I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the message received from Sir Claude MacDonald, an immediate advance cannot be made by the allied troops without waiting for the appointment of a commander-in-chief, and, failing this, whether Japan will not be commissioned to advance alone.

The latest advices from General Gaselee show that he contemplates an immediate advance, in which he hopes for the co-operation of the allied forces.

Has the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs any further news with regard to China?

We have no news I as regards the Legations beyond the telegram from Sir Claude MacDonald which was published last night.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the action of Sir Henry Blake in furnishing Li Hung Chang with a military guard of honour upon his departure recently from Hong Kong meets with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government.

We have not received any report on the subject, and I cannot, therefore, say what took place or give any opinion upon it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of the British firms whose action in supplying China with arms or ammunition has necessitated preventative legislation by the Government at this period of the session.

The introduction of the Bill referred to was necessitated by general grounds of policy; I have no material for entering upon the alleged action of individual firms.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of money spent on the South African War up to the most recent date.

It is impossible, as the hon. Member, no doubt, understands, to give any accurate or certain figure, but the War Office estimate the total expenditure up to date at about £42,000,000, exclusive of interest in respect of war debt.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office received from the Foreign Office some ten days ago information of the ill-fare of the British prisoners at Nooitgedacht, that some were dead and many sick of dysentery, that for eleven days they have been without meat, that their ordinary allowance was one pound of meat per week, that they were without many necessaries and in want of clothing and means to obtain it, and will he explain why this information was not forwarded, and will he yet forward it to, among others, the headquarters of the 13th Yeomanry in London, as promised on their enrolment, that corps being among the prisoners; whether any offer or attempt has been made to send in medical assistance from our own Army in the same manner in which our doctors and ambulances and medical comforts are given to the Boer prisoners and sick, and if he will state the date of any such offer or attempt, and whether the Boers have refused to allow such medical assistance to be given; and, if so, whether the British Army will continue to supply the same assistance to Boer prisoners and sick, while it is refused to be allowed to British prisoners and sick; and whether he has taken or will take any steps to ascertain the names of the dead and the sick.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what has been done with the quantity of letters addressed by post to members of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry Corps, Cape Town, for many weeks past; and have any steps been taken to get them forwarded to the members of that corps at Nooitgedacht, who have for many weeks been known to be there detained; and can he say whether all letters so addressed were duly delivered at Cape Town, and to whom; and with whom does the forwarding thence of such letters rest.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office some ten days ago received information of the ill-fare of the British prisoners at Nooitgedacht, that some were dead, and many sick of dysentery, that for eleven days they have been without meat, that their ordinary allowance was one pound of meat per week, that they were absolutely without many necessaries, and in want of clothing and means to obtain it; and will he explain why this information was not forwarded to the War Office, and also, among others, to the headquarters of the 13th Yeomanry in London, for communication to relatives of the prisoners, as promised on their enrolment.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for War what orders have been given, or steps taken, respecting the quantity of letters and other communications addressed to members of the 13th Imperial Yeomanry Corps, Cape Town, for many weeks past; and what steps have been taken to gee them forwarded to the members of that corps at Nooitgedacht, where they have for many weeks been known to be detained.

If my hon. friend will allow me, I will answer his four questions together. It is true that on the 20th of this month the Foreign Office received a telegram from Consul General Crowe about the condition of the prisoners at Nooitgedacht. That telegram was not published, nor was it communicated to the head-quarters of the regiments concerned. We have hitherto refrained from publishing telegrams from Captain Crowe referring to his efforts on behalf of British prisoners, because we have good reason to believe that such publication might embarrass him and reduce the prisoners' chance of receiving letters and comforts. We still hold that view, and I must appeal to my hon. friend, in the interests of the prisoners, to allow the Government to be the judge in this matter. I understand, however, on good authority that the supply of food for the prisoners is insufficient, that they had no meat or salt for eleven days, and that the ordinary allowance of meat was one pound per week; but that the general state of their health was good, and that only two deaths were reported, that about seventy men were in hospital, but no cases very serious. Perhaps I may again repeat that the Government has made, and is making, every attempt to ameliorate the condition of these prisoners, both in regard to their receiving letters and in other respects; that a tele- gram was despatched to Lord Roberts on the 24th instant, urging him to do all he could, and that a further telegram to the same effect has been sent to-day.

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the last part of the first question. Will he take any steps to ascertain the names of the dead and the sick?

I think the hon. Member has not listened to my reply. I said both in forwarding letters and in other respects. All these points are taken into consideration, and everything is being done that can be done; but to discuss the means that are taken would be to defeat the object of the hon. Member and of all of us.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the comments made at a recent, meeting of the Cork Board of Guardians upon an application for out-door relief by the wife and children of a wounded soldier in South Africa; and whether, with a view to remedy the hardship of taxing Irish ratepayers for the support of soldiers' widows, wives, and children, as well as for the cost of the war, he will suggest to the committees of the various charitable war funds the desirability of transmitting; a reasonable proportion of these funds for distribution in Ireland.

The families of Irish soldiers have the same el aim on all general patriotic funds as other soldiers, and there is no reason to suppose that the claim is not recognised. The question, of giving State pensions to widows is, as I have more than once stated, now under consideration.

Will the question of granting gratuities also be considered?

The whole question is under consideration. The Leader of the House has already made a statement on the subject, and I cannot carry it any further.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Militia officers whose regiments have been embodied and who have served in the South African War will, according to the Queen's Regulations, be entitled to receive the sum of £100 at the end of the war; and whether, if that is so, a similar gratuity will be given to Volunteer officers who have served in South Africa.

I answered this question in the affirmative on the 27th inst.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, according to the establishment, in the cavalry the proportion of first lieutenants to second lieutenants is eight to six, and in the infantry eight to four at home, equal in the colonies, and nine to eight in India, while in the artillery it is now about 159 to 362 in the mounted artillery, and 98 to 348 in the garrison artillery; and if so, whether steps can be taken to remedy the wholesale supersession of artillery subalterns by those in other branches of the service; and whether the Secretary of State for War will consider, in view of the supersession which has taken place, the substitution of a fixed establishment of first lieutenants in the artillery, as was formerly the case as to increased pay, for the present system of three years service in the junior rank.

The figures are approximately correct. As I have previously informed the House the promotion of artillery second lieutenants is receiving consideration in the War Office. But the question is one of considerable difficulty. It is not possible to secure uniformity of promotion in the different branches of the service; but it is recognised that such inequality as exists at present ought to be remedied if possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether all Militia battalions are now practically in the uniforms of their Line battalions, with the exception of the Militia battalions of the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, the Seaforth Highlanders, and the Black Watch, and if it is now intended to give these battalions the uniforms of their Line battalions, as has been done with the Militia battalions of the Gordon Highlanders and the Cameron Highlanders.

No Militia except the 3rd Gordon and 3rd Cameron Highlanders have the full dress uniform of their Line battalions. All Militia have now practically the undress uniform of their Line battalions, and it is not proposed to make any change in the clothing of the Highland battalions referred to.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether honorary majors of embodied Militia regiments will be allowed to receive from the date of embodiment the increased pay given by Royal Warrant of 1899 to a captain having higher rank by brevet.

No, Sir. Honorary rank is given to Militia captains after fifteen years service. Brevet rank is given to a captain for distinguished service in the field or service of an exceptional nature other than in the field. There is no similarity between the two cases.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the present time there are over eighty old Irish soldiers in the Belfast workhouse; and whether steps will be taken to inquire into these cases with a view to provide any old soldier who may possess a certificate of good conduct with a pension.

Nothing is known of the presence of so many Irish old soldiers in the Belfast workhouse, but the matter shall be inquired into. It must, however, be understood that pensions are given either for long service, for war service on reaching the age of sixty-five, or to soldiers discharged in consequence of disablement incurred in the service. There may be men who have passed a portion of their life in the Army, but who fulfil none of these conditions.

The information was supplied to me by a former Member of this House. Will the Government consider the desirability of providing all old soldiers who have seen active service with a pension?

That is done in all cases when a man reaches the age of sixty-five, but I cannot hold out any hope that the age limit will be reduced.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the regulations issued for the competitive examination of candidates for commissions in the Militia in September next.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the representations which Her Majesty's Ambassador was directed to make to the Turkish Government in favour of British manufacturers who have made lower and better tenders for the armament of the Turkish warships than their German rivals have borne fruit, and whether such orders have been given to British firms.

Her Majesty's Government have received no definite information as to who will receive the order for the re-armament of certain Turkish ships. They are aware that a British firm has made an advantageous tender, and representations were made to the Sultan by Her Majesty's Ambassador in the middle of June last urging that offers by British firms should receive fair consideration.

Have these representations been repeated in view of the fact that great political pressure is being brought to bear on behalf of the German firms?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have formally abandoned large and rich portions of Northern Asia Minor and the Euphrates Valley as spheres of interest for railway construction and commercial development to other great Powers, or have Her Majesty's Government recognised any such spheres of interest, to the exclusion of British manufacture and commerce.

The answer to both questions is in the negative.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been arrived at in the matter of permitting the Australian branches of the Royal Mint to issue gold ingots for exportation.

From inquiries made at Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth, as well as in London, there appears to be considerable doubt as to how far gold ingots issued from the branch mints in Australia with a mint mark would be in demand. In view of this uncertainty the present time is not considered favourable for introducing a change of such importance pending the establishment of Federal Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in the lately issued Factory Inspector's Report, the usual tables of persons employed in the various industries in different parts of the country, based on the Returns made under Section 34 of the Factory Act, 1895, have been omitted; and whether he will now supply this information by way of a Return, or otherwise.

As I stated in answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on 15th February, it was necessary to omit the tables referred to if the Chief Inspector's Report was to be issued early, as desired by this House. A fresh Return of the numbers employed in factories will be compiled and published in due course, probably with the Chief Inspector's Report for the current year. I propose in future to publish the Return triennially. Its annual preparation involves so much labour as to interfere seriously even with the ordinary work of inspection.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he receives annually from the diocesan registrars statements of the fees received by them, and of the state of their offices, under the 7th and 8th Victoria, chap. 68, and whether such accounts are open to public inspection; and whether, in view of proposed legislation to give a vested interest to diocesan registrars by enabling them to make fresh charges in respect of fees, he will consent to give a Return of the statements received in respect of each diocese during the last three years.

Yes, Sir. Accounts under the statute referred to are received every year in the Home Office. I am not aware that anyone has ever asked to be allowed to inspect them, but I see no reason why inspection should not be allowed, if desired. I think there would be no objection to the Return suggested by my hon. friend, if he likes to move for it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that the watermen on the Thames receive a pecuniary reward for the recovery from the river of a dead body, but nothing for the rescue of a living body, he will consider the desirability, in the public interest, of making the work of rescue at least as remunerative as that of recovery.

I presume that what the hon. Member calls a reward is the fee of 5s. to which any person is entitled who first gives notice of the discovery of a drowned body to the parish authorities, under a statute of George III., of which the object was to secure the decent burial of cast- aways. I cannot credit the suggestion that for the sake of this sum any waterman would deliberately refrain from rescuing a person alive; and I do not propose to take any steps in the direction suggested, though I may mention that the police bring any attempt to save life from drowning (whether successful or not) to the notice of the Royal Humane Society, who make awards in cases where they consider that the circumstances justify recognition.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why the Return of the Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1899 has been withheld until July, 1900, seeing that this delay precludes the possibility of a prosecution based on the facts recorded in that Return being instituted.

The Return has not been withheld, but was presented as soon as the necessary materials could be got together and digested. The date of the issue of the Return has no bearing on the decisions to which I may come on the matters recorded therein.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade furnished the Press with a copy of his letter of the 26th instant to Mr. Bell, of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and Mr. Bell's reply thereto; and whether he has communicated since with the Great Eastern Railway Company, and whether the company have replied; and, if so, what is the tenour and the date of that reply, and has it been handed to the representatives of the men and to the press.

The answer to the first question is in the negative. In answer to the second question I have to say that I have had no formal communication with the railway company, and no communication has been made to the press.

Are the company prepared to receive the delegates elected by the men?

I am afraid I can add nothing to my answer.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether a member of the Legislature of one of the constituent States will be legally entitled to occupy a seat in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament at the same time.

I am informed that the Legislature of South Australia has passed an Act providing that a member of either House of the South Australian Parliament shall, if elected a member of either House of the Commonwealth Parliament, vacate his seat in the South Australian Parliament on taking his seat in the Commonwealth Parliament, and that no member of the latter shall be qualified for nomination or election to either House of the Parliament of South Australia. None of the other colonies have, so far as I know, as yet adopted similar legislation, and therefore there is no impediment in the way of members of the Parliaments of these States becoming also members of the Federal Parliament, provided, of course, that they succeed in getting elected.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education can he state what number of the higher grade schools formerly conducted by school boards and the managers of Voluntary schools have been discontinued since the introduction of the New Code and the Minute providing for the establishment of higher elementary schools; how many applications have been made to the Board of Education for the conversion of higher grade schools into higher elementary schools under the said Minute, and how many applications have been made for permission to create new higher elementary schools under the said Minute; and what is now the total number of such higher elementary schools in England and Wales.

The Board of Education are not aware of any such schools having been discontinued. About 190 applications have been made to be recognised under the Minute, most of which were accompanied by an intimation that the managers desired various modifications of the Minute, in order to enable them to comply with some of its terms. No higher elementary schools are yet in existence, nor can be until 1st October, the beginning of the school year.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state what loans were made by the Museum of Science and Art at South Kensington to centres in Wales during the year 1899.

815 objects to two museums, 318 objects to one exhibition, 330 objects to seven art schools and classes, 197 objects to three science schools and classes, making 1,560 objects altogether.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that until the latter part of 1898 the public were permitted to inspect the indexes kept in the General Register Office at Somerset House for the entry of a particular birth, death, or marriage, and to peruse the entry on payment of 1s., and that such procedure was officially recognised under Regulation 9 of the printed arrangements with regard to searchers and certificates, signed by Sir Brydges P. Henniker, dated March, 1897, and publicly exhibited in the search room at Somerset House; whether this privilege has recently been curtailed, and the fee of 1s. is not now allowed to cover the perusal of the entry of birth, death, or marriage sought for; what is the reason for the present restriction; and whether he will direct that the facilities accorded to the public previous to 1898 will be restored.

For a period prior to the latter part of 1898 the volumes of certified copies were as an act of grace allowed to be seen by applicants, but this concession was found in practice to be open to considerable abuse, and it became necessary to revert to the practice authorised by statute. The statutory fee of 1s. only covers the perusal of the index, and not of the volumes of certified copies.

What was the abuse?

The abuse was this, that insurance offices, chiefly, sent their agents to inspect those certified copies with the idea that the 1s. fee which they paid for inspecting the index covered such inspection. Such was not the case. The statute required that a fee of 2s. 6d. in addition should be paid for a certified copy.

Prior to 1898 it was allowed.

It ought never to have been allowed at all; it was entirely contrary to statute.

The practice may be disallowed, but it can hardly be called an abuse under the circumstances.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the conclusions to which he has come in reference to the grievances of different classes of workmen under the Customs Board into which he has personally inquired.

I have already stated that improved conditions of service will be assured to the more deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service. Outdoor officers promoted to the grade of assistants of Customs who did practically the same work in their former post will have that fact recognised by being placed at a higher point in the scale of salary assigned to assistants of Customs. The cases of the remaining classes have not yet been finally dealt with, and indeed some have only within the last few days brought the facts before the notice of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities decline to renew the licence for the District Messenger Company.

The company are acting under two instruments. One is a licence under the Telegraph Acts which enables them to erect call-boxes in the houses of their subscribers, and the other is an authority under the Post Office Acts to deliver letters. It was intimated to the company in 1896, when the circumstances of the case were somewhat different, that the Postmaster General, as then advised, would not renew the licence on its expiration. The licence has in any case still three years to run; and, in view of the increased services rendered to the public by the company, the Postmaster General has recently been in communication with the company with the view of considering whether the call-box licence could not be renewed, coupled with some modification in the arrangement as to delivery of letters; and the whole subject is still engaging his attention.

Will the question of reducing the royalty also enter into the consideration?

I do not think so. We have already reduced the royalty sufficiently.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now say whether the scheme of revision for the sorting branch of the Edinburgh Post Office, which he stated was under the consideration of the Treasury in March, and on other occasions intimated would be decided very shortly, is likely to be sanctioned before Parliament rises.

Some of the provisions of the scheme have been sanc- tioned, but certain questions relating to the superior appointments proposed are reserved for further consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what has been the result of the consideration given to a recent judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland on the subject of the applicability of the Truck Acts to knitting, and to the bearing of the matter on the Factory Acts; and what is found to be the effect and extent of the decision.

No, Sir. This difficult question is not yet settled. I am to have a conference with the Law Officers on it this afternoon.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the exact amount at present of the Irish Church Surplus Fund over the demands now chargeable upon it.

I can only refer the hon. Member to the Treasury Memorandum—House of Commons Paper No. 293, of the Session of 1899—in which this subject was fully discussed. Nothing has happened in the last year to modify materially the figures and conclusions contained in that Paper.

The Government have been drawing on the fund for other purposes, and I want to know what the value of it is now.

That is a question which cannot be answered. The surplus, whatever it is, is adequate for the purposes for which it is required.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the secretary of the Viceregal Commission on Salmon Fishing in Ireland, in reply to a communication on behalf of the Mallow Board of Conservators, stated that they would hear no evidence on behalf of the upper water proprietors as to the Queen's Gap in the weir on the River Blackwater at Lismore, on the ground that the question of its legality was sub judice; will he explain why, although the engineer to the Mallow Conservators also applied to give evidence about the Lismore weir, without receiving any reply, the Viceregal Commission permitted the agent to the owner of the Lismore weir, and his engineer, to give evidence before them, arguing that the weir was a legal structure; and will any steps be taken to have the views of both sides represented.

The examination of witnesses by the Inland Fisheries Commission is a matter for the consideration of the Commissioners themselves, acting under the powers conferred upon them by their warrant of appointment, and the Government cannot undertake to make representations to them in the direction suggested in the question. Any such representations should be made to the Commissioners direct or through their secretary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that for five or six years past the Post Office authorities have decided to erect a new post office in Sligo; has a site been secured, and where; and can ho explain the delay in proceeding with the erection of the proposed new post office in Sligo.

Advertisements for a site for a new post office at Sligo were issued in 1895, but none really suitable were offered. A site in Lower Knox Street and Bridgefoot Street, at a point known as Fish Corner, has now been purchased, and it is hoped that the building will be begun shortly. The delay has been due to the difficulty in finding a suitable site at a cost which the Department would be justified in paying.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of Carrigullen, South Leitrim, by the failure of the Post Office authorities to provide a mid-day delivery of letters; whether he is aware that the bulk of the Carrigullen letters arrive at Belturbet at 10 a.m., and lie in the post office there till six the next morning; and that a mail car running every day from Carrigullen to Killeshandra would expedite the delivery of these letters by about twenty hours; and what is the objection to such a mail car being provided.

No representation has reached the Postmaster General from the inhabitants of Carrigullen, but he will cause inquiry to be made whether any arrangement is practicable for affording a mid-day delivery of letters at that place.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether ho will inquire if the alleged intention of the Grand Canal Company to discontinue their steamer service between Shannon Harbour and Limerick for the carriage of goods from Dublin and intermediate places to Limerick and vice versa is in any way due to an arrangement between that company and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, or either of them, to further increase the monopoly of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company at Limerick and other places, in case the Amalgamation Bill now before Parliament becomes law; whether he recommends in the general interest that either by an arrangement between the intending railway monopolists, or because of the action of the Irish Board of Works, this competing Canal Company's trade with Limerick should be discontinued; and can he state what steps he proposes to take to protect the public interests in this matter.

I have made inquiries from the Board of Works, who state that they have no information as to the alleged intention of the Grand Canal Company to abandon the traffic on the river Shannon or as to any such arrangement as that referred to between the Grand Canal Company, the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, or either of them. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. The Board have no knowledge of any danger to the public interest, such as suggested.

But will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain if the Board of Works are putting any difficulties in the way of trade being continued?

I answered that question yesterday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Southern and Western, the Waterford and Limerick, and the Waterford and Central Ireland Railway Amalgamation Bill, now before Parliament, does not provide for the establishment of a tribunal, cheap and easy of access in Ireland (other than the Railway and Canal Commissioners), to which Irish traders and passengers can appeal in the event of the Bill becoming law; and will he take steps to provide such a tribunal which can deal with the questions of railway rates, fares and facilities, and other matters which may be in dispute between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the trading and travelling public in Ireland.

The reply to the first paragraph is the affirmative. If I correctly understand the second paragraph, the hon. Member desires to ascertain whether the Government propose to insert a clause in the Irish Railway Amalgamation Bills now before the House which shall provide for the establishment of a special tribunal to deal with rates and fares on the Great Southern and Western Railway of Ireland. In that case the answer to this paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Londonderry has intimated to Lord Salisbury his desire to resign his position of Postmaster General, in order that His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, who has been serving with the Army in South Africa, may, if he so desires, resume that office on his return to England.

I have heard nothing of the rumour which appears to have reached the hon. Gentleman. It is a question which can hardly be debated upon the floor of the House.

Has it not been repeatedly stated in this House that all employees of public Departments——

Order, order!

Why should an exception be made in favour of Lord Londonderry?

said he did not think they ought to pass the Third Reading of the Bill without a few remarks to show what the position of the law would be, unless it was altered in some respects in another place. The Bill came on so suddenly after it had passed through the Grand Committee that there had not been time to propose new clauses. Copies of the Bill, printed as amended, were not in their hands until Monday morning, and the Bill came on in the House on Tuesday. The Bill, no doubt, was exceedingly well intended, and he hoped it would do more good than he was afraid would be the case; but he hoped the Government in another place would take some stops to correct the difficulties, obscurities, and mistakes which were still to be found in it. The object of the Bill was to safeguard intending investors; but, while shareholders were looked after almost in a grandmotherly way, those who took debentures were supposed to be capable of taking care of themselves, and were left in rather an awkward position. There were certain requirements provided for in the Bill which were thought to be necessary for the protection of the public. If the public were not invited to subscribe before registration, a company might easily obtain a certificate of registration, after which subscriptions might be invited, and the intended safeguards could thus be avoided. Then there was a difficulty in connection with allotment. Supposing a company's shares had all been subscribed on the first allotment, which was not infrequently the case, and that within the year it was considered necessary by the directors to raise money by way of debentures, for which they issued a prospectus, at the same time desiring to elect a very large shareholder to the directorate, and a vacancy of the board occurred, or, at all events, it was thought advisable to elect that large shareholder, it was impossible under the provisions of this Bill to do so until the expiry of the year. No shareholder could be appointed a director of the company within the year unless he was named in the articles of association, or unless he lodged with the registrar a contract in writing undertaking to take from the company and pay for a certain number of shares, although the company might not be able to give the shares. That appeared to be a great absurdity. A shareholder who might hold three-fourths of the shares could not be appointed a director unless he complied with certain requirements which were really impracticable. He hoped that would be altered in the Upper House. The provisions with regard to the minimum subscription required amendment, because they could be easily evaded. The requirements in regard to the prospectus were designed to prevent fraud in the promotion of a new company, but they put unnecessary difficulties in the way of a company of long standing in the legitimate object of raising further capital by debentures. It would be obliged to state in the prospectus a number of old matters and transactions long forgotten, which investors would not care to know. They would prefer to see the last two or three balance sheets. When a director concurred in omitting to comply with some of the intricate requirements of this Bill in regard to the issue of the prospectus, was sued and had to pay damages, he could not make his co-directors contribute. It was only when an untrue statement had been made and a great wrong had resulted that he could make them contribute. What would happen to him if the prospectus both contained an untrue statement and did not meet with the requirements of the Act? It would take one with more ability than he had for solving puzzles, to determine. Another hardship was that if there was fraud in the formation of a company, or at any time of its existence, and the company came into liquidation—no matter whether the fraud had been committed by a director, manager, clerk, or even the office-boy—every person who during that time had been a director or officer of the company might be called upon, at his own expense, to be exposed to the ordeal and torture of an examination in public. These were a few of the points which he had picked out of the Bill which still required consideration, and he hoped that the House of Lords would assent to the Amendments in the direc- tion he had indicated. As Andrew Fair-service would have said, this Bill was "ower bad for blessing, but too guid for cursing."

The right hon. Gentleman has been congratulated at having reached the end of his labours; but I do not think that these congratulations, when they had reference to the character or the result of this measure, were entirely unmingled with a feeling of regret. I confess that I regard this Bill with some measure of disappointment. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has missed a very great opportunity for amending defects in company law; and that after this measure has been passed there will still be a strong sense throughout the country that defects exist which might have been remedied. The right hon. Gentleman has been subjected to very great difficulties. In the first place, he had to deal with a stale measure. It was drafted some years ago, and was adapted to a state of things in regard to company promotion which the lapse of time had rendered obsolete. The methods of company promoting had considerably altered during the last few years, and since this scheme was framed. The light which was thrown upon the subject by the revelations in connection with the Hooley and other companies was absent, and therefore the result was a measure ill adapted for Amendments which were necessary to bring it into harmony with the modern conditions under which companies are launched. Again, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suffer almost a paralysis owing to his anxiety not to overweight the Bill. Any Amendments proposed with the view of increasing its efficiency he appeared to regard with undue apprehension. Whether he feared the influence of some of his supporters or his colleagues, or whether he was afraid of criticism in another place, he lent a very much more ready ear to suggestions that would render the Bill less operative than to suggestions which would have made it a more effective instrument for the prevention of fraud. Then the right hon. Gentleman was subjected to undue pressure, having regard to the very limited time available for the discussion of a measure of the very first importance. When one considers the very trifling record of the session, the reason why this important measure is left to the very last day is difficult to imagine. It is almost impossible to give one's mind to criticising its complicated provisions in the time. The result of the procedure which has been adopted is that we have a Bill which none of us regard as an unmixed good. It does very little to remove the difficulties attendant on honest company enterprise, and very little to suppress fraud in company promotion. It is impossible to suppose that the company reformer will be satisfied with this measure, and after it has passed through Parliament we shall sooner or later have to take up the duty of forging a more perfect instrument to check the frauds of company promoting. There are defects which cripple this scheme which must be remedied before any effectual measure of company reform is passed. The Bill does not in any way deal with gambling companies which are formed without any prospectus. The whole framework of the measure is adapted to a state of things which assumes that every company is launched with a prospectus. The very elaborate requirements with which the directors are compelled to comply in issuing the prospectus are unattended by any penalties. They must furnish information on many topics, but if they do not do so there is no penalty in the Bill, and it therefore becomes necessary to fall back on the antiquated, cumbrous, and almost obsolete indictment for misdemeanour at common law. Now in no modern statute in my experience are the requirements of statutes left to be enforced by means of an indictment for misdemeanour at common law. In all modern statutes penalties are created, and in nearly every case you have the process of summary conviction which may be put at the disposal of persons enforcing the law. In this measure there is no such provision, and I cannot help thinking that this Bill has been drawn by somebody entirely unfamiliar with the practice of inserting such a provision in an Act of Parliament. There is no provision for giving the shareholders information with respect to the money expended by the vendor or the promoter in the promotion of a company. The vendor's account and the promotion account are not among the documents to be supplied to the shareholders. The Bill is framed upon the assumption that the cost of the promotion is to be borne by the company, but the cost of the promotion in nearly all cases is borne by those persons who bring it into existence, so that it is most essential that those accounts should be supplied in order that dishonesty in promoting companies should be stopped. Then as to the one man company. A more indefensible condition of things than that which is known as the one man company cannot be imagined; but after this Bill has become law, it will be possible for a man to bring out a company, to take all the shares and carry on his business under the name of a company, and although he owns all the property and takes all the profit of the business he leaves all the risk to the company and is under no liability. That is certainly a matter that should be remedied, but as this measure stands that state of things will continue to exist, because, as a man does not publish a prospectus to himself, and there is no record of shares allotted, or debentures placed, there is nothing to enable any person to inquire into the extraordinary scheme of which that company is the result. There is also no attempt to limit the practice of qualifying the liability of directors and other officers of the company by the insertion of provisions in the company's Articles. I do not wish to say anything with regard to this measure which may cause the right hon. Gentleman any disappointment. So far as it goes it is an honest and useful effort on the part of the Government in the path of company reform, but I greatly regret that it has not been made more complete. Important matters are left for future legislation, and if we fail to take advantage of the stream now when it is at the flood we may have to wait a long time for another opportunity. These evils will continue to exist in our industrial system; scandals will from time to time arise, and the present Bill may be pointed to as representing the sum of attainable effort in our generation.

said that he saw in this Bill no difficulties put in the way of unscrupulous men to prevent them getting over or evading the provisions made for the protection of the public. One result of the measure would be that the public would be put to greater expense than they had had hitherto to bear in the formation of companies. There was one point which he wished specially to point out. There was no tribunal to deal with complaints. The Board of Trade had taken no power under which they could investigate charges of fraud. The investigation would take place when the company was in liquidation, and when all the assets had been lost. Investors would like the investigation to come at some previous period, but there was no provision whatever for that in the Bill. The Bill provided with respect to the question of qualification that the prospectus should state the amount. There would be no difficulty in stating the amount at such a small figure that the good which the provision in the Bill was intended to secure would be done away with. Again, the provision in the Bill on the question of allotment lent itself to evasion, inasmuch as promoters could easily put in nominees, men of straw, to subscribe, and under the names of A, B, C, and D, with £1,000, £2,000, £3,000 and £4,000 respectively, they would be able to ensure the flotation of the company. He mentioned those points to illustrate what he felt—namely, that this Bill was not more far-reaching than the present law, and did not really deal with men who were capable of evading the law. Some day or other the Bill would have to be amended, inasmuch as it would be found that the expense honest promoters would have to undergo would be far more than they had to pay under the present law. He was afraid that the Bill would not have the very much desired effect. He was sure the country had viewed with consternation the acts which had lately been seen of unscrupulous men who floated companies without any tangible assets. Even if this Act had been in force it would not have been possible to prevent the fleecing of the public in the way those men had done. Those acts were within the knowledge of everyone in the House. He regretted that this Bill had not had more time devoted to it. The importance of it had not been fully gauged by those interested in it.

said that company promoters generally looked pretty well after themselves. So far as the complaint of the hon. Member for the Romford Division was concerned, he did not share it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had, he had no doubt, the most honest and excellent intentions in bringing forward this Bill, but he did not carry out his excellent intentions in the Bill. It seemed to him, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he really did not know the tricks of promoters sufficiently to be able to provide against them in the Bill. The Bill admittedly was one of the worst ever passed by a legislative assembly. He had been concerned in passing many Bills, good, bad, and indifferent, but he did not know any Bill so bad— not in its principles, but in the mode of giving effect to those principles—as the Bill they were going to read the third time that evening. The Bill was badly drawn up. It went to a Committee on which they bad a number of wholly excellent and intelligent lawyers, and a good many perfectly respectable directors. They knew nothing of the subject with which they had to deal. The honest directors put up their hands to heaven and asked, "Can such things be?" Then the Bill came down to the House. They could not discuss a Bill of this importance and magnitude in the last week of the session. In order to make the Bill ship-shape and to make it hold water it ought to have been discussed much longer. What happened on the previous night? The President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney General were in possession of what he might call a mechanical majority. They had about thirty gentlemen sitting behind them who voted against every Amendment which the Government did not accept Those gentlemen knew absolutely nothing of the matter. The Government Whips ought not to interfere in connection with such a Bill as this. It was not a party question, but in this case they knew perfectly well that the whip pointed to the lobby, and Amendments proposed by his hon. and learned friend the Member for South Leeds and others were voted down. At the same time the, thirty Members on the other side of the House were kept sweet by the right hon. Gentleman making concessions to them. Some Gentleman got up and moved a little Amendment on the other side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "Agreed, agreed," before they knew where they were, and thereupon the Amendment was carried, whereas when Amendments were moved from the Opposition side of the House there was no cry of "Agreed." It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman considered it a point of honour to oppose them. It was to be a real Conservative Bill, and, naturally from the standpoint of Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, it was a very bad Bill. [The hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell interjected a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.] The hon. Gentleman was an angel among those who were not angels. His Amendments were excellent ones, but they were too much in the line of those proposed on the Opposition side to find favour with the right hon. Gentleman. That morning at half-past one, when the House adjourned, he was prepared to sit until three o'clock if they could amend the Bill in any way. The case was perfectly hopeless. The House was getting more and more sleepy, and there were cries of "Divide, divide," from the faithful thirty. Under those circumstances he went off to bed and left the right hon. Gentleman to do what he pleased. The right hon. Gentleman was very courteous, but he always distrusted a Minister who was very courteous. He knew perfectly well what it meant. He knew that the courtesy was a sort of quid pro quo for getting something else. His hon. friend had pointed out many of the shortcomings of the Bill, and it seemed to him that when a clause was passed shutting up some loophole for swindling it was opened again, and that further opportunities for swindling were given that did not at present exist. A clause in the Bill stated that a company might underwrite, and on the prospectus a statement of what it paid for the underwriting was to be set forth. But right hon. Gentlemen refused to allow any money which might be paid by the promoters in excess of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. paid by the company to appear on the prospectus. What was the consequence? The investor, looking at a prospectus, would say, "This is a very good company, for it has been underwritten at 2 per cent."; but for all they knew the underwriting might have been 10 per cent., because the right hon. Gentleman would not agree that whatever was given for underwriting, whether by the promoters or the company, should appear on the prospectus. Then as to abridged prospectuses, surely it was desirable that in an abridged prospectus the main substantial facts should be stated. An Amendment was moved to that effect, but the right hon. gentleman refused to accept it, and he said that if abridged prospectuses were not allowed newspapers alone would profit. As a matter of fact, newspapers would gain by abridged prospectuses, because if the full prospectus had to be published not many would be advertised, and then only for brief periods, and when a particular company would rather avoid full publicity the abridged prospectus would be spread abroad. He always distrusted a company which advertised very much. If the company were a rotten company depending entirely on the names on what Mr. Hooley called "the front page," it would be found that it would be before the public for a week or more, and the longer it was before the public and the longer the prospectus, the presumption was the worse was the company. So far as newspapers were concerned, if they looked only to their own interests and not to the interests of the public, they would be very glad to have the system of abridged prospectuses. Then it had been pointed out that there were no penalties in the Bill, and that all its clauses were a series of pious opinions. There might be a prosecution by some roundabout way at common law, but why not have adopted the usual system and included specific penalties in the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured of the measure that he absolutely refused to make any change in it. As to one man companies, they were generally swindles. Of course, a perfectly honest man might for family reasons wish to convert his business into a private company, but as a general rule the man who wished to convert his business into a company did so either because he found the business was going down or because for the preceding two or three years there had been very large profits which he wished to capitalise. Then he started his company without a prospectus. The shares were sold to the public, he himself keeping the debentures, and in a little while when the company went into liquidation the shareholders got nothing. The one man company was a danger which ought to have been dealt with in the Bill, but they had absolutely shirked it. Then as to brokers: would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what was a "lawful brokerage"? Every hon. Member connected with the Stock Exchange would bear him out when he stated that, while there were many honest brokers who took a fair and legitimate brokerage, there were a great many other people, some of them members of the Stock Exchange and others solicitors, who took an enormous brokerage. They were told that they could have a call on £1 shares for 15s.; that if they sold them they would get 5s. a share, and that if they did not they would not lose anything. Such a broker sent out circulars to his clients and informed them what excellent shares he could offer them, his clients, of course, having no idea that the broker was doing anything except looking after their interests. In that way, not only in the case of new companies but also in the case of old companies, the public were robbed throughout the country. He was not a sentimentalist. A great deal had been said about widows and orphans, but generally the widow was "a stag," and the orphan did not take shares. It was stated that an investor would send for the full prospectus before he applied for shares. That was simply nonsense. An investor in the country saw a prospectus which stated that the list would close for the country to-morrow morning; how could he send for a prospectus? The Bill was to go before the House of Lords. He was was not a warm admirer of the House of Lords, but every institution in the world which had lasted for a long time had something to be said for it. In the House of Lords there were a large number of legal gentlemen who were particularly qualified to deal with the matters connected with the Bill, and he sincerely hoped that the House of Lords, would show it was a useful body, by dealing with the Bill in a very different manner to that in which it had been dealt with in the House of Commons. There was a good deal in the Bill which ought not to be in it, and there was a good deal not in it which ought to be in it. As the Bill stood at present he believed it would have been better in the public interest if it had not been passed that session, but that next session, with the knowledge they had before them, a good practical Bill should be brought in and discussed at a time when its provisions could be properly examined.

said he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had quite made out a case for the sweeping condemnation with which he had opened his speech. The hon. Gentleman said this was one of the worst of the many bad Bills which he had discussed. He had less experience of very bad Bills than the hon. Member; but he was bound to say if what the hon. Member had said of this Bill was the worst that could be said of it, the Government had to be congratulated on a very fair achievement. It was by no means, in his judgment, a perfect Bill. It was true many things had been left out of the Bill which might have been put into it, and a few things were put in which might have been left out; but at the same time, when one considered the circumstances under which the measure had been brought before the House, it was perfectly obvious that two or three of the chief evils of company promotion had been dealt with in an effective manner. In the matter of disclosure in the prospectus the Bill went as far as any reasonable Bill could go. There was the obligation to disclose important facts in connection with the formation of the company, the obligation to disclose the terms upon which underwriting was obtained——

There is the obligation to disclose what the company pays for underwriting; but, at the same time, a promoter may add to that by paying what he likes.

said that was perfectly true; but, at all events, the company had to disclose the amount paid by it for underwriting. It was absolutely impossible for it to disclose what another person might pay for underwriting. He had pointed this out in Committee. Another important feature was the obligation on a company to register its mortgages of a certain class, and to endorse on mortgage debentures, when they are issued, the fact of their registration. There were, however, two important omissions from the Bill which militated very much against it. In the first place, it did not deal with what was known as the non-prospectus or the private company. The authors of the Bill had proceeded under the impression that subscriptions to all limited companies were obtained by means of prospectuses duly published. Those who were familiar with the facts were aware that in the majority of these companies, many of which had caused disaster to investors, the subscriptions were not obtained by the issue of a public prospectus. In order to deal with the evils at which the Bill was aimed it was essential that the non-prospectus companies should be dealt with; but they had not been dealt with. He regretted that the most useful proposal of the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds— that there should be an obligation to file, at the time of the company's registration, a Memorandum that would serve as a prospectus at all stages of the company's history—was refused by the Government. When the Act was in operation it would be found that the rejection of that Amendment was a fatal flaw in the measure, and had deprived it of what would have been its most valuable feature. One other point might be emphasised, which it might not be too late to remedy in the House of Lords—namely, the manner in which the registration of a certain class of charges had been dealt with. The great object which joint-stock company reformers had lately had in view had been to protect trade creditors. This class was not effectively protected by the provisions of the Bill. There was no safeguard in reference to the charges upon uncalled capital. In the case where inspection of the register of mortgages was provided for, the inspection was limited to the actual shareholders and creditors of the company; but these were not the people most concerned to know the financial condition of the company The person most concerned was the intending creditor. The person so situated looked at the list of shareholders and found a large number of respectable names, and that there was £50,000 or £60,000 of uncalled capital. On the strength of that he gave credit to the company. He was not aware that behind his back the company had mortgaged its unpaid capital to a bank or a money-lending intsitution. Such a person had no means of finding out the financial condition of the company before he gave it credit, and if he inquired at the offices of the company he would stand a very poor chance of getting any orders. He felt that in the two important respects he had mentioned the Bill fell short of what might be expected.

said that though they had devoted a good deal of time and labour to the Bill, yet they had not spent enough time and pains on it. The Bill had been before the House of Lords for four years, and he did not see why the Government should not have sent it to the Commons Grand Committee in March instead of in July, when they were obliged to act under a constant sense of hurry and pressure. Moreover, the Government appeared to him to have been too much in fear of an unseen and malignant influence, which appeared to him to be the influence of the House of Lords. The Bill which was originally introduced in the other House was a far more drastic measure than the present Bill, and he was of opinion that many desirable Amendments had been refused by the Government, not because they were not right in themselves, but merely because they thought it would be more difficult to pass the measure through the other House. He could not, therefore, agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, who had expressed an admiration for that body, which would evoke all the more gratitude because it was so unexpected. Looking at the part which the other House had played in preventing the Bill going further, and in cutting it down while it was before them, he thought it would be seen that the critical faculty of the House of Lords greatly exceeded its constructive faculty. The House of Lords possessed eminent legal knowledge and great power, but they rejected a proposal lest in one case in a hundred it might work badly. They could not possibly effect amendments in the law without taking some risk, and it appeared to him that the House of Lords should take some risk in matters of this kind. In their anxiety to protect the honest man, they left the meshes wide enough for others to slip through, and he was, therefore obliged to agree that the measure was not a very satisfactory one, although he did not largely blame the Government for the reasons he had mentioned. Now they had come to the end of the Bill many of them must feel, as a man sometimes did when he had finished writing a book, that then he knew how to write it, and would like to begin and write ft all again. They had certainly realised the extraordinary difficulties of the subject, and that was why he congratulated the right hon. Gentlemen on having passed even this Bill. The difficulties were attributable not only to the fact that new practices came into being in business, and that diverse interests of directors, shareholders, and creditors had to be regarded, but to the fact that the main object of the Bill was to deal with fraud. The maxim that fraud was infinite was two thousand years old; but it was as true now as it ever was. It was not much use trying to anticipate and prevent the particular forms which fraud had heretofore taken, because one might feel sure when one hole had been stopped the rabbit would get into the garden through another. Therefore he was not very sanguine as to the method they had adopted of inventing a great number of detailed provisions to counterwork and prevent the devices by which fraud might seek to attain its ends. He was not sure that they would not have done better to try and pass a, simpler and shorter Bill, of which the main purpose should be the laying down more broadly of the doctrine of the kind of good faith and honesty required from promoters and directors and every person occupying a fiduciary position. We ought to put the promoter not in a position regarding which precautions should be taken, but in the position of a man bound to exercise the utmost good faith. The best way of dealing with this Protean subject of fraud was to arm our courts with greater powers, and that, he thought, ought to have been done. Of course, that meant giving a considerable discretion to the courts, but he thought that might safely be done. The great difficulty in the way was that when they trusted to the courts they were obliged to trust to people to bring actions, and there was a great indisposition to resort to criminal procedure, and juries had a tendency to let people off for doing what was only the common practice. From civil actions he had more hope, but the constant reproach of our law was the fearful expense and difficulty of putting it into motion, and the question of the reform of the company law was therefore really a branch of the wider question of making the law of England more effective and cheaper. That being so, he could not join in the severe con- demnation passed on the Bill. He thought there were some good points in it, and though he regretted that nothing had been done with the non-prospectus companies and the one-man companies, still they had got some distinct gain from the Bill; and, remembering how long they had had to wait for it, he did not think the Government would have done well to wait until next session. But they had not reached anything like finality, and they would have to watch with the greatest care the results of the experiment they were now trying. Considering how difficult the subject was, and the extraordinary want of knowledge which most Members of the House possessed about this very special subject, he was not prepared to say that the Bill was at all to be disparaged or that they might not have to look on it as a distinct step forward. He would join, therefore, in the congratulations which had been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman on the perseverance and open-mindedness he bad shown, and although he could not regard the measure as final, still a good deal would be learned from its working. He hoped, however, that the President of the Board of Trade would keep before his mind the probability that in a few years they would be in a position to pass a measure which would remedy some of the defects that would then have been disclosed.

said that whatever he might say with regard to some of the observations made on this Bill, he certainly had no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In fact, he agreed with much that the right hon. Gentleman had said. He would have been very glad if it had been possible to make this a more complete Bill than it was. To a certain extent the Bill was in the nature of an experiment, and with regard to its merits they could only be determined by seeing how they would work out in operation. No claim could be made for the Bill anything in the shape of finality. Indeed, he would be inclined to say that it seemed to be a fault in our legislation that we attempted to deal with many matters much more comprehensively than was prudent, and he thought a great deal was to be said for moving tentatively, especially in connec- tion with a measure of this kind. There was one remark of the right hon. Gentleman with which he confessed he was not quite in accord. The right hon. Gentleman said that when we finished the Bill last night we felt very much as a man feels who has finished an interesting book and desires to read it all over again.

What I said was that we felt like a man who had written an interesting book, and who, when he came to the end of it, thought that now that he knew how to write it he would like to begin and write it all over again.

said that was not his feeling last night when the Bill got through. Many difficult and complex questions had to be discussed, and he was very glad when they were finished. Several of the speeches which had been made had been delivered with a view to showing once again to the House how strong were the arguments with which hon. Gentlemen supported the Amendments they moved, but he did not think he should usefully occupy the time of the House if he entered into a discussion of details or attempted to reply to arguments which had been addressed to the House more than once. The right hon. Gentleman said he would prefer a shorter and a simpler Bill. His view would be to give greater power to the courts; but he answered himself by showing that that would involve going to the courts and entailing an enormous expense, and was, therefore, a course which was open to considerable objection. He (Mr. Ritchie) thought he ought to remind the House, in answer to the complaints which had been made by some hon. Gentlemen that the Bill was not as fully discussed as the importance of the subject warranted, of the history of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen knew very well that the Departmental Committee was appointed by himself. The subject of company law reform was originally investigated by the Departmental Committee, comprised of some of Her Majesty's judges, able lawyers, and eminent merchants who were in touch with the commercial world. The Bill which emanated from that Committee was not exactly the Bill they had before them now, but it was very much on the same lines; although the Bill introduced by his representative in the House of Lords four years ago was exactly in the shape recommended by the Departmental Committee, it was afterwards amended by a Select Committee of the House of Lords. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton expressed his confidence in the House of Lords and in the popularity of its Members, he was glad to hear him.

The Law Lords.

The Law Lords! He was still more glad to hear it; because this Bill had been under the consideration of a Committee of the most eminent Law Lords for no less than four years, and that Committee had had before it men the most eminently capable of giving information in regard to company law. It was true that it seemed sometimes to hang fire in the other House, and the reason for that was that these eminent lawyers were very much occupied, and could not devote that amount of time to it which they in the House of Commons could do. The hon. Member must therefore feel a glow of satisfaction when he knew that that critical examination into this question which he advocated had already taken place by the House of Lords and by its most eminent Members. It was only natural that when a Bill came down to that House with such a recommendation as that there should be very little doubt about any very material point in it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of the extreme difficulty of the subject. No doubt it was extremely difficult, and a sort of subject which he undertook to say, whatever shape the Bill had assumed in that or the other House, would not have satisfied everybody. It must be remembered that this was a matter which must be dealt with with extremely great caution. The enormous bulk of the companies of this country had been very successful, and had done great things for our commerce and industry, and in endeavouring to hit at the undoubted defects in the law, and strike at undoubted fraudulent concerns, they must take extreme care not to make the law so drastic that honest men would be prevented from becoming directors of honest concerns, while the worst class of director would not be deterred from joining in the formation of fraudulent companies. That had always been present to his mind throughout the whole course of the discussion on the Bill. He had felt on many occasions that there had been a good deal to be said for some of the Amendments proposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and for many of the Amendments he had a sneaking regard. But he had always in his mind the great fear, already stated, that by accepting some of them it would make it difficult for good men to join good companies as directors, while the worst class of company directors would not be prevented in any way from undertaking the risks of joining in the formation of companies which were not so good. It had been said that they had been rather hurrying on this measure. He would have been glad if it had been introduced at an earlier stage of the session. It had been on the tapis for four or five years, and a great number of its provisions had been asked for by the great mass of the commercial community, and although the House might differ on some points in the Bill, he was satisfied that it was in the interest of the commercial community generally that this reform of company law ought not to be kept hanging over year after year, and should not be further delayed. Although he should have liked to see it introduced earlier in the session, he did not think there were any grounds for saying that the House of Commons had not had an opportunity of adequately considering it. As the right hon. the Member for Aberdeen said, seven days had been spent on it in Grand Committee, and every one of the points—far more than had been raised in the House itself—that could have occurred to the ingenuity of any one in regard to company law, had been brought before and discussed by the Committee in a businesslike and capable manner. He must therefore say that he did not think there was any just reason for complaint that the House of Commons had passed this measure in a hurry, and without time for the consideration of Amendments desired to be put forward by hon. Gentlemen. In fact, on the Report stage, many of the most important questions touched on in Committee were discussed again. He was much obliged to the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, and the right hon. and learned Member for Dumfries Burghs, for the manner in which they had spoken of the part which his colleagues, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, had taken in this matter. They had tried to consider in a fair and reasonable manner all the proposals put before them, and if they had not accepted all the Amendments, it was because they believed they would not advance the cause they had at heart, and would not have the effect that they desired in preventing men from engaging in these undertakings. He believed himself that the full disclosure of the position of the companies sought to be formed—which was the real principle of the Bill—would have a very considerable effect in enlightening the public mind, and in its operation it would have a very beneficial effect on the country, if not all that some of them had hoped. It was possible and extremely probable that, after seeing the working of the Bill for some longer or shorter time, they should be able from the experience so derived to do something more in undertaking further reforms.

said he would not detain the House more than a few moments. He would not say anything after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, especially as the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen was not present, except on two definite points. He did not wish to criticise the Bill at all, but only to urge two points. The first was that this Bill was directed substantially against fraud. He believed that the Bill might be useful, though he was afraid it would not do as much as the right hon. Gentleman expected. But there were constantly occurring, every year, the most scandalous and gross frauds in company administration; and he did not think that there had been a sufficient use of the existing criminal law for the purpose of punishing, according to the law as it existed, those gross frauds by which many millions sterling every year were taken out of the pockets of honest and confiding people and put into the pockets of thieves and scoundrels, for they were nothing better. He ventured to suggest to the Attorney General that he should keep a very close eye on what was going on, and what was perfectly well known. In cases which were really fraudulent the Attorney General should put the sharp edge of the criminal law into force for the purpose of preventing these scandalous things which they knew were constantly going on. The criminal law had, in fact, become a by-word in connection with company administration. There was a second suggestion he had to make. An Amendment had been introduced into the Bill for the purpose of enabling a public examination to take place in those cases where the official receiver had made a report. He ventured to make the further suggestion—if it was not too late, with a view to a passage of the Bill through the other House—that cases of compulsory liquidation were very small in number; but there was no means of public examination in cases of voluntary liquidation, no matter how scandalous these had been, or in cases of liquidation under the supervision of the court. The publicity of examinations under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 had been most effective. The Colonial Secretary, who was then President of the Board of Trade, pointed in 1883 to the necessity of publicity in any bankruptcy proceedings, and maintained with great force that not only the creditors, but the public, had an interest in the disclosures of frauds, irregularities and improprieties. The gentleman at present at the head of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade had repeatedly drawn attention to the very same thing, and said that one of the best means of preventing frauds was publicity. They could not have public examinations as the law now stood, except in the small number—and it was a decreasing number—of cases of compulsory liquidation. He ventured to suggest that more effective than even the clauses of this Bill, would be publicity, and the provision that men who were guilty of disgraceful conduct in getting up and in the management of companies should not be able, by means of voluntary liquidation, to shield themselves from public contempt, and it might be from criminal prosecution.

) said he rose to say only a word in regard to the first suggestion of his hon. and learned friend. He seemed to think that there had been some remissness in bringing the criminal law into operation in connection with company frauds. He could not help thinking that if his hon. and learned friend had closely followed the prosecutions during the last few years——

said he did not mean to imply censure.

said ho was quite sure his hon. friend did not imply any censure. There had been a considerable number of prosecutions for fraud in connection with companies, and he thought that in most of these cases convictions had resulted. He must remind his hon. friend of the fact that before entering on prosecutions of this kind it was necessary to be tolerably sure that they had sufficient evidence to ensure that justice would be done. It would be a great evil if a prosecution of this kind ended in a fiasco. There might be little doubt that a gross fraud had taken place, but it might be extremely difficult to get the necessary evidence. He could not help thinking that when his hon. friend spoke of the criminal law being rather a by-word, he was exaggerating. When the present Master of the Rolls was Attorney General the same vigilance was brought to bear in cases of this kind as when his hon. and learned friend occupied the same office. He could assure the House that the attention of the Public Prosecutor and of himself would not be relaxed, and whenever they could see their way, where it was desirable in the public interests that prosecutions should be undertaken, there would be no remissness.

said, on a point of order he wished to show that this Bill dealt with a new Naval Volunteer force. By reference there was introduced into the Bill all the provisions, of t e Naval Volunteer Act of 1859. The provisions of that Act entitled the Lords of the Admiralty to give pensions and certain remuneration to those who were in that reserve force. This Bill established a new Naval Volunteer force, which was to be paid in the same way as the existing Royal Naval Volunteers, and that, of course, involved a large payment out of the Imperial funds. His contention was that the clause in the Bill in that, respect was really an enabling clause to make a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and therefore should have first been introduced by resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. Take as an example the Lunacy Board (Scotland) Bill. That Bill was introduced in the ordinary way by the Lord Advocate, who, however, afterwards withdrew it, and then introduced it in Committee, on the ground that it was a Money Bill, and should be so introduced. He understood that Mr. Speaker had made some observation that, where the money was to be paid out under the sanction of Parliament afterwards, a resolution in Committee was not, necessary, but in the Lunacy Board (Scotland) Bill all the money was to be paid by Vote of Parliament. He might point out, also, that they were in a very different position from what they were a few years ago, because they had, by the new procedure, closure of Supply.

That has nothing to do with a point of order.

submitted, on a point of order, that where money was authorised by Act of Parliament to be paid, whether a Vote of Parliament subsequently was necessary or not, the practice and rule of the House was that the Act should be preceded by a money resolution in Committee.

An objection of this, kind should have been taken before the Bill was read a second time. It is too late to take it now after the Bill has passed through Committee and been ordered for Third Reading. But I ought to add that Bills of this kind have always been brought in, not in Committee, but by leave. There was a series of Naval Reserve or Enlistment Bills of a similar character to this Bill so introduced in 1859 and 1867; and in 1884 there was the Naval Discipline Bill. In all of these powers were given to the Admiralty to make regulations for the pay and pensions of new forces, and they were brought in by leave and not treated as subject to the rule to which the hon. Member refers as affecting the introduction of Money Bills. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that I have ever stated it as a general rule that where money is to be voted by Parliament afterwards, the preliminary Committee stage is not required.

said he had a few observations to make on the Third Reading of the Bill. This Bill, if passed, would make a new constitutional departure. Hitherto Parliament had acted on the footing that wherever a Reserve force was authorised by the country the number of the men should be put into the Act, and also the amount of payment and the conditions of service. Under the Volunteer Act of 1859, to which this Bill referred, the number of Volunteers was fixed at a number not exceeding 30,000. There was obviously a constitutional advantage in Parliament fixing the number of men forming the Reserve and the conditions of service, as a protection against the Executive of the day assuming the functions which should be reserved to Parliament as a whole. Now, by this Bill a new division of the Naval Reserve was to be created, but its numbers were not limited by any provision in the Bill; they might be 20,000 or 30,000, and that he held to be a constitutional departure. Another point was that by the Act of 1859 the period of service was fixed at five years, but by this Bill no period was fixed; it might be five or ten years. It all depended on the conditions of the pensions and the conditions of enlistment and employment. That was an altogether new departure on the part of a Government which claimed to be the constitutional party. It did not seem to him that that part of the Bill making it compulsory on all who received pensions to go into the Reserve for an indefinite number of years would have the effect of securing many men for this particular force. In his opinion it would be a great advantage if they spread out as much as possible, both in the Army and Navy, the men who were to serve. Unless they did so they would weaken instead of strengthen the country. He looked upon the Bill as an entirely new departure, and no information had been given as to why powers of so important a character should be asked for. The House was entitled to complain of so important a measure being brought in at so late a period of the session, when it could not receive adequate discussion. Moving the rejection of the Bill would have no other result than a walk through the lobbies, and that being so, he should not move the motion standing in his name. The only object for putting it down was to protest against the Third Reading.