are left in total ignorance as to what is proposed. I think the point raised by my hon. friend is a very good one indeed, and one on which we are entitled to information—I allude especially to what he said about the liquor traffic. As things stand, we are actually placing ourselves in this position—that we shall have a greater trade in spirits throughout Nigeria under the Imperial Government than we had under the auspices of the Chattered Company. There is also another point. The Chartered Company, greatly to their credit, have entirely abolished and prohibited the status of slavery. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will inform the House whether the other parts of Nigeria will be brought up to the standard of the Chartered Company in that respect Though I am not opposing the Second Reading, I think we are entitled to thoroughly scrutinise the financial proposals of the Government, and to ask for further information than that contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Papers before us. I have studied these Papers as carefully as I can, and I am bound to say that they throw very little further light on the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no doubt that there is a complete explanation on the part of the Treasury as to the terms on which they propose to purchase this company. The Treasury can very seldom be accused of excess of generosity, but as far as the Papers go, I am bound to say that the sum proposed for the purchase of the company appears to me somewhat excessive. What, practically, is that sum? The company are going to have their debt paid, and in addition they are to get a bonus of £50,000; and they are going to have the whole of their capital re-paid, and in addition £70,000. You are going to relieve them of their administrative expenditure, which has landed them into a deficit during the last twelve years of £24,000 a year, and they are going to retain the whole of their trade profits, and we are to take over from them that part of their business which has involved them in a loss. I do not say that these terms may not be proper terms, but I think they require some justification before we commit ourselves to them. I entirely agree that we ought to treat the Chartered Company with liberality and even generosity, because it has, on the whole, dealt properly with such important questions as slavery and the liquor traffic, and really deserves generous consideration on the part of this country when we come to buy it over. But that does not in any way justify us in abstaining from scrutinising the terms proposed by the Government, so that we may not buy a pig in a poke. The proposal of the Government is, as I understand it, substantially this: the total capital assets of the company amount to £750,000, and they are to receive the sum of £860,000, so that they practically get a bonus of £100,000. The assets are divided into four items. The first item is £115,000 for certain boats, stores, etc., which the Government are taking over. I think it is quite right that when the Government take over the administration of the company they should buy from the company that stock which has to do with the administration of the company. I am quite incapable of saying whether £115,000 is or is not a fair sum. My hon. friend the member for Gateshead pointed out one or two items, which may or may not be excessive; but this is a matter for examination on the part of the Treasury. For my part, I think the sum of £115,000 is, on the whole, a fair sum. The next item is a debt of £250,000, for which the holders are going to receive £300,000. This requires some explanation. According to the balance-sheet, £133,000 is in the hands of private holders, while the other £117,000 is in the hands of the company. I can understand the proposal as regards the£133,000 in the hands of private holders, but I think we are entitled to some explanation as to why we should, upon the £117,000, which is in the coffers of the company itself, pay this bonus of 20 per cent. Then there remain the other two items—namely, £300,000 for unexhausted improvements, and £150,000 for the purchase of land and minerals. As regards the last item, I think there is a great deal of force in what fell from my hon. friend the member for Northampton, that there is absolutely no attempt to give us the basis on which the land and the minerals are valued, in order to show us whether they are worth £150,000 or £10,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequor himself said that as regards minerals none had yet been discovered, but that it was possible they might be discovered. Still, he practically said it was a prospective matter altogether, and I do not think therefore we can put their value very high. In addition to that—and this is really the point on which I trust the Government will see their way to make some alteration when we come to the Committee stage—the company are to retain 50 per cent. of any royalty charged by the Crown in respect of minerals for 99 years. I think that will hamper very considerably the action of the Government with regard to minerals, and I would suggest that it would be very much better to buy out the interest of the company altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that these lands and minerals have been bought out of the trading profits of the company. I find that during the twelve years of its existence the trading profits of the company have amounted to £70,000, so that it is clear that if the lands and minerals were bought out of trade profits, a very excessive sum is being paid for them on this part of the account. I think the House ought, to remember that the finance of this company is divided into two parts. There is the trading concern and there is the administrative concern. On the trading concern there is a very fair profit, but on the administrative concern there is an annual loss of £24,000. Why should we pay £300,000 to this company for relieving them of that which at the present moment entails upon them an annual loss of £24,000? I think the company ought to have paid something to the Government for relieving them of this particular item. I do not think the company should receive any compensation for the loss of the monopoly, because in the first place they were prohibited from obtaining it; and in the second place, having obtained it, they have enjoyed the benefit of it for twelve years. I quite agree that we ought to give a fair price for the purchase of the company, but I do not think we should give an exceptional one, and upon that point I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what basis does he fix the value of the lands and minerals, and on what grounds is be going to pay the company £300,000 for an annual loss of £24,000. Upon the point as to whether the Government, are paying a fair price, the market price of the shares of the company is a very good test of a bargain of this description. I went to the trouble of looking up the prices, and I found that while, in July two years ago, a £10 share was worth between £10 arid £11, at the present time it is worth just double. Therefore, I do not think the terms are excessive, but I think the House is entitled to some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think he should supplement the statement which he made the other day, and give us something more than the confusing and limited accounts which he put before us. I trust he will be able to prove to us that the country is not paying too high a price for this Niger Company.

When the subject matter of this discussion was before the house in the form of a Resolution I voted against it. I took that course not from any hostility to the object of the Resolution, but because I thought it was not a proper thing for this House to bind itself to a large expenditure without having the information before us upon which we could arrive at a just judgment. We have now the substance of the resolution before us, and I am not inclined to oppose the Bill. The considerations before the House are twofold. Ought we to take over the administration of the territories hitherto administered by the Royal Niger Company, and, if so, are we getting value for the price we are asked to pay? Now, in the first place, it certainly seems to me that sooner or later it was inevitable that the Government should take over the administrative functions of the Company. No one who has followed intelligently the course events during the last two years can have failed to be struck by the great danger with which this country has been threatened by the incursions and alarms of the French in those territories which were known to be tinder British protection. Nowhere in the world since the accession to power of the present Government have we been as near to war, I venture to assert, as we were over territorial questions in the vicinity of the Niger bend. I apprehend that I should be out of order if I were to try to trace these troubles to the graceful concessions that opened the door of Africa to the French as far inland as to Lake Chad, or to ask how the trench came to be there. There they were, find, through their presence in those regions, they undoubtedly for a time became a great menace to the peace of the world. This great danger was due not, as has been contended, to imprudences or to action on the part of the Niger Company, but to the hostility of the French who in 1895 were formally advised of our Protectorate in the regions affected. But had we had Imperial representatives there instead of a mere company of traders, it is hardly conceivable that the French would have pushed their pretensions or their troops so far. But if the transfer of the administration of those territories was urgent before, it became, in my pinion, imperative when the Anglo- French Convention was signed last year. If I recollect rightly, under that convention it was agreed to give to France two enclaves——

Order, order! The hon. Member must not go into details. He can refer generally to the risk of disputes but must not review the history and effect of the convention.

I was merely going to say that under those circumstances and upon other grounds which might be named, such as the creation of Imperial force upon the West African Frontier, it became essential on the part of the Government to take over these territories. That being so, the only question that remains is the price which the country is asked to pay the company for the consideration with which they part. Is the Government asking the country to pay too much? I should approach a question of that kind in no niggling spirit. We are taking over territory which has been administered by the company for some fifteen years. They have had all the difficulties to encounter. It is not the case of a company who have done nothing; their trade for the last seven years has averaged something like a million sterling. The Niger bend, as it is called, is one of the richest districts in the whole of Africa. Bearing these things in mind, I do not think that, the sum named is exorbitant. If the Government had gone into the country fifteen years ago, and had endeavoured to obtain and administer the extensive territories question, it would have cost the country a vastly greater sum than it will now have to expend. I will not further detain the House upon the merits of the matter, hut I desire to point out that there is no schedule to the Bill. I think this is an omission of which we have reason to complain. Without a schedule it will be impossible for any hon. Member who thinks that any item should he reduced or deleted to move a reduction. I shall only add that if my honourable friends should press the question to a division I shall certainly support the Government upon the general policy.

It seems to me that this is either a large political question or it is nothing at all. If it is a large political question we Cannot be too nice in the actual sum which we arc to pay for taking over the government of this new province. We are buying the new province, and therefore you cannot haggle over small sums of money. I think, however, something can fairly be said about the terms on which we are to buy it. I do respectfully submit that the cost of the administration which we are going to substitute for the present administration ought to be a part of the bargain, and it cannot be kept out of that bargain. I think it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what he is going to do with the horse when he has bought it. In the Treasury Minute which sanctions this bargain it is stated that the Government will receive a royalty on the minerals. It may be said that, financially, this is a bad bargain, although the financial ground is not the one on which the question can be adequately dealt with. I notice that the cost will be something like £24,000 a year, and therefore we are going to pay the company £865,000 for the right of permanently paving £24,000 a year. That is practically what we are doing, and it may be a very good bargain. We paid millions under similar circumstances at the beginning of this century to the Russians, the Prussians, and the Austrians, and I do not think anyone will question that the money was well spent. In regard to Clause 3, it is provided that a certain shadow of a shade of a sum shall, under certain undefined Circumstances, come back to us in alleviation of this sum which we are going to raise. 1 wish the House to understand that by this measure it is adding £850,000 to the National Debt. It is suggested that we shall get something from these territories, but what are we to get? It is something which entirely depends upon the mind of the Treasury which has the power of determining whether the receipts are in excess of the necessary expenditure, and the Treasury itself determines what the necessary expenses are to be. It is also provided that a certain sum shall be applied to the improvement of the Colony, and what sort of sum does the House imagine will be left when all these reservations have been met? Hitherto the cost of governing the place has been £24,000 a year, and do the Government suppose that it is going to cost them any less? In all probability it will be more, for possibly every servant who was employed by the Niger Company, and who will become a servant of the Crown, will want an increase in wages, and I do not see how Her Majesty's Government are going to govern the territory cheaper than the company did. Consequently, I cannot imagine that there will be a farthing left to come back to the Exchequer, and my belief is that this sum of £865,000 will have to be made up by the British taxpayers, in addition to which you will have to find a permanent and increasing charge for the government of this new province which we have bought. That is undoubtedly what we must expect, and nothing else. My belief is that without haggling over the details of the bargain, and without going into the cost and value of so many pinnaces or so many steamers, the case has been very much overstated.

:I understand that a question has been asked by the hon. Member for Poplar as to the future administration of the territories that we are about to take over. Perhaps with the permission of the House I may be permitted to say a few words upon that subject. It is intended, after all the negotiations are completed, that three Governments shall be formed—the Government of Lagos, the Government of Southern Nigeria, which will include the lower portion of the Niger Company's territories and the whole 44 the Coast Protectorate, and the third Government is that of Northern Nigeria. With regard to Lagos and Southern Nigeria, the present Governors will remain to administer the territories, and it is proposed to appoint Colonel Lugard Governor of Northern Nigeria, but at the same time the whole of the Customs duties of the three districts Will be identical. There will be two coast districts, and no Customs barrier will exist between the coast districts and Northern Nigeria. The receipts of the Customs will he "pooled" and divided from time to time in proper proportions between the three administrations. We hope by making changes in the character and nature of the Customs, especially in regard to certain details, to remove obstacles which have hitherto stood in the way of trade, and we think that can be done without any additional expense. It is true that there will be a deficit in the first instance upon the total revenue and expenditure of the three Governments, but I do not think it will he a large one, even at first, and we have every reason to hope that with the increase of trade that deficit will disappear. At the present moment the returns from Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate are very satisfactory. The trade there is rapidly increasing, and we have no reason to doubt that when the monopoly of the Niger Company is abolished trade will very largely increase in their territory also. Of course, an immense deal will depend upon the extent to which we are able to improve communications. We are doing that already to a very considerable extent in Lagos, where a railway is making its way gradually from the Niger to the coast, and already that is having a very marked effect upon the course of trade. For myself, I believe that the whole of the trade which for centuries almost has come down from the north of Africa to Sokoto, Bornu, and to the other great markets, will ultimately come the shorter and more convenient way from the coast of Nigeria, and will therefore come largely into our hands; and although I do not want to be too sanguine in a matter of this kind, which is largely a subject of speculation, I do not think that even as a pecuniary bargain the country will have any reason to regret the change they are asked to assent to. I am asked how this will affect the regulations with regard to spirits. It is intended that the duty which has been recently raised shall be identical for the coast districts, and that so far as the northern district is concerned the sale of spirits shall be absolutely prohibited, and I have under consideration a series of Ordinances which will be passed for the coast districts and Northern Nigeria in order to secure the execution of that arrangement. Colonel Lugard has made a further proposal which I am inclined to regard very favourably. It is to make between Northern Nigeria and Southern Nigeria what I may call a neutral zone, in which, while spirits would be allowed to be sold, they would not be allowed to be stocked, and the effect of that would be that it would be almost impossible to carry spirits up into the northern district. If we can make that arrangement it will very materially assist our control of the trade, and, having regard to the very great difficulty which exists in carrying what after all is rather a bulky product, we shall have no real difficulty in preventing spirits ascending beyond the point we desire. At the present moment, as the House is aware, we have just raised the duty on spirits by 50 per cent., and the duty on spirits in the territories of the Crown, including those of the Royal Niger Company, is now higher than in the adjoining territories of Dahomey and the German province. The duty is now uniform in the three territories. I do not, however, look upon the point at which it stands as necessarily the limit. I hope that from time to time it will be still further raised, but, of course, we have to be careful in raising it that we do not encourage smuggling from the adjoining provinces. We might perhaps reconcile ourselves to a very considerable reduction of the trade in spirits, but unfortunately that trade in spirits goes with trade in cottons and other manufactures, and if our traders were unable to supply the spirits to which the natives were accustomed they would lose their trade in other goods as well. Therefore, it is a matter which we have very carefully to consider, but as to which I think the House will agree that it would be unwise to proceed too rapidly in the direction in which we are going. I may say that, although the consumption of spirits is large—too large, I think, in this district—yet still it is very much less than it has been in past years. Considerable steps have been taken to reduce the consumption, although the territories themselves have greatly increased. I think the hon. Gentleman also raised a question with regard to slavery, and he pointed out that in the Niger Company's territories the legal status of slavery has been abolished. No doubt that was a most excellent arrangement, but at the same time I must point out that it is to a large extent a paper arrangement, because in a very large portion of this gigantic country of Sokoto and Bornu no white man has ever been, and nothing like the control has been established which would enable us to interfere in any way with such a matter, for instance, as domestic slavery. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that what is called domestic slavery exists, and has existed for many years, not only in such places as Sokoto and Bornu, but also in parts of India and in the hinter- lands of all African colonies, and I think it would be absurd to give the House any impression that that can be totally or immediately changed. What we shall do, of course is to influence the customs of the country as far as that is possible, and, as our effective control extends, so also will extend our laws and arrangements with regard to slavery. In the meantime, what we arc doing is something the effect of which can hardly be over estimated. We are destroying everywhere in our protectorates and in our spheres of influence, as well as in our territories, slave raiding, and it is slave raiding which has been the great curse of Africa. If at the present moment Africa is one of the least populated of continents, it is entirely because of the perpetual destruction of life and the insecurity both of life and property which have resulted from the process of slave raiding, which at one time was universal throughout the whole country. We have put a stop to that in many of our colonies; we are continually proceeding in that direction, and it will be one of our first duties to absolutely prohibit and prevent it in the lands of the Royal Niger Company, and in all territories over which we exercise control. I think that is all I have to say in answer to the hon. Gentleman.

A statement has been made to-day, and has not been contradicted, that two years ago the shares of this company were worth only £10 in the market, but that in consequence of the knowledge of the exceedingly liberal arrangements come to with the Government the price has now risen to £20. We are now asked to sanction the payment of £850,000 to this company, but we have had no evidence during the ten or twelve years that the company has existed as to the income the expenditure of this £850,000 will bring to us as a trading concern. We are leaving them the most profitable part of their business. I wish to know what are the responsibilities of the company to the French Government, and whether the British Government will take over the responsibilities. I should also like to ask whether in all parts of the territory that is to be taken over absolute free trade will be given to the Liverpool merchants, and whether anything will be done to prevent the use of spirits as a medium of exchange. While I am in favour of doing away with this and all other chartered companies, I think that as honest, straightforward business men we should only pay a reasonable price. I congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the measures he has taken in regard to the slave trade. He has very properly endeavoured to put down slave raiding, and I hope he will continue his efforts I hope we are not going to hand this territory over to the control of the Foreign Office, which has acknowledged the legal status of slavery in East Africa. The Colonial Office in this matter has always exhibited a very much higher moral code than the Foreign Office.

This Debate has continued for a considerable time, and many hon. Members have addressed the House, but I think their agreement about the principle of this Bill has been practically unanimous. I do not understand that even the hon. Member for Northampton considers that things should be left as they are, and that the Niger Company should be allowed to retain its charter. I think we are agreed that the charter must be revoked, that the company must be deprived of its administrative rights, and the full control of the government of this country set up in these territories in its place. And therefore the only question before the House as to which I need say anything is the price which is to be paid for the revocation of the charter. Now I think hon. Members are a little hard on me in that matter. If must be remembered that this, as has been stated in the course of the Debate, is an act of high policy. In 1886 this charter was granted, and, so far as I am able to judge, I think it was rightly granted at that time. It is now considered necessary, in the interests of the territories and of this country, that it should be revoked, and it is impossible that it can be revoked without considerable payments to the company that possesses it. By universal consent they have deserved well of their country. There can be no reasonable doubt whatever that, but for the work that they have done, the great artery of the Niger and the territories adjoining it would now not be in our hands, but in tire hands either of Germany or of France. Therefore, in dealing with them, I entirely deprecate what I must refer to as the "higgling" policy of the hon. Member for Poplar, who desires to go into all the minutiae of the payments which we are to make to the company, instead of dealing with them in that generous spirit which I think the House and the public desire.

I particularly said that I thought they deserved generous treatment; but I think the House is entitled to have an explanation in regard to certain sums proposed to be paid.

I am about to give that explanation, but I must say that the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman were not in accordance with his general statement. It must be remembered, also that the company are by no means anxious that any change should be made. They have never asked for any change, and they would be better off from their point of view if they were allowed to continue in their present position. And therefore it is solely on the ground of public policy that I make the proposal to revoke this charter. The hon. Member for Northampton distrusts this company as well as any other company.

Not so much.

I am very glad he draws some distinction, but he went through the financial history of the company and asked me questions—which I do not complain of—on several points with regard to it. I must repudiate any responsibility for the balance-sheets of the company; it is not my duty to explain them, and I do not propose to attempt to do so. I have placed them before the House for consideration in common with the other papers. But when the hon. Member suggests that the capital of the company is watered capital I must say that in my judgment he is entirely wrong. No doubt the Royal Niger Company has amalgamated with it other companies and traders on the Niger, and it has paid them for their assets in shares of the company, as it naturally world have done. But I am informal that those assets were valuable assets, and in many cases cash assets. Then of course traders established on the river had a good will which was valuable, and for which it was right that they should be paid. The company must have profited largely by amalgamating with it these other traders. Then the hon. Member refers to the debt of the Royal Niger territory. Now the history of that debt is shortly this—the National African Company prior to the issue of the charter paid very considerably more than £250,000 for acquiring political rights for this country in getting rid of the French interests pushed into the lower Niger at various times, and in maintaining order on the Niger during the interval between the Conference of Berlin and the issue of the charter in 1886—that is, before any Customs duties could be levied in order to pay the expenses of administration. Well, of the amount so spent the National African Company found £117,000 out of its capital, and the remainder out of the accumulated profits, the reserve fund, and the revenue account generally, including private loans from individuals. Before the charter was granted it was arranged that the amount so spent should be repaid provided the annual charge should not exceed £12,500 a year on the revenue of the Niger territory, and it was subsequently arranged that this should be capitalised as £250,000 at 5 per cent. per annum. The Crown Agents for the Colonies at the time were directed by the Government of the day carefully to investigate the accounts of the company, and after the expenditure of £250,000 had been proved they stopped, although the company protested that they had spent a great deal more than that sum. Therefore this debt on the Niger territory of £12,500 a year, or £250,000, was really paid over to individuals and to the National African Company to recompense them for expenditure incurred for the purposes 1 have described before the issue of the charter, and, in fact, it is so alluded to in the charter itself. I hope that the hon. Member will see that this is really payment made after full investigation by the Government of the day for actual cash expended, and that in taking over the administration of the territory it was practically impossible that the Government should do anything else than take over the debt charged, according to the charter, on the revenue of those territories.

But there is the 30 per cent. bonus, or whatever you choose to call it. There is a Member of this House who took a small number of shares in the Niger Company and who received, without having made any payment in respect of it, 30 per cent. on the value of his shares. I cannot understand that, and I should like an explanation.

I assume that the individual in question must have purchased those shares from some previous holder. That previous holder had unquestionably expended, out of capital previously raised, whatever the amount may have been in respect of this grant, and therefore the holder who purchased these shares was entitled to be recouped for that expenditure. Then the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, I think, commented unfavourably on the treaties made by the company excluding foreigners from the territories made over to them. Well, I am informed that those treaties were made by the National African Company before the grant of the charter, and obviously any provision contrary to the terms of the charter in those treaties could not have been acted upon by the Company. Then the price of £150,000 proposed to be paid for the land and mineral rights of the company has been referred to. On that I would say that these land rights are an essential part of the bargain we are making with the company; they extend over something like 320,000 acres, or 500 square miles, in a narrow strip of land, nowhere, I think, exceeding 2,000 yards wide, along the banks of the Niger for very many miles. It is, as I believe, the only land suitable at the present moment, and until the country is very much further developed, for utilisation for trading stations or plantations by any person desiring to settle in the country. By acquiring those land rights the company, of course, was able, practically, largely to shut out any other traders or competitors from coming on the Niger, except on such terms as they were disposed to make. When we obtain possession of those land rights, with which it will be open to the Government of the country to deal, I expect a very considerable profit from persons desiring to settle along the Niger for purposes of trade or plantation. Then in this item is included to some extent the purchase of mineral rights acquired by the company under treaty, most of which were acquired before the grant of the charter. It has been questioned whether we have been right in proposing to allow the company not merely a certain portion of this £150,000 as the price of these mineral rights, but also half the royalties which may be levied in a certain portion of these territories in future. I must ask the House to remember that this whole matter has been the result of long negotiations between myself, aided by Sir Francis Mowatt, who has done excellent work for the country in this connection, and by Colonel Lugard, and by officials of the Foreign Office on one side, and Sir George Goldie on the other. Sir George Goldie's opinion of the value of the mineral rights was, when we began those negotiations, something immense; he put them down at a million, if I remember, on one occasion. I demurred altogether to that view, for I considered that as very little was known about the minerals in these regions at the present time it was absolutely impossible for anyone to say what they might be really worth. The proper way to deal with them, at any rate to a considerable extent, was that they should be tested by future results, and that a royalty should therefore be paid. That was the reason for that proposal, because it was absolutely impossible to arrive at any fair settlement in any other way. I want the House to consider my position in this matter. We have done what we believe to be a great act of public policy in buying up this company against their will, and it would have been wrong for us to deal with them as if they had committed some crime, which they seem to have done in the eyes of the hon. Member for Northampton, or to have dealt with them in any way but by means of a friendly bargain. That is the only way in which the matter could be fairly approached.

Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of any mining experts before settling the price?

No mining experts can test the value of mineral rights in a country which is largely unexplored. The hon. Member for Poplar and other hon. Members have laid great stress on the proposal to pay the company £300,000 for expenditure for various objects beyond ordinary administrative work. I would ask the House to remember with regard to that that the company had to do a very considerable amount of extra work in maintaining against French and German explorers, backed by their own countries, rights for Great Britain in these regions, and with that object it was compelled to maintain a force of police, a large number of officials, more steamers to patrol the waters of the Niger, and matters of that kind, which would not have been in any degree necessary if it had merely to do with the natives in the territories entrusted to its care, or with the levying of the Customs duties. But it has been said that we are paying the company a considerable sum for which we get nothing; indeed, less than nothing, because we are really relieving them of what has been a burden. I do not think hon. Members who say that have fairly considered the position which the company has acquired under its charter. It is not my duty to defend those who drew up that charter; neither side of the House can claim a special responsibility for it; it was the work, in fact, of both political parties. But it is a simple fact that the powers granted by the charter were so extensive, and its language so wide, that under it the company have been able to acquire the practical monopoly of trade, although in one clause of the charter a monopoly of trade was absolutely forbidden, and although freedom of trade on the Niger was established by the Treaty of Berlin. When the Foreign Office endeavoured to bring the regulations of the company into more harmony with the freedom of trade under the Treaty of Berlin, and consulted the law officers as to whether the acts of the company were within the charter or not, the answer they got was that the charter allowed the company to do everything that it had done. Therefore I think the House will see that we have been placed in this position. It is necessary that trade should be free on the Niger. By the powers of administration, as well as of trading, which the charter gave to the company in the region entrusted to it, it has been able to carry out certain bargains with regard to the acquirement of land rights, to make certain regulations with regard to licences to trade, and the places at which vessels might land along the course of the Niger, which have practically given it this trade monopoly, and if the charter is to be revoked under which this monopoly has been acquired it is impossible but that the company must be paid for losing advantages which, in my opinion, are due to a mistake in the original wording of the charter.

It must be remembered that the position of the company will be totally changed after the revocation of the charter. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed to assume that the company would still be in a position to enjoy a practical monopoly of trade, that this, in fact, would not be diminished, but that is far from being the case. No doubt the company will hold a strong position as already occupying the ground, but they will in future be entitled to no advantage beyond that which their position, their trading stations, and their existing wharves on the Niger give them, and we shall hope to introduce other traders into their territory in competition with the company, and I can assure the House that, by the arrangements we now ask Parliament to sanction, real freedom of trade will be introduced into the territory. The hon. Member for Gateshead has criticised some of the prices which appear in the schedule for some of the plant of the company which we proposed to acquire. I should say that the company were by no means desirous to part with this, but I think the House will agree, and the hon. Member for Poplar has admitted, it is absolutely necessary to take over as much of the administrative plant as is required. The plant is on the spot, it has been used for administrative purposes, and it will be infinitely cheaper to buy it from the company than to purchase it here and send it out from England. The hon. Member for Gateshead has criticised the price proposed to be given for certain boats and hulks in connection with administrative work, and though I do not pretend to set myself against the hon. Member as an authority on the value of these things, I can assure him that the schedule has been most carefully gone into by gentlemen who know these particular boats and hulks—for instance, by Colonel Lugard—who have had experience of administration in these regions, and know the cost of purchasing similar plant and sending it out from England. The hulks are not the rotten old steamers to which the hon. Member contemptuously refers. They are sailing vessels built for the purpose for which they were used on the Niger, when it was necessary to have administrative stations in unhealthy places, as residences for the staff instead of houses. For a like purpose they will be used in the future, and they will, I believe, last for many years. I am quite sure we should have to pay a much larger sum if we replaced these vessels instead of purchasing them from the Royal Niger Company. My hon. friend the Member for Pembroke found fault with the proposal to make a charge on the revenue of the future in regard to the sum we now propose to raise, and said we ought not to charge this as a debt on the revenue of the colony, but should allow the colony to raise it with a Government guarantee. Well, that is a financial matter upon which I do not now want to dwell, but in my opinion it is infinitely better and more economical to advance the sum in the manner proposed by the Bill than to allow the amount to be raised by the territory under Government guarantee. Though I quite admit the provisions in the Bill as to the repayment of the money are somewhat vague, and necessarily must be so, yet in my judgment it would be a grave mistake to advance the money without indicating in the Act of Parliament the intention that the territory should repay the advance when in a position to do so. I believe—and it is the belief of the Government, as it is of many Members who have spoken—that trade will so largely increase in the future that it will not be many years before the territory will be in a position to find from its own revenue not only its own administrative expenses, like Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate, but also be in a position to repay by instalments the money now advanced for buying out the company. I think I have alluded to all the points raised, and I hope that, seeing that the criticisms have been on points of detail which may if necessary be raised again, the House will now give a Second Reading to the Bill, upon the principle of which we are all agreed.

May I ask one question? It is in relation to the statement made by the Colonial Secretary. In the first place, with regard to the importation of liquor, I understand the importation of liquor will in future only be stopped by the delimitation of the neutral zone, and the importation would not be illegal.

Beyond that zone.

Beyond that zone it would still be illegal?

Yes.

Then in regard to the status of slavery. I understood the Colonial Secretary to say that whereas in the Niger Company's territory the status of slavery has been abolished, now that that territory will become a portion of the larger territory the abolition of the legal status will not be extended, and that we should have to trust to more gradual methods of reducing the amount of slavery in the larger territory. This seems to be a retrogressive policy.

I can hardly answer a question as to the future policy of the Colonial Office with regard to slavery. My right hon. friend has already made a statement on the subject, and if the hon. Member will look at the report of my right hon. friend's speech to-morrow, and finds anything requiring elucidation, perhaps he will put a question to the Colonial Secretary.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committed for to-morrow.

I beg to move to omit Clause 7. It proposes to treat a perfectly legitimate industry in this country in a most stringent and oppressive manner which is altogether exceptional and unprecedented. There is a phrase in a letter published this morning from Esterhazy, which is singularly appropriate to the treatment which this Bill proposes to mete out to the margarine manufacturers of this country. He referred to "a bill of exchange drawn against the moral culpability of Dreyfus," and that is perfectly appropriate to the present proposal of the Government with reference to the margarine manufacturers. No proof has been alleged that the adulteration and misrepresentation which take place in connection with the sale of margarine are perpetrated by the manufacturers. This clause proposes nevertheless that the manufacturers shall be placed under altogether exceptional regulations, which are in many respects inquisitorial, and calculated to destroy an industry of great importance, and to drive it out of the country altogether. If this clause is passed will it be of any real use? The foreign manufacturer will be able to send butter adulterated with margarine in spite of every precaution you can take. The manufacture of margarine is a competing industry with that of butter, but butter manufacturers are not to be subjected to the same restrictions. The hon. Member for South Molton looks at me with an angry eye. He told us he represented an honest agricultural industry, and I have no doubt as far as his constituents are concerned any attempt at fraud would be out of the question. But all agricultural Members are not so fortunate in their constituents, and I venture to say that among butter manufacturers and dairy farmers in other parts of the country advantage will be taken of the non-inspection of butter factories as compared with the stringent inspection of margarine factories to transfer the lucrative trade of butter mixed with margarine to another quarter. There is no proof whatever that adulteration takes place in the margarine factories. Everything points to exactly the contrary. The people who buy margarine from the manufacturers know what they are about. They will not give butter prices for margarine. They know exactly the value of the different brands, and on their part I have never heard even a whisper of an allegation of any fraudulent adulteration taking place in these factories. If that be the case, why should you expose these manufacturers to inquisitorial inquiries and exceptional restrictions from which their foreign competitors are free? You do not propose to impose them on their home competitors in the butter trade, and the result will be that you will he fostering an unfair competition, and will be crushing out a very important and valuable industry. For these reasons it appears to me that this clause should be omitted from the Bill. Foreign manufacturers of margarine will eagerly welcome it, but home manufacturers protest against it most vigorously as an imputation on their honesty, and, as a matter of fact, it is absolutely uncalled for.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 4, line 29, to leave out Clause 7."—( Sir Charles Cameron. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'and,' in line 30, stand part of the Bill."

The hon. Baronet recommends the omission of this clause on two grounds. One is, that it will expose margarine manufacturers to a very unfair and inquisitorial system of inspection. That may he the view of the hon. Baronet himself, but it is not the view of the recognised association which exists for the purpose of maintaining the rights of margarine manufacturers. I am able to quote from a letter from the Margarine Defence Association which considered this clause in the original Bill which was introduced in a previous Session. The letter, which is addressed to the Local Government Board, the President of which Department had charge of the Measure, states:—

"With reference to the proposed registration of margarine manufacturers, the Association believes that a law to that effect would prove effective in the suppression of fraud."

They do not suggest that this inspection would be inquisitorial or injurious to their trade, and I confess I have great difficulty in understanding why they should advance a view of that kind. If it is to be assumed, as I think it is, that they conduct their business in an honest manner they have nothing whatever to fear from Government inspection. If, on the other hand, they are guilty of practices which would bring them within the law, I think a great deal is to he said for the view repeatedly advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in support of an Amendment which I was unable to accept, that we should not devote all our energies to the detection of fraud on the part of the retailer, but that we should where possible get at the wholesale dealer, who has been described by the hon. Member for Dundee as "the great rogue" in this matter. I do not adopt the hon. Member's language, but if there is a comparison in roguery, and if the view of the hon. Baronet be adopted, then the greater rogue would be allowed to escape. I think there is abundant justification for making these factories subject to proper inspection, and, if their business is carried on according to law, they will have nothing whatever to fear; on the contrary, the fact that the public will know that the premises arc open to inspection by a Government Department will give them a sort of certificate, which will be the best advertisement they can possibly desire. I submit to the House that there is no justification whatever on the grounds proposed by the hon. Baronet or on any other grounds for rejecting this clause. As is perfectly well known, the power given by the clause will be used by the Government Department in a fair and legitimate manner, from which the persons carrying on the industry will have nothing to fear.

I have not been convinced by anything the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the necessity for this clause. In the past, inspection and restriction of this kind have been limited to dangerous trades, such as the manufacture of gunpowder and dynamite, or to industries where inspection was necessary for excise purposes. The manufacture of margarine is riot a dangerous trade. Margarine is an ordinary wholesome food, and you are now going to apply to its manufacture principles which have been applied hitherto only to the manufacture of dangerous substances. Why should not ordinary factory inspection be sufficient, as in the case of butter factories? Why should margarine manufacturers be placed at a disadvantage as compared with butter manufacturers? There is just as much reason for inspection in the one case as in the other, except so far as it would affect British agriculture. I can understand the inspection of lodging-houses on grounds of public health, but none of these grounds are applicable to margarine factories. You are giving the right to inspect every process of manufacture, although it is well known that some of these processes are secret, and it is possible that an inspector may get information under this clause which he could sell to a rival manufacturer. The only justification that can be urged is that there is fraud in selling margarine for butter; but under the Margarine Act, if a man sells butter with 1 per cent. of margarine he commits an offence. The law at present is quite stringent enough. This Bill is a sop to the farmers to make them think they are getting something. It will not, however, affect the consumption of margarine or the price of butter, although margarine manufacturers may be fined £20 or £50 because something in their factories is not quite in accordance with the provisions of this clause. The Government are determined to carry the clause, but if the hon. Baronet divides against it I will support him.

My chief objection to this clause is that without any proved or even alleged necessity it is introduced for the harassment of an important industry. On behalf of the manufacturers generally there is a feeling that inspection is being carried to an altogether unnecessary extent, and that there is danger of being inspected to death. The offences provided under this clause are failing to keep a register or to keep it posted up, or to produce it when required by an officer of the Board, or to make a false entry, or to omit to enter something which ought to have been entered. This is a slur on the manufacturers that they have done nothing to warrant or justify. I object altogether to their being singled out in this way for this special inspection, and for this new offence being created. I adhere to the opinion that it is desirable to get at the wholesale rogue, if such a rogue exists; but it has not been shown that our home manufacturers of margarine are such rogues, and on their behalf I protest against this clause.

I think there ought to be a compromise in this matter. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that in the case of manufactories there ought to be an inspector with the power of inspecting the premises, and also of inspecting the articles put into the margarine. But I do think that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing an evil system into the trade of the country in giving power to an inspector to go into the premises of wholesale dealers and pry into their business.

I entertain considerable doubt as to the expediency of this clause. It is a new and very doubtful departure in our legislation. The principles on which inspection has been conducted hitherto do not apply to a case of this kind. The principles of inspection of manufactures hitherto sanctioned by legislation are of three classes. There are the cases in which inspection is necessary where you want to levy an excise. Then there are the cases where public health is involved, and therefore the inspector goes into the premises in order to see that the persons employed therein have proper accommodation, and that the dangers to which they are exposed are minimised and reduced. And, third, there is the law regulating the manufacture of dynamite and other explosives, where public safety is involved. These are the only cases in which such inspection and such a register as is contemplated by this Bill are now required by legislation. There is only one of two grounds for the supervision of the manufacture of this article: either to prevent fraud—but for that there are ample provisions in other parts of the Bill—or to ensure the interest of agriculture, that is to say, to prevent competition; in other words, to do something more or less protective in the interest of the agricultural producer. That is a new and dangerous principle, and we should enter our protest against this kind of legislation.

I do not think that my right hon. friend has given sufficient reasons for striking out this clause. I would remind the House that in all the particular instances which the right hon. Gentleman gave of inspection being permissible it was where it was needed for the public good. Now, the manufacture of margarine may be a perfectly legitimate industry, and it is not interfered with by this Bill. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that a great deal of margarine is sold as butter, and it is a proper thing that, in the interest of the public consumer, a check should be put to such practices. I would call the attention of the House to what the scope of the clause is, and which I think the hon. Gentleman strangely misunderstood. It provides that the occupier of a manufactory of margarine, and every wholesale dealer in margarine, shall keep a register showing what is sent out from the manufactory or place of business, and this register will be open to the inspection of an officer of the Board of Agriculture. The object of that is clear: if you find a man who professes to deal in butter getting regular consignments of mar- garine, the inference is not very far off that he is selling margarine for butter. The whole object of the clause is to trace the article to the manufacturer. I protest most strongly against the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks of this as a Protectionist measure in the interest of agriculture. Surely, when an endeavour is made to check the sale of margarine for butter, it is not to be called Protection. Every man has a right to be protected in honest industry, and the public have a right to be protected against fraud. This is a Protectionist measure in that sense, but in no other.

How is it proposed to deal with the margarine manufactured and imported from abroad?

Provision is made in the first clause that margarine imported from abroad should be clearly marked.

Why not apply the same principle in regard to the home manufactured margarine? If it were so plainly marked it could be traced to the manufacturer. I object to the clause because it extends the principle of inspection to the manufacture of that which the right hon. gentleman admits is a perfectly healthy food. I cannot see why inspection is necessary in the case of margarine unless it is pretended that there is something obnoxious in itself in margarine.

I hope my hon. friend will divide on this clause. I regard it as an extremely inquisitorial and offensive provision, and I do not see why it should not be extended to the manufacture of almost any article of consumption which is produced in this country. I confess that I do not think the hon. and learned Solicitor-General gave any answer whatever to the argument of my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen. I do not see how the inspection of a manufactory of margarine, and enforcing the keeping of this register, can possibly enable you to reach the retailer who fraudulently sells margarine for butter to a customer. It seems to me that the whole object and tenor of this clause is to extinguish the manufacture of margarine altogether in this country. That would be very hard upon the labouring man and his family, who are very glad to get good margarine at 6d. per lb. instead of second-rate butter at 1s. 2d. per lb.

It has been forgotten throughout the whole of this discussion that, while a very large portion of the margarine used in this country is imported from abroad, a large margarine manufacturing industry will no doubt grow up in this country if the demand for this article continues. We all share the Solicitor General's desire to encourage, as far as possible, honest and fair methods of dealing; but we are bound to look at the disadvantages of such legislation, and weigh them against the advantages. I maintain that this is a very harassing clause, and that it is open to the greatest possible objection. One portion of it, the second paragraph, was introduced against the wishes of the Government themselves, after the First Reading. If the premises where the margarine is kept are to be inspected, why not extend the inspection to butchers' shops to see where the foreign meat came from; and why not to bakers' shops to see whether the bread is baked from foreign flour or front home flour? It is said that the clause has been put forward in behalf of the consumer; but in my humble opinion, if the consumers had been consulted, this Bill would never have been brought forward at all. It is a veiled form of Protection.

I would point out that the recognised leaders of those who hold Protectionists views have repudiated the greater part of the Bill, because they hold it is absolutely useless, and that it does not go the length of Protection.

I agree that they oppose it, because they do not think it goes far enough. I think the House should look at the disadvantages of this harassing and vexatious interference with trade. If I were an enemy of the Government I would wish no better than that they should press this harassing and vexatious clause, hut I hope they will reconsider their attitude in regard to it.

I have a difficulty in regard to this clause. What I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is whether the officer of the Board of Agriculture who makes the inspection is to consider the information he receives or obtains is entirely confidential.

In this case, as in all other cases where Government inspection is carried out, every information is regarded as strictly confidential.

Several Members have got up and accused the Government of trying to introduce Protection into this country. I fail to see where the Protection comes in. I am a Free Trader myself, but if a Bill brought into the House of Commons is going to protect my class against unscrupulous and unjust dealers, wholesale and retail, and manufacturers of articles, I am going to support it, for that is Protection on the right lines. I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the second line in this clause. Every wholesale dealer who purchases margarine manufactured in Holland, or anywhere on the Continent, has always had an eye on business, and he will take particular care that he purchases the right article, for he knows that if he does not he will be held responsible. It is said you are harassing trade by this Bill. There are thousands of working men who have saved a few pounds, and who take chandlers' shops, but they find themselves no better off than the mechanic because they are being harassed every day, while the grand culprit who sells wholesale is allowed to go scot-free. Any medical officer of health can go into a shop and purchase a sample, and the poor retail man is prosecuted, although he has nothing to do with the adulteration; he has not got the common sense to adulterate the article. The man who is to blame is the man who sells him the article, and that is the man we have got to go for—to strike a blow at the fountain-head.

This Bill can hurt no honest dealer. He ought to know where the articles he sells come from. If a man got into the Bankruptcy Court the judge would be very much astonished if the bankrupt said he could not say where he got his goods from. I cannot see what possible objection there can be to an honest manufacturer allowing an inspector to go over his premises at any and at all times. I fail entirely to see any Protection in this clause. The result of the whole Bill will be that people will buy a good deal more margarine than now. I trust we shall now go to a Division, and I shall support the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 61. (Division List, No. 283.)

in the absence of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Kearley), moved an Amendment to omit the words, "and every wholesale dealer in such substances." He hoped to be able to show the House that that part of the clause was no protection whatever to the public. He agreed with the previous part of the clause that inspectors should have power to visit factories for the purpose of inspection, but the object of the Amendment was to leave out the provision that the inspector appointed by the Board of Agriculture should have the right to go into every wholesale place, and see whether every package was marked and included in the register of sales. This he regarded as most important, because under the clause as it stood the wholesale dealer would not only have to keep a day-book, but if a customer came in and wanted a 7lbs. packet of margarine he would be bound to enter it in his day-book, give a separate invoice, and keep an extract from his daybook in a separate register for the inspection of the inspector when the latter came round. That would afford no protection to the public, for this reason. An inspector might go into a factory and see that the margarine had been sent to the wholesale dealer; then he might go to the wholesale dealer and find that the margarine had been sold to the retailer, who distributed thousands of packages, perhaps, to hundreds of customers. But it would be impossible for the inspector to follow the margarine to the retailers, because before he could cover the ground the retailer would have sold it to the consumer, and thus it would be put out of the power of the inspector to inspect. He (Mr. Samuel) was a strong believer in putting down fraud, but he was strongly of opinion that the only way whereby they could put down fraud in the sale of margarine was by making the retail dealer responsible. There was no margarine imported into this country as butter; it was all marked as margarine and sent as such to the wholesale dealers. If there were fraud it was committed by the retailers, and the only way to put it down was to make the retailer feel that the inspector for the local authority could at any time walk into his shop and see whether or not he was carrying out the law under which he should mark margarine as such. The wholesale dealer had nothing whatever to do with that part of the matter; but the part of the clause now proposed to be omitted would harass to a great extent the wholesale dealers, by imposing upon them an enormous amount of work without any justification whatever, and without affording the public any protection. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would either give extra powers to local authorities, or insist on their carrying out their powers, that part of the clause would not be required. The County Council of Durham did carry out the law at the present time, and insisted on their inspectors visiting the whole of the retail shops in the city, with the result that last year they took 393 samples of food for analysis and only ten were found to be adulterated; and of seventy-three samples of butter only one was adulterated. In fact, in this country the adulteration was in milk, spirits, and drugs, and if local authorities carried out the existing law this Bill would not be required, because the evils complained of could be stamped out by visitation of the retail shops. But while anxious to secure the greater protection of the public, he did not think power should be given to inspectors to harass men innocent of any fraud on the public, and for that reason he moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 4, line 30, to leave out the words "and every wholesale dealer in such substances.'"—( Mr Jonathan Samuel. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this Amendment, because he has really misapprehended the object of this clause. It is not intended, as I think hon. Gentlemen who took part in the proceedings upstairs will admit, to inflict anything in the nature of a persecution upon either wholesale dealers or manufacturers or retail dealers. It is only proposed to confer certain powers upon inspectors in regard to the detection and punishment of fraud, and we honestly desire to set about that work, so far as the Government officers are concerned, with the least possible friction and the minimum of inconvenience. The House has already decided that the earlier part of the section in regard to registration shall remain in the Bill, and the addition of these words is essential in order that we should have control over the sale of foreign margarine as well as over that manufactured at home. This is particularly necessary when we remember that foreign margarine only finds its way to the consumer through the wholesaler. I think the House will agree that if it is necessary—and I am sure it is necessary—that the Department should have power of this kind with regard to margarine manufacturers at home, it is only fair play that they should have equal power to deal with imported margarine, which finds its way to the retail dealer only through the wholesale dealer. If these words are omitted we should lose all control over margarine manufactured abroad.

But hundreds of tons of margarine find their way to the retailers without going through the hands of the wholesale dealers.

I do not pretend for a moment that we cover all the ground, but I do not think it could be argued that because we do not occupy all the ground, we should not occupy as much as we possibly can. I think it is quite clear that there is no likelihood of these powers being exercised in any way tyrannical or oppressive to the manufacturers. These places are constantly inspected for various purposes at the present time, and I venture to say that there exists the best possible feeling between the parties concerned. I do not therefore think there need be the smallest apprehension as to the result of this clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 4, line 35, to leave out Sub-section 2 of Clause 7."—( Captain Sinclair. )

Question proposed, "That Sub-section 2 of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move the omission of Clause 8. This clause is the crux of the Bill; it is by far the most important, and is, indeed, the most obnoxious clause in the whole Bill. It is so obnoxious and so detrimental to the interests of the community that its inclusion in the Bill is sufficient to damn the whole measure. What is this clause for? It is a clause to rob the poor man of his butter. I hold in my hand copies of invitations for tenders for various articles of food from the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Asylums Committee of the London County Council, the Chelsea Workhouse, the Kensington Workhouse, and from half a dozen other poorhouse authorities, all asking for tenders for margarine. But what sort of margarine? Margarine containing at least twenty per cent. of butter. And why do they ask for that? They think margarine is improved by a certain amount of butter, and that that justifies them to an extent in giving 16s. per cwt. more than they would otherwise have to pay. This clause is against mixtures altogether, and it will deprive the inmates of all London workhouses and other institutions of any chance of having butter mixed with their margarine. I am as opposed to fraud as anyone in this House, and I wish to stop adulteration, and I think it will be admitted that the Amendments made in this Bill at my instance have enormously strengthened it in that particular. But margarine has already been dealt with so exceptionally; while it is lawful to sell any other product so long as you call it a mixture, it is only a mixture of butter and margarine that it is unlawful to sell unless you call it margarine. The alternative which I advocate, and which I am justified in advocating here, is to put margarine mixtures on the same footing as other mixtures, and allow it to be sold as a mixture provided the requirements of the Act of Parliament have been all complied with. We are told that this clause is a compromise. This clause proposes to render criminal the individual who has in his possession margarine which contains more than 10 per cent of butter fats. Since this Bill was introduced the right hon. Gentleman has increased his restrictions, because when it was first introduced he said it should not contain more than 10 per cent. of butter, but by the change of phraseology he has reduced the butter to 8½ per cent. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this is not a question of butter being added to margarine. The oleine which is derived from the fat parts, best fat, of cattle is melted down and is then put into a warm churn together with a certain amount of milk or cream, and when it has been thoroughly churned and well mixed and has taken up the butter fat, it is run off against a stream of icy cold water which congeals the fat into butter—like particles. The water is then extracted from them and they are formed into a butter-like mass. In making mixtures the margarine manufacturer does not take a mass of butter and a mass of margarine; what is done is to put a greater amount of cream or milk into the churn with the oleine. Now this mixture is to be prohibited altogether. The right hon. Gentleman prohibits the sale of ally margarine with more than 10 per cent. of butter fats; but has he gone high enough? I have a document here from a Scotch margarine factory, in which it is stated that the margarine coming from this factory shows 17½ per cent. of butter fat. Unless we wish to prohibit the manufacture of margarine except with the poorest milk, and so cripple the farmers as well as the manufacturers, because they will not have the market for their milk which they have at the present time, the House will reject this clause. One public authority that has approached this House is dead against this clause. The Committee of the Glasgow Corporation reported against Clause 8, and the co-operative societies of Scotland, representing nearly a quarter of a million men, state that they have read the communication of the Glasgow Corporation, and entirely approve of it. Having regard to the fact that if this clause was deleted the Bill would be just as effective, one cannot help coming to, the conclusion that this clause is put in for no other purpose than to aim a blow at a trade which competes with the butter-producing industry. Such a course will not help the farmer; the margarine industry has brought three quarters of a million per annum into the pockets of the stock breeders of this country. In regard to milk, Holland is one of the greatest centres of the margarine trade, and there the price of skim milk has materially increased. What is the butter industry of this country? Two out of every three tons of the butter which is consumed here comes from abroad. If the right hon. Gentleman's method does succeed in raising the price of butter, it will be the foreigner and not the British who will be benefited. Under all these circumstances I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, which is to leave out Clause 8.

Amendment proposed—

"In page 5, line 16, to leave out Clause 8."—( Sir Charles Cameron )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'ten,' in line 17, stand part of the Bill."

The hon. Baronet who addressed the House has entirely failed to appreciate the argument that I and others used to support the Government policy with regard to this clause. It has been held that in the case of margarine where the percentage of butter is very large, the opportunity for fraud on the part of the seller is very great, because it is so difficult for the consumer to find out whether he has got what he wants. I have no desire whatever to put an argument of this kind before the House in any other form than that in which it presents itself to me. I admit that I dislike this kind of legislation as much as anybody else, but the difficulty I have to consider when I come to deal with this question is that there has been for a very long time great dissatisfaction at the frauds which have been committed by the sellers of margarine for butter all over the country. It was this that led to the appointment of the Committee upon this question. That inquiry, in great part, was turned to the question of adulteration, and the Committee recommended not that there should be any limitation, but that there should be an absolute prohibition against the mixing of butter with margarine. I do not think that the Committee bad in their minds quite what the effect of their recommendation would be, because it is practically impossible to prevent that, owing to the fact that where milk is used in the manufacture of margarine a certain proportion of the butter fat is absorbed by the oleo, and retained in the finished article; but if any admixture is to he prohibited, it is very difficult to say whether the butter found in the margarine is there as the result of the natural process of manufacture or whether it is added after wards. The recommendation was not, therefore, a very practical one, and it became my duty to consider whether it was necessary that a limitation should be imposed with regard to this matter. The hon. Baronet told the House that this was an attempt to interfere with the food of the working man. I would like to point out to the House that, in regard to good margarine of a cheap character, which varies in price from 5d. to 7d. a pound, no serious effects will result from this clause if it is carried as it stands. What was the evidence before the Committee? The House will find that in their evidence the great distributing firms, who deal largely in these articles, and probably know more about them than anybody else from a practical point of view—I allude to such firms as Lipton's and the Home and Colonial Stores—assert that there is no demand whatever for mixtures. (Opposition cries of "Oh, Oh!") I may say that I am only telling the House what has been stated by practical men who are doing a very large trade in these particular articles. They assert that there is no demand for mixtures whatever, and that if they were offered fur sale as mixtures, the consuming public would not buy them. The hon. Member for Devonport has said that there is a huge and hideous swindle going on throughout the country in the shape of the sale of these mixtures as butter. I may say that the best chemical authorities which I have been able to approach, and the best technical and expert evidence that I could get in respect to the manufacture of margarine, goes to show that the best margarine that can be made is made without any admixture of butter to the manufactured margarine, and contains only 3 or 4, or 5 per cent. at the most, of butter fat. Therefore the argument in regard to the excision of this clause is not confirmed by those who are, at all events, as good and reliable authorities as the hon. Baronet opposite. The hon. Baronet stated that workhouses and lunatic asylums in their contracts insist upon having margarine containing 20 percent. of butter fat. I believe it is quite true that they do make that condition. I have obtained the best information I could get upon this small point whether margarine containing 20 per cent. of butter fat is a better or more nutritious article than margarine containing a lesser amount of butter fat; and all the information I have been able to obtain goes to show that the very best margarine you can have, viewed from the point of view either of its palatableness or its nutritious properties, is margarine containing an amount of butter fat below the limit which is imposed under this clause. In that case it cannot be said that we are forcing an inferior article upon the country. If this is true, and if the statements are correct; if it is the case that this margarine mixed with butter would have little or no place in the markets of the country were it not for the fact that the greater proportion of it finds a market only because people buy it, believing it to be butter, then I say a case is established for some legislation such as is found in this clause. I think it is absurd for hon. Gentlemen to say that by proposing this clause we are supporting our own interests and protecting the agricultural interests. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that, but I would ask the House if the Manchester Chamber of Commerce are likely to be actuated by such a motive? Do firms such as Lipton's and the Home and Colonial Stores care anything about the agricultural interest?

They only sell butter.

My information is that they deal very largely in those particular articles which we are discussing. I can only give to the House the opinions of these dealers as I find them publicly stated, and all my information goes to show that these two firms are among the largest dealers who supply the public with margarine, and, therefore, their opinion must be accepted as coming from a reliable and authoritative source. I am not asking the House to believe that these firms are infallible, but the argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite is simply begging the whole questio", and it is an attempt to draw a miserable red herring across the path to talk about benefitting the agricultural interest. This clause has been proposed from no motive of that kind, but solely because we are satisfied in the first instance that this limitation will in no way interfere with the production of the very best article which it is possible to offer to the public; and, in the second place, as it is called—and wrongly called—an inferior article, it would find no place in the markets of this country at all if it was not for the fact that it is sold for that which it is not. Therefore without some limitation of this kind it will be impossible to check a system of fraud which is I going on almost wholesale, and which has admittedly become a great public scandal with which we desire to deal under the provisions which we have included in this Bill. I ask the House to disagree with this proposal to omit this clause, on the ground which has been publicly stated by my hon. friend the Member for Stockport, who has admitted that the contentious parts of this Bill have practically been compromised. For these reasons I respectfully submit that I have established a case in answer to the arguments advanced by the hon. Baronet opposite, and therefore I invite the House to vote against the Amendment, and thus retain this clause in the Bill as it now stands.

The reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can hardly be regarded with satisfaction in any part of the House. He does not, it appears, personally approve of legislation of the kind which he is engaged in forcing through Parliament. Well, that is a strange ground upon which to defend a serious measure. But what does he tell us is the source and origin of this particular clause? He tells us that its genesis is due to the recommendation of a Select Committee, who, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, did not even understand what they were about; who, if they had known what they were doing, must have known that their recommendation was impracticable. Surely there never was a more preposterous reason for proposing to force upon this House a clause which certainly is obnoxious to most of the Members sitting upon this side of the House, and which I cannot help thinking will meet with strong opposition from Members on the other side of the House if they are allowed to exercise a free opinion. What is the object aimed at by the Bill? Ostensibly it is to prevent fraud. Yes, but what sort of fraud? It is to prevent the fraud of passing off upon a purchaser something other than that which he demands and for which he has paid. That is the fraud, not simply adulteration. There are many adulterated articles whose manufacture and sale are perfectly legitimate, but the fraud which has always hitherto been legislated against in Acts of this class is the fraud which imposes upon the purchaser an article which is not the article he is supposed to be purchasing. If that is so what becomes of this particular clause? Where is the fraud that you are legislating against here? You are by tins clause, for the first time in the history of food products, making butter an article of adulteration. You are prohibiting ally man from putting into margarine more than 10 per cent. of butter fat. Thus you are treating butter as an adulterated article. Upon what grounds should you do that? I suppose it never was contended that any legislation should be directed against making an article as good as possible. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who, earlier in the discussion, stated that one of the things against which he would strenuously contend would be any attempt to interfere with an industry producing the production of a really good article. Well, let us look the facts in the face. I understand that the trade in margarine amounts to about 180,000,000 pounds per annum. If you were to take an allowance of one pound per week as a fair allowance for a working man, then you get about three and a half millions of people in this country who use this food-stuff daily, and the proposition contained in this clause which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to force upon this House is to prevent these three and a half millions of people from obtaining more than 10 per cent. of butter fat in their margarine. Why should this limitation be applied only at one end? What of the butter dealer who churns up 10 per cent. of margarine in his butter? What, again, of the man who may honestly wish to supply a genuine demand for margarine with 20 per cent. of butter fat? He cannot do this without incurring your penalties. Well, if he has to risk these penalties in any case, will he not be tempted to call his mixture butter for the sake of the butter price? If this clause remains it will most certainly be looked upon by dealers in margarine as an attempt—and it will be a very foolish attempt, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say—to legislate in the interests of one particular industry to the great injury of another. But if that really be the object of the right hon. Gentleman then his own proposal fails, because the more butter there is used, in whatever form it may be consumed, the better it must be for the agricultural interest. Without going further into the question at the present moment, I heartily support the hon. Baronet's motion.

I desire to read a telegram which I have received from the Manchester, Salford, and District Grocers' Association, in which the secretary to that body says:—

"I have to beg of you in the interest of commercial honesty to resist any attempt to increase the percentage of butter fat in margarine beyond 10 per cent."

I contend that Clause 8 does not prevent either the manufacture or the sale of margarine. My experience has been that dealers are very ready indeed to tell the purchaser whether he is purchasing margarine or butter; but if this clause is omitted, the purchaser will not know whether he is buying margarine or butter.

With regard to this clause, hon. Members seem to forget that we already possess power to deal with fraud. At present you have power to exclude, after inspection, every bit of margarine that comes into this country, and you can in that way stop fraud perfectly easily. But now you are proposing to deal with something which is quite beyond that, for you are saying that, whatever the taste of the public may be, in future certain sorts of margarine are not to be manufactured, and cannot be sold at all. I was astounded to hear the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill say that margarine with ten per cent. or less of butter fat was as nutritious as butter itself.

What I said was that from a nutritious point of view, there was no advantage gained by consuming margarine containing 20 per cent. of butter fat, than there was from consuming margarine containing ten per cent. and even a lesser amount of butter fat.

That assertion astonishes me, because the conclusion I naturally come to is that margarine is as nutritious in every way as butter. It seems to me that we are running the risk of stopping the manufacture of something which may be extremely good and valuable in the future. The right hon. Gentleman stated that there is no difficulty in discovering when an article is adulterated, and if that is so, it is all nonsense to talk about stopping fraud by this proposal. You can stop fraud without it, and you are attempting to do now what has never been attempted to be done before in any other branch of industry in this country, for you are absolutely forbidding the manufacture of an article of diet which no one can venture to say is improper in any way. The only thing you can say is, that people have been fraudulent in the past by selling it as something which it is not. This clause is quite outside the Bill itself, and it would not make the least bit of difference to the working of the Act if it were left out. I do hope that we shall not forbid the manufacture of something which may be extremely valuable as a food to the people of this country in a very few years' time. I should be very sorry to vote against the Government on any part of this Bill, and I trust they will reconsider their position. I venture to think that all Members who seriously consider this point will come to the conclusion that this is a bad clause, and if it is not withdrawn, I hope every Member of the House will do his best to secure the omission of this clause.

I sat upon the Grand Committee, and I took a great interest in this Bill. What is it that this Bill is intended to do? Surely it is intended to let the people have what they please, provided you protect them from fraud and from purchasing articles which they do not want to buy. Why should we go out of our way to say that this particular margarine should only contain a certain quantity of butter? I cannot understand why there should be drastic rules to prevent a man buying a fictitious article, such as butter containing a largo portion of margarine, providing he knows what he is buying. If any man in my constituency chooses to have margarine with 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of butter, why should he not be allowed to buy it? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of tie Bill has been very conciliatory, and I think his speech, although it waxed a little strong, did not ring as if he was very keen upon this clause. He said that he found that the best margarine was made with less than 10 per cent. of butter fat.

But surely it is no part of the duty of the Government of this country to settle how these things are to be made, and it is not for them to say whether the best margarine is made in one way or another. I must say that I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will give way upon this matter, and declare that, while taking strong measures to prevent fraud, if a man chooses to say this is a mixture containing 20, 30, or 40 per cent. of butter fat, he shall be allowed to sell it. It cannot be said that manufacturers put in a larger amount of butter fat simply for the sake of doing it, but they do so because they get a better article. They are people of education, and I think we may take it for granted that there is a great deal to be said in favour of a larger percentage of butter. I must protest against the poor persons I have the honour to represent being prevented from buying this article if they wish to have it. All I am concerned about is, that they should be protected from fraud. I shall therefore rote against the retention of this clause if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way upon this point.

Upon a previous occasion I contended that the public had a perfect right to buy margarine mixed with 20, 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of butter fat, if it was sold to them under a proper and honest description. All we have to do is to see that the public get an honest description of the article which they pay for, and that such article is not injurious to their health. Therefore Clause 8 of this Bill looks to me altogether like a foreign body in a Bill for this purpose. I think it is altogether out of place, for it is attempting to do something which is not in consonance with the general principle of the Bill—it is attempting to lay down a standard for an article of food. That is an unscientific principle altogether, because what is true today is not true to-morrow. I am afraid that this Bill is not drawn in the interest of the consumer; it is pervaded with another and what I may call a sinister purpose; it is "in the interest of agriculture," and evidence of this appears in the clause which has for its object the limitation of the consumption of margarine in the interest of the producers of butter. In the present case you are limiting the sale of certain higher classes of margarine. At the present time the public buy these mixtures of butter and margarine to a large extent, and they know what they are buying, and have it served to them properly labelled. They will not go into a shop and ask for margarine; they do not mind, however, asking for a "pound of 6d. or 8d." These are the shifts to which the poor of this country are driven in order to get what they want. Why should they not be able to get it without let or hindrance? The present law is quite sufficient, for it insists that the dealer shall sell the article under the description of margarine, and not as butter. Hitherto the provision has not been compulsory all over the country, but under Clause 3 it is now proposed to make it compulsory. The Bill gives, further, a larger amount of inspecting power, and, in conjunction with the existing law, I am sure that the provisions are quite sufficient to protect the public against fraud. It is proposed to limit the addition of butter fat to margarine so as to keep it impoverished, and, in order to help the sale of genuine butter, you are introducing a new and absolutely unnecessary clause, to the great hurt of the public. I think you are treating this industry very unfairly in this respect. Personally I believe the more butter you add to the margarine the more palatable compound you make it. That is a common-sense statement of the position. The public want to have this article supplied to them, and we ought not to put any impediment in the way of its being supplied. I do not think that the public authorities who advertise for a mixture containing at least 20 per cent. of butter fat, instead of the usual 10 per cent., would do so unless they believed that they were securing a good article for consumption. I should like to see the people in our workhouses, and other poor people, get as high a percentage of butter fat in the compound as is possible. If you persist in this attempt to stop the sale of these mixtures your object will eventually be defeated by people buying the two articles separately and mixing them for themselves. You will only add to their trouble. I do not believe that this clause is one which will be conducive to the general well-being of the public. I do not think it will have the effect of increasing the price of butter, although on superficial examination the tendency of limiting the amount of butter fat, and lowering the standard of margarine, might be to produce a greater demand for butter. I think you are going on the wrong grounds altogether, and I, for one, shall vote against this clause, because I look upon it as an unfair restriction on the production of a wholesome food product. It is an attempt to prevent the public obtaining an article for which they wish, and it is an unfair restriction of trade without producing any greater guarantee of purity.

I have been throughout the progress of this Bill a consistent supporter of my right hon. friend, and whenever there has been any question as to the best means of effectually preventing fraud I have gone thoroughly with him. I should be the last man to accuse him of having anything but a sincere desire to do that which is right, whether it will benefit agriculture or not. But I fail to see in what way this clause will give the consumer more protection against fraud than he already has under the existing law. By it we are seeking to make the people take an inferior article to that which they wish for, or, at least, we are compelling them to take a pure article which in many cases is inferior at the price compared with that which they are now taking. Among workmen in my constituency, and in other parts of Scotland, a strong opinion has been expressed on this point. The question is of considerable importance to them in connection with their mutual trading societies, one of which purchases huge quantities of all kinds of food products. They are distinctly against this clause, because they hold that it will lead to a considerable interference with their business, while it will fail to afford any protection against fraud. I distinctly agree with them in that, and in consequence I shall have to give my first adverse vote upon the Bill against this clause.

The hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of this clause took the point that we should be depriving the public of the opportunity of purchasing a superior article, and that they would be compelled instead to take an inferior one. But what was the nature of the evidence which was laid before the Committee? The witnesses included importers of great reputation, and persons who represented merchants, distributors, and consumers, and the sum total of the evidence was that these mixtures were the root and foundation of the whole of this dishonest trading. I suppose the large distributors of the country are equally as competent to express an opinion as to what is demanded by consumers as hon. Members here are to speak in the interests of their constituents. I myself had the privilege of introducing to the right hon. Gentleman a very influential deputation of importers, merchants, and distributors. The distributors represented an annual turn-over in direct sales to the consumer of more than ten millions sterling per annum. What was the evidence they gave about these mixtures? It was, that there were two distinct classes of buyers that came to the retail branches which were distributed over England, Scotland, and Ireland. There were those who came to buy margarine and those who came to buy butter. They sold no mixtures, because under the present Act they would have to describe them as margarine, and while the price of margarine ranged from 4d. to 6d. per pound, the price of butter was 10d. to 1s. per pound. There was thus a hiatus between the two. If they had sold the mixtures, for which they would have had to ask a higher price although they would still have been labelled as margarine, the public could not have been induced to buy it at all. The point I want to make is that these mixtures are not being sold as margarine; they are being palmed off on the public as butter. Take a trade paper of any date you like. Study the statistics with regard to Glamorganshire, and it will be found that grocers in that district are perpetually being summoned for this fraud. A person goes into a shop and asks for butter at 1s. per lb., but what he gets is an article containing 85 per cent. of margarine. The hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs spoke on behalf of the working men. I will guarantee to produce, at a few days' notice, 100 cases from Scotland of this fraud, where the working man is paying his money for butter and getting this vile decoction. These mixtures are the foundation of the whole fraud. It is very easy to argue that if the present law were perfectly enforced, and if these articles were properly sold, there would be no necessity for this measure. But the law is not enforced; it has broken down; this fraud continues. The strongest point of all is that the great distributors, with branches all over the kingdom, do not sell these mixtures; they have tried to sell them, but without success. People who want butter will not have a mixture, and those who want margarine will only pay margarine price. I am perfectly certain, that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a wise course in limiting the admixture of butter with margarine. The average quantity of these mixtures does not exceed 20 per cent. of the total output, showing that 80 per cent. is bought as margarine and not as mixtures at all. That is another testimony that there is no universal demand for these mixtures. I do not claim to have any very special knowledge, but I have carefully considered the question here, and, in supporting this clause, I believe the Government will have taken a very drastic step towards stamping out this adulteration.

My hon. friend, the Member for Devonport, has alluded to a large and influential deputation which he introduced upon this subject. About twelve months ago one of the Members for Liverpool, who sits on the the other side of the House, and who, along with myself, sat on the Select Committee, introduced to the President of the Local Government Board one of the most crowded deputations I have ever attended—a deputation of grocers and large provision dealers and produce merchants from all parts of the country. The members of the deputation successively rose and stated, not only that they found by experience that there is a large demand for butter and margarine mixtures, but that they thought it would be exceedingly injurious to the trade and the commerce in which they are engaged if such restrictions as are proposed in this Bill were enforced. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill referred to the conduct of the Bill in Committee. I have the greatest pleasure in bearing testimony to the invariable fairness, reasonableness, and conciliatory manner in which he conducted the Bill through the Committee. But I think it was obvious that there were some clauses which he was bound officially to support, but which he was not so keen in advocating as was the case with other clauses. The very fact that he has sitting on his right hand a gentleman who, as Chairman of the Select Committee, declined to commit himself to what is proposed in this clause, indicates that the Government have had a very difficult task.

I declined to commit myself officially.

The genesis of this clause is from an endeavour to conciliate, and, if possible, to find some middle line between those who were strongly against any mixtures, and those who might be induced to approve of a limited mixture. My strongest objection to this clause is that it introduces a new principle. I do not object to it because it is new, but because it is a bad principle. It is the first time in the legislation of this country that an attempt has been made to class as an adulteration the mixture of a superior with an inferior article. If the principle is introduced in this Bill, I do not see how far it is to be carried. In all our textile industries, and in many of our food products, this process has been going on for a great number of years. The object of it is to supply consumers with what they desire and willingly purchase, and purchase with their eyes open. Reference has been made to the opinion of sonic persons in Manchester on this question. I will not repeat some extracts which I read from the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, but there are a few sentences bearing directly upon this particular clause. They say:

"Your petitioners consider that if Clause 8 of the Bill passes into law the Act will certainly fail of its end. They are of opinion that the community cannot now be deprived of so important, wholesome, and relatively cheap an article of food as margarine, and that the public is entitled to demand to get the best margarine which producers can supply."

And, further:

"There is no informed person known to your petitioners who questions the goodness and desirability of margarine as a high-class and most valuable food. The fault of its producers appears to be that they have made it too good and too cheap."

Whoever heard before of such an attempt as is now being made—an unprincipled attempt in my view—to prevent by legislation an article being improved and made as good as it can be made? A gentleman engaged in the same business writes:

"I know no Act of Parliament that prohibits the improvement of any article whatever. I would ask, if it is allowable to add unlimited quantities of silk to cotton, cocoa to starch, wool to cotton, or coffee to chicory, for the improvement of the inferior article, why should the amount of butter be limited that may be mixed with margarine? Surely this proposed new law is strong enough to allow of good mixtures of margarine and butter to be sold under the proper name, 'margarine,' and it shows great weakness on the part of the proposer of the Bill that he should think it necessary to prohibit the manufacture of a clean, healthy, wholesome article of food."

There are cross-currents in this House; there are cross-currents in the grocery and provision trades. There are dealers who deal in particular classes of goods, and they wish legislation to favour what they deal in, and they wish, if possible, to put a weight in the balance against other dealers with whom they have to deal. There are also cross-currents and diverse interests amongst the working men. I have great respect for my hon. friend the Member for Battersea: he is one of the most intelligent of men; I might exhaust the complimentary epithets in the dictionary with regard to him, and I should be quite sincere in doing so. But I know he thinks I am a heretic on this question. I reciprocate the compliment.

I always suspect mixtures.

He says lie is against working men being imposed upon. So am I. But, I say, who are the best judges but the working men themselves? The co-operative societies of the country represent the working men to a very large extent, and what does the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society say:

"Our society is composed of 289 co-operative societies, with a membership of over 220,000, all ratepayers and voters living in all parts of Scotland. Our members are chiefly of the working classes, who are interested in the clauses of the Bill and in preventing any restriction affecting the sale of a wholesome article. We entirely concur in what is said in the letter of the Health Committee, and we trust that you will use your utmost endeavours to get the suggestions therein made carried into effect, and thus benefit the general public."

I have already adverted to the fact that north of the Tweed public opinion of all classes is almost entirely solid on this subject. My hon. friend the Member for Bridgeton has referred to the fact that the two most powerful supporters of the Government in the Press, the two journals which have the largest circulation and the greatest influence in Scotland—and as the proprietor of another journal I have the greatest satisfaction in saying that—the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald , both strongly representing the intelligence and enlightenment of Scotland, have most vigorously opposed this clause. The Scotsman says:

"It will not be easy to sustain the contention that the proposed regulations and restrictions of the margarine industry are not designed to protect one interest at the expense of another. The truth is that butter as a 'pure' or 'simple' article is, from various points of view, a 'basis' article, using the word as it is applied to pure grape or other fruit juice in the wine trade."

The Glasgow Herald says:

"What have been the guiding principles in this class of legislation during the past. The first is that all articles of food offered for sale must be wholesome and good; the second is that they must be sold for what they really are. But both these principles are set at naught by a clause which would debar dairies from increasing the quality of an article of sound and legitimate commerce and traders from selling it. Besides, see what this might lead to. So far as the working classes are concerned it might limit their supply of an important wholesome and relatively cheap supply of food, while it would certainly prevent them from getting margarine of a high quality, however much they should desire to do so. There seems, therefore, every reason to hope that the clause will disappear before the Bill passes into law."

It is because I wish that that hope will be realised that I oppose this clause. It has already been said that this attempt to define by a clause what a mixed article of food should be wilt probably interfere with the progress of science. On that point the Berlin correspondent of The Times states that:

"Some experiments have been carried out recently in Germany, at the suggestion of Dr, Liebreich, with an emulsion of almond paste as a substitute for milk in the manufacture of margarine. The resulting substance, in taste, colour, and consistency resembles ordinary butter, and is stated to he absolutely free from all dangerous organisms. It keeps fresh much longer than butter, and only costs about half as much. Any kind of nuts can be used in the manufacture of this substitute."

By attempting to restrict a wholesome mixture intended to be an important article of food you are altering the whole current of legislation. I am satisfied that if the Leader of the House will agree to the withdrawal of this clause, which has been properly described as an excrescence on the Bill, it would very much simplify the passage of the Bill. We should feel conscientiously bound in duty to our constituents to a large number of manufacturers and traders, and to the people who purchase these articles of food, to at once withdraw all opposition to the other clauses. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take that course.

There is one argument which appears of importance with regard to this matter on which I should like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill was chiefly influenced by the opinion of the great distributors, who, as my hon. friend the Member for Devonport said, turn over £10,000,000 a year. I think we ought to hesitate before we are influenced by the opinions of such people. There are two easy explanations of their preference for butter. Butter is the dearer article, and therefore distributors, as my bon. friend has said, make a great deal more money by distributing it than by distributing margarine.

Oh, no. I said the distributors made more by distributing the cheaper article.

The House will be able to weigh the arguments. I did not agree with my hon. friend, but I did not stand up to interrupt him, and I think he has not contributed particularly to the Debate by interrupting me. My hon. friend now states that distributors make more profit by distributing margarine; but my second point is directly in opposition to that. I claim that in the nature of things, margarine being made by capitalist manufacturers, they are more fit to compete with the great distributing companies is an article out of which not so much profit is made in its distribution as in the distribution of butter. Every interest I have in this debate is on the side of butter. In Ireland some friends of mine are deeply interested in its production, and I am associated with the right hon. Member for South Dublin in the splendid effort he is making to improve the manufacture of butter in Ireland, but I do not like to speak in favour of anything in which I am interested, and in maintaining the case of margarine I am speaking against my own interests. The distribution of butter is far mom profitable than the distribution of margarine.

Order, order! The question before the House is whether the sale of certain mixtures should be prevented.

I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, and I will sum up by asking the House not to be led away by the casuistry of these great distributing companies, but to seek out some single good principle and to stick to it. What is the principle I would suggest? We are legislating this afternoon in a way we have never legislated before, because we are making it a crime to improve the quality of a great article of food. This House ought to be ashamed to do such a thing. If the clauses we have already passed are good clauses, which we are assured they are, if they are going to be as effective as we are assured they are going to be, then rely upon them, and do not drag in this clause. It is said that a great deal of fraud is perpetrated in the sale of mixtures, but this Bill prevents the sale of any mixture, because, if only 1 per cent. of margarine is added, the substance must be sold as margarine. Therefore every argument based on that point falls to the ground. I think we should be making a great mistake in preventing any person making margarine as good as it can be made, and I ask the House to act in accordance with previous legislation.

May I appeal to hon. Members? I quite recognise that this has been an important matter, but surely it has been adequately discussed. If the House will decide the point now, and let us have Clause 8, I will move to report progress, or make the corresponding motion.

I desire to point out that if this clause is passed thousands of honest traders in this country who expose for sale margarine that contains more than 10 per cent. of butter fat, although they sell it as margarine, can be prosecuted. Is that a fair measure to pass? I think this is an important point which has been overlooked, and I am afraid the Government will not realise it until they find traders throughout the country brought before the magistrates, not for selling margarine as butter, but because they are selling an article containing 10 per cent. of butter fat. I think that is a scandal.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 166; Noes, 83. (Division List, No. 284.)

I hope the Leader of the House will now report progress. I understand that a great number of important Amendments to the clause itself still remain to be discussed. It would be against the understanding come to if we sat much longer.

I only speak with the leave of the House. I do not know on what information the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but so far as the Amendments on the Paper are concerned, no special point is raised by them, except the amount of percentage. That does not amount to a large number of questions, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think we might finish this clause.

I understand that if the Amendments are not very numerous, they are at all events important, and likely to give rise to discussion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will lose anything by adjourning now.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman takes that view. I quite agree that it is undesirable to ask the House to sit on Wednesday afternoon, except under very exceptional circumstances, beyond the hour now reached. I assent to the adjournment of the Debate, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assist the Government in getting the remainder of the Bill when it comes on again. I shall put it down as the second Order for to-morrow night.

Further consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.

I think the Chief Secretary for Ireland should give some explanation of why he proposes to devote a sum of £25,000 a year more out of the pockets of the English taxpayers for the benefit of Ireland. I do not think that this sum ought to be voted sub silentio. When the right hon. Gentlemen opposite sat on this side of the House their great objection to Home Rule was that we would have to pay for it, and they made this a grievance with the English working man. Now that they are on that side of the House they are doing exactly what they condemned when sitting here. We should have some specific explanation of why this additional appropriation is to be made to the Irish tenants.

The amount at present granted to the Congested Districts Board is £6,500. The sum now proposed is £25,000, and the real addition to the income of the Congested Districts Board proposed by the Bill is about £18,000 or £19,000. The reason why we are asking for that increase is this. The board has been established for nine years, and the experimental stage is now over. The particular object for which the larger sum will be required is the purchase and subsequent improvement of the estates before selling them to the tenant. A large part of the money spent on improvements will be reproductive, but not in every instance.

I am sure my hon. friend does not intend to arrest the progress of this Bill through the House. I wish to assure him that in the end it will tend to relieve the taxpayers' pockets. One of the objects of the Congested Districts Board is to find a permanent remedy for the recurring distress in certain districts in the West of Ireland, and to try and relieve poor tenants and better their social condition.

Clause agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

said there were one or two points as to which he desired some explanation. The amount of money asked for seemed to be out of all proportion, as far as he could ascertain, to precedent. The House was asked to sanction the borrowing of £3,100,000—and this in the middle of July—while the Admiralty had already unexhausted borrowing powers in regard to a million of money. Hitherto the Naval Works Bill had been an annual Bill, but the money now asked for was to cover the expenditure of two years.

If the House will consent to pass this Resolution now and allow the Bill to be brought in, I hope the Bill itself will be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, together with a memorandum giving a full explanation of the works proposed as well as a schedule setting out each work separately. We desire to give the House the fullest possible information. The expenditure for which we provide in this Act is to last until the 31st March, 1901, that is to say, for two years, in the same way as the money under the last Act was for two years. The Bill follows very closely the Act of 1897, as far as it is applicable to present circumstances. As soon as the Bill is circulated plans of the new works shall be placed in the Tea Room.

We must all be obliged to my hon. friend who has asked this question, and to the hon. Gentleman opposite for the statement he has made. This Bill is brought in at an extremely late period of the session, and apparently is in some respects a departure from precedent. For the first time the House is informed that this is a Bill for two years, instead of an annual Bill, by which the control of Parliament over this great expenditure is preserved from year to year. But I do not rise for the purpose of offering criticisms on this Bill, because I think it would be very much more convenient that we should discuss the measure when it is in our hands, with the memorandum to which the hon. Member referred. I think we may fairly ask that as there is this new departure in respect of the Bill being for two years, and as new works are included, a reasonable time should be allowed for its consideration. I hope that the Second Reading will not be taken this week.

asked whether the memorandum to be presented to-morrow would show the estimates for the last three years on the various works compared with the actual expenditure, as there appeared to be a great discrepancy between the estimated expenditure and the actual expenditure. It was manifest that the Civil Lord must have expected small progress during the coming year, and still smaller in the following year, if this amount of £1,400,000 were a correct estimate.

The remarks of the hon. Gentleman show the great inconvenience of discussing a matter of this kind before the Bill is in the hands of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman has stated not very accurately the amount of money required for works already completed, and has assumed that it is for the expenditure of the next two years. He will find when the Bill is in his hands that this is not so, and with regard to the next two years I hope we shall make good progress.

Resolutions agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Goschen, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Macartney, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain.