said that as the Prime Minister was not present perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division would answer a Question he desired to put. It had reference to the proceedings on Monday. He understood that a private Bill had been put down which might occupy a long time and he wished to know what course the Government intended to take regarding it.

said that any alteration in the arrangement was a matter for negotiation between the promoters and opponents of the Bill and the Chairman of Ways and Means. A statement would, however, be made on the Motion for the Adjournment that evening.

I beg to move.

said he desired to second the Motion. The occasion for the introduction of the Bill had arisen from certain decisions in the Court of Appeal in Scotland and England from judgments of the Railway Commissioners. The custom of constructing private sidings i.e., sidings on land belonging to private persons and connected with the railways was almost as old as the institution of railways themselves. In 1845, by Section 76 of the Railway Clauses Act, owners and occupiers of land had conferred upon them the right, subject to certain conditions, to connect such land with railways for their own use That clause had been incorporated in every private Railway Act which had been passed since, and until the decisions of the Court of Appeal in the two cases to which he had referred, it was universally believed that private owners had under that clause certain definite rights. The rights supposed to be conferred by that section had often been the subject of litigation before the Railway Commissioners, and they had always been accepted by the railway companies as binding upon them. The decisions given were really carrying out Section 9 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, in which the rights of owners of private sidings were specially recognised, and also Section 4 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1894, whereby not only the existing sidings were recognised but express permission was given to the Railway Commissioners to settle disputes as to the amount of rebate which was due to private owners for services rendered by them at the siding. In 1901 there was a case in Scotland in reference to a siding belonging to Messrs. Cowan & Son, Limited, who took proceedings against the North British Railway Company. There, amongst other things, the question of reasonable facilities to provide sidings was raised, and the Commissioners held that the firm should have reasonable facilities to have their trucks delivered at, or taken from, their sidings by the railway company. On this the railway company appealed to the Court of Appeal in Scotland and the decision of the Railway Commissioners was reversed. He need not go into the particulars of the case, because another followed in England more directly to the point. He referred to the case of the Lancashire Brick and Tile Company and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. In 1901 that company connected its land with the railway, under Section 76 of the Act of 1845, and the Railway Commissioners allowed them the right. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the decision, holding that Section 76 never had the meaning which the Legislature, the Board of Trade, the railway companies and private owners conceived it to possess, and that the owners of private sidings, who had spent in many cases thousands of pounds in laying out and connecting their sidings with the railway, were entirely at the mercy of the railway companies. It might be asked, perhaps, why those interested in private sidings did not in these cases go to the final Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, but they were precluded from doing so by the Act of 1898. The only case in which an appeal from the Court of Appeal was allowed was where the decision of the Court of Appeal in one portion of the United Kingdom differed from the decision of the Court of Appeal in another part of the United Kingdom. In that case only was an appeal to the House of Lords open. The existing state of things had created an intolerable situation, and it was felt to be a matter which required redress at an early date. Steps were taken on behalf of private siding owners last session to bring in a Bill, and a measure was brought in which it was hoped and believed would have replaced siding owners in the position in which they were always believed to be before the recent decisions. Unfortunately the Bill was not favourably placed for a Second Reading. Those who understood the position of private siding owners felt that any opportunity for redressing this grievance ought to be used and the promoters of the Bill desired, in framing it, to follow lines approved by the Board of Trade. It was with some regret that they found that the Department did not see their way to go as far as they wanted. The promoters desired that the validity of Clause 76 should be expressly established by Act of Parliament. They did not regard the clause as proposed by the Board of Trade as a sufficient remedy for the grievances of siding owners, but the clause recognised their claims to some extent, and he supported the Second Reading of the Bill as drafted in accordance with the limits insisted on by the Board of Trade, and hoped that the House would accept it. The principal clause in the Bill was a very short one. It went back to the Railway Traffic Act of 1854, and that Act, like the Act of 1888, was based on the recognition of the rights of private siding owners as understood by this House and the Courts of Law at that time. The Bill would not grant all that private siding owners wanted, but would give a substantial proportion of what was desired. Clause 2 of the Act of 1854 was intended to enable the rights of the public generally to be more clearly defined that they previously had been. It defined what reasonable facilities were, and provided that no railway company should make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to, or in favour of, any particular person or company or to any particular description of traffic in any respect whatsoever. The Bill before the House followed up that provision. He did not see why questions affecting railways should be treated as if they involved any antagonism of interest between the companies and the public. Surely it was to the advantage of the companies to encourage British trade rather than to be merely the carriers of foreign goods imported into this country. It would not be difficult to show that the antagonistic attitude of the railway companies had been one of the inducing causes of British capital being employed abroad rather than at home. It was doubly to the interest of the railway companies to induce British producers to carry on their industries in this country, because they were customers for ever, and therefore he regretted the tone frequently adopted by railway companies, which gave the impression to the producers that they were of no greater interest to the railway companies than foreign producers He had in his hand a list of fifty cases where the railway companies had refused since the recent decisions of the Courts of Appeal to grant facilities to private siding owners except on most onerous terms. As, however, he understood it was not the intention to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, it was unnecessary to labour the matter. He begged to second the Motion.

said the only difference between the railway companies and I the traders in this matter was that the traders appeared to think they were the only class of people who used the railways, but there were other classes, and the desire of the railways was to assimilate their traffic to suit all classes, and thus avoid friction. The railway companies did not desire to gain anything by the recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, and were prepared to go back to the provisions of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845. All they asked was that the privileges given to them under that Act should be retained by them. There might require to be some modifications in the Bill when it reached the Committee, and there would have to be a clear definition of the word "reasonable" in Clause 2, in order to avoid litigation in the future. With that understanding he accepted the Second Reading.

said that this question of sidings had always been a grievance in the eyes of trader and he was glad it was now going to be put upon a proper footing. He agreed that there ought to be proper safeguards put in in the interests of the public, and in this matter he spoke with the advantage of experience, because at a particular place in the North he was desirous of having a siding, and found out afterwards that objection was raised, and very sensibly raised, by the Board of Trade, who wished to safeguard against accidents arising from the creation of sidings at busy junctions where collisions might result. He submitted that the railway companies were just as anxious to give facilities to the public, and to increase their profits, as other people were; and he anticipated that they might probably hear from the President of the Board of Trade whether the measure had the sanction of his Department.

said the object of the Bill was to restore what was always believed to be the law until two or three years ago. He was glad to find the Bill found favour with the railway companies, and all he had to say was that the Board of Trade were prepared to consider with a fair, open, and im- partial mind, any Amendments which it might be thought desirable to move.

expressed himself as being in favour of the Second Reading. It was clearly in the interest of the railway companies and the traders that where facilities of this kind could be given, subject to the general convenience of the working of the railway and satisfactory to the public, that they should be given, and the companies, he thought, would not oppose them save where such facilities would, in their opinion, be dangerous to the travelling public. He thought the Bill ought to receive the assent of the House. It would do away with the technical difficulties of the case, and each case could be referred to the Railway Commission to be dealt with on its merits.

said he had no difficulty in accepting the view of the railway companies as expressed by the hon. Member for Peckham in this matter. He was glad that for the first time this Bill had met with the cordial assent of the railway companies, but, when the hon. Member stated that the companies had always been in favour of benefiting the interest of the traders, he could only say that had they been as much opposed as it was stated they were in favour they could not have adopted a stronger attitude. The impression created in his mind had always been that the railway companies were unfavourably disposed to granting facilities. He agreed that the word "reasonable" ought to be defined as in an Act of Parliament its meaning was much too vague, and he hoped when the Bill got into Committee a proper definition would be found. He trusted that the Bill would be unanimously read a second time, and that in due course it would become statute law.

declared that traders in many parts of the country were subjected to great disadvantage in this matter and he, therefore, gave the Bill his support with the greatest satisfaction.

also supported the Bill and was glad that the House of Commons was attempting to deal practically with a situation of difficulty that had been created by technical legal decisions. He looked on the Bill as a vindication of the practical good sense of that Assembly. He traced a change in the attitude of the railway companies towards this Bill. It was all very well for them to claim that the interests of the trader and of the company were identical: the interests were too much like those of master and servant, and it was a well-known fact that those who were the first to get sidings were often placed in a far more advantageous position in regard to terms than those who applied later. He would, however, urge the desirability that the words of the Bill should be made as broad as possible. No trader would desire to have a siding in a position dangerous to passenger traffic, and the experts of the Board of Trade would be well able to decide what were reasonable facilities.

, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it dealt with the question of the hall marking of foreign plate imported into this country. He introduced a similar Bill last year and then had the support of the Board of Trade. Last year a large deputation waited upon the President of that Deparment and presented to him a petition signed by those interested in the question at Sheffield, Birmingham, and London. The signatories to the petition included the London Wholesale Jewellers Allied Trades Association, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Birmingham Jewellers and Goldsmiths Association, the Sheffield Master Silver Smiths Association, the Workmen's Association connected with the trade, and the Sheffield Federated Trades Council. He might also tell the House that the Associated Chambers of Commerce had unanimously passed a resolution in favour of the principle of the Bill. It was, in fact, a measure which both masters and men were united in pressing on the Legislature, and in the preparation of which he was indebted for assistance to the President of the Board of Trade. It had indeed been drafted under the superintendence of the right hon. Gentleman, who he believed would speak in favour of it that day. He would first explain to the House how the law at present stood with regard to the hall marking of plate in this country, both for goods manufactured here and for those imported. It was evident that for the protection of the public gold and silver plate must be tested in some way to ensure the quality of the metal. For that reason assay offices had been established in various places. No gold or silver plate could be put on the market without being first sent to an assay office and tested and marked accordingly. Hon. Members would agree that that was a reasonable provision. Not only must goods made in this country be so tested, but foreign plate also had to be dealt with in the same way, and to have impressed upon it the same marks. The marks which were now required to be put on plate made in this country were for silver wares, first, the local mark of the Assay Office, as in London a leopard's head, in Birmingham an anchor, in Sheffield a crown, and so on; secondly, a lion, indicating silver; thirdly, a letter varying with every year to indicate in what year and what century the plate was assayed. These were the three standard marks which all silver plate sent into the Assay Offices had to bear. These marks were likewise put on foreign plate, but in addition to them it was provided by the Customs (Tariff) Act of 1876 that foreign plate should be marked with a letter F on another escutcheon. It was not often that Acts of Parliament indicated reasons for their existence or provisions, but in this case it was noteworthy that the Act stated that this was to be done in order "to denote that the plate was imported from abroad." The object thus indicated in the statute had not been secured, because the letter F had not been recognised as an indication of foreign origin. He might explain to the House that in addition to the ordinary hall, marks it was usual for the manufacturer's initials indicating his name, to be added, and not unnaturally this letter F had been mistaken for the initial of the manufacturer. The public on seeing the lion mark were satisfied that the goods were silver and did not look at anything else. Foreigners were now bringing their plate into this country for the purpose of getting the lion stamped on it, and so securing by aid of the British hall mark a better price for their manufactures in their own and in neutral markets. That was the grievance of which British manufacturers complained. The grievance was that the foreigner sent his goods into this country for the purpose of getting the English hall mark and then sold them at an enhanced price. That was a practice against which the Legislature intended to guard in 1876, and the object of the present Bill was to enable that intention to be carried out. A precedent existed for what was now sought. By the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 an exception as to marking was made with regard to watch-cases. Foreign watch-cases had been sent into this country in large quantities for the purpose of getting the hall mark, and were then sold as British. The Committee which inquired into the subject came to the conclusion that—

"it was clearly proved that while the hall mark was intended as a mere mark of standard quality yet it had become an indication of British origin, and that when it appeared on foreign watch-cases it was taken to attribute British origin to the whole of the watch."

Consequently, watches were given a different mark altogether, and the letter "F" did not appear. It was now I alleged that the grievance which existed in 1887 with regard to watches had been proved with regard to all kinds of plate, and a special mark was asked for. The Bill provided that foreign plate should be assayed in exactly the same way as at present, but that, instead of having the present hall marks with the letter "F," it should have some mark readily distinguishable from those used for marking plate wrought or made in the United Kingdom, "as His Majesty may determine by Order in Council." The particular mark to be applied would be decided by the Privy Council, who would doubtless consult the different Assay Offices. It was believed that when that Order had been made the grievance would be remedied. He had shown that there was a demand for this Bill on the part of the wholesale and retail traders, that by the Customs Tariff Act of 1876 the Legislature meant to make a difference between the marks on foreign and those on British plate, and that the object of the Legislature had not been attained. The Bill created no new principle, inasmuch as it followed the precedent of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, and it involved no fiscal protection of any kind. British manufacturers did not object to any fair competition, but they did object to foreign goods being sold as British-made, and he hoped the House would agree to the Second Reading of the Bill. He begged to move.

said that when this Bill was before the House last session he felt that it was not one that could be allowed to pass without full discussion. It was true that the hall mark was the same both for British and for foreign plate, with the addition in the latter case of the letter "F," that letter being added for the express purpose of denoting that the plate was made abroad. The object of the hall mark was to guarantee that the material of the article was of standard quality, and that held good whether the letter "F" appeared or not. The indication of the place of origin was another question altogether. The Bill proposed the adoption of a different mark to distinguish foreign made goods, and that was exactly the object of the Merchandise Marks Act. Why was it not proposed to place on the articles "Made in Germany "or "Made in Italy" as the case might be? That would be very useful as it would enable people to know where the designs came from. Everybody knew that the Merchandise Marks Act had ruined the trade of this country.

Then why does the hon. Member always oppose a Bill to amend it?

said he opposed it because the amendment was as silly as the Act it sought to amend. That act had simply advertised Germany and her trade, and the Germans had been competing with us ever since. The Act of 1837 had seriously injured this country, and the present Bill would not do any good. When people were attracted by a design which had been made abroad, they would find out where it was made and buy it there instead of in the British market. He had refused to allow this Bill to pass after midnight without discussion, and he was glad it had come up now so that he could give his reasons for taking that step.

said the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire left out two main considerations—firstly, the interests of the working people; and secondly, the consumer. He would consider first the interests of the working classes. What higher interest could the worker have than the interest he had in seeing that the name of his country should not be misused by foreigners? Upon this point he addressed himself particularly to labour Members. This was the one direction in which the working man might be said to have a share in the asset which was contained in the goodwill of the business. The representation that goods were made in Great Britain when they were not was one of the most dangerous ways in which that most valuable part of a working man's property could be attacked. It was idle to contend that this Bill was intended to protect any particular trade, for its object was to protect the consumer, who was being deceived to the prejudice of the wage-earning producer. He thought ho had shown that this Bill was drawn upon genuine democratic lines, and its aim was to defeat malpractices, not on the part of the producers, but on the part of the middlemen. It was only drawing a red herring across the path for the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire to introduce the failure of certain proposals in the Merchandise Marks Act, for they were admitted defects, and there were nearly always some defects in every Act of Parliament. The requirement that you should have the place of origin marked upon the goods was put in because of our treaty obligations, and in the expectation that the executive administration of that Act would be wholly different. It was not expected that affirmative indication of foreign origin would be required in more than a very small proportion of cases. In his opinion the Customs Department were wrongly advised, and a Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Act ought to be passed, and with the passing of such an amending Bill would disappear the only grievance which could be alleged against the Merchandise Marks Act, except by middlemen who wanted to obtain that to which they were not entitled. He hoped hon. Members would not be led astray by all this talk about labour in Germany, with which this Bill had nothing whatever to do. He entreated the House to go back to first principles, and consider in this matter the good of the greatest number, namely, the consumers and buyers of these goods who had been deceived; and the great mass of working men who were interested in the fair fame of this country for genuineness and sincerity in manufactures. He hoped the House would resolve not to allow working men's property to be filched away by the practice of obtaining custom under false pretences.

said the speech they had just listened to was a fair sample of the speeches they were constantly hearing upon questions of this kind. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division's main argument was that this measure would benefit working men. He hoped his hon. friend would insist upon a division, because this Bill was only a bit of protection for certain manufacturers in this country. They were told the same thing and the same arguments were used in favour of the Merchandise Marks Act, and he remembered Mr. Mundella making a powerful speech against it.

He was in favour of it.

This statement relates to a deceased Member of this House for whom I had great respect, and I must absolutely contradict the statement that he ever made any speech against the Merchandise Marks Act.

I was certainly under that impression.

He may have spoken against some extension of the Bill in later years.

said that so far as filching away working men's property and selling goods under the name of Great Britain which were not made here was concerned, he could not see that such a case had been made out in regard to this Bill. Hall marks were well known to the general public in this country, and he did not see why they should change them. As for selling things under a wrong name, the letter "F" showed clearly that the article was not made in Great Britain. He was satisfied that this Bill was simply intended to protect a particular industry, and if possible to prohibit the importation of foreign-made silver articles. He hoped the House of Commons would not sanction this Bill.

said the hon. Member for Mid Lanarkshire had stated that it did not matter what marks were upon silver. He disputed that argument, for there was often a question whether it was the real thing or a copy. They might make silver to-day exactly the same as that which was 130 or 140 years old but they could not put the same mark upon it without fraud. If it were a genuine old piece, instead of fetching 3s. or 5s. per ounce it might fetch £50 per ounce. Therefore it was important that the mark of silver should be understood. It was also very desirable that the public should quite clearly understand when they saw the mark whether the article was of English or of foreign manufacture. He did not say that in all cases the foreign article was worse, for he possessed some articles of foreign plate of extreme value, but he did not want to possess foreign plate that pretended to have been made in England. There never was a time like the present when genuine articles possessed such an extraordinary value. A great many wealthy men were desirous of possessing articles which old British families once possessed in times past, and if dealers could only persuade these men that the articles were real and genuine they did not care what price they paid for them. He very strongly supported the passing of this measure. Watches were sent over to this country from abroad by tens of thousands, and formerly the public, looking at the cases of those watches and seeing the British mark of the lion upon, them would naturally assume that the whole of the watch was British. It had therefore been found necessary to put a mark upon watch-cases which could not be mistaken for a British mark. He failed to see any reason why they should not also put a mark on all foreign plate which would indicate plainly that it was not made in England. He failed to see that this Bill was in any way unfair to foreign workers. If people wanted foreign goods by all means let them buy them, but the public ought not to be misled by a lion being placed upon foreign goods. He was not prepared to say what special marks should be used, but he thought the Board of Trade could settle that. He strongly objected to marks being put on plate which would deceive the ordinary public. He did not think anyone realised the enormous extent to which at the present time cheap silver goods were being made. The price of silver used to be 5s. an ounce, and at that time there used to be a duty upon it of 1s. 6d. per ounce. To-day the price of silver was about 2s. 2½d. an ounce. He was told recently by a wholesale manufacturer that his firm had started works for the manufacture of small silver articles which could be sold at 3s. an ounce, but great complaints were made that purchasers were not able to distinguish between British and foreign-made articles. He asked hon. Members opposite not to oppose the Bill.

said that when he saw the names on the back of the Bill he had a suspicion that there was something against free trade in connection with it. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield distinctly said that he supported the measure because the free-trade doctrine was old fashioned.

I said nothing of the kind.

I am in the recollection of the House.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to quote my exact words.

I had no satirical motive in making the statement. I understood that was one of the chief reasons why the hon. Member supported the Bill.

I would ask whether, if it is not a law, it is not the unbroken custom of this House for one Member to accept from another the explanation of what he has said.

said he accepted the statement from the hon. Member, and was glad to hear that he was a free-trader. He thought it would only add to the difficulty of the buyer if there were put on the goods a certain trade mark which would require much greater knowledge of hall marking on the part of the outsider before he could comprehend what the mark meant. What had taken place under the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 ought to be a warning to those who were in favour of British trade. He could state from long experience as a merchant in Manchester that until that Act was passed an immense amount of goods made in foreign countries were ordered through England. The profits upon those transactions spread throughout Manchester and other places. Those profits were now lost to this country, and the worst of it was that not only was the shipping of foreign goods by English merchants prevented, but an immense number of orders had been lost which otherwise would have come to English firms.

The hon. Member knows that that was not borne out by the evidence before the Commission.

I am giving my own experience.

The hon. Member did not give evidence.

said he could assure the House that that was a fact. A number of foreign-made articles used to be ordered through Manchester houses in conjunction with English goods, but when buyers found that they were made abroad they followed up the manufacturers and gave them the orders. The result was that all sorts of new fabrics were introduced into those countries—fabrics of which it was not perhaps very easy to send out samples from England. The effect was that an immense amount of trade which was formerly done in this country had gone to the manufacturers in other countries. His hon. friend had said that it was ruining British industry. He did not believe that for a moment. He hoped the House would pause before it passed this Bill It seemed to be a measure in the interest of some manufacturers, and no doubt the working people of Sheffield and Birmingham, but it was not in the interest of the public generally. He should regret, even for those trades concerned, if we were to abandon the free-trade principles upon which we had acted in England for the last fifty or sixty years. The effect of the measure would be indirectly to put considerable difficulty in the way of importing foreign plate with the result that actually less plate would be introduced into this country. One great advantage which our own manufacturers derived from these imports was that they were able to see the beautiful designs produced in France and ether countries not second to this country in the matter of taste. If we once commenced to rope in a trade, to confine it within bars, and to protect it, the imagination of manufacturers would diminish. They would not see the necessity for employing first-class workmen, and would think that anything would do for this country, because the public would be compelled to buy the goods. He would support his hon. friend in pressing this matter to a division.

said reference had been made to the Merchandise Marks Act and its effect on the foreign trade of this country. He wished to inform the House that he had received a request from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce to support this Bill. When they heard so much of the injury done by the Merchandise Marks Act in certain quarters, he could not help thinking that this important body would not have asked him to support the Bill if they thought there was anything in that objection. It was only proposed by this Rill to follow on the lines of the previous Act, and therefore they were not entering upon any new departure. By passing this Bill Parliament would enable the public to know what they ought to know, namely, from where the goods were imported. He believed that a well-designed article would sooner or later obtain the appreciation of the public. He felt convinced, however, that foreign goods should be marked in the way proposed. By passing the Rill they would only be doing justice to British workmen, I while not preventing the entrance into this country of really good foreign goods.

said all the speeches to which he had listened from the other side of the House were more or less of a protectionist character. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division put in a strong appeal to the labour representatives to support the Bill, and assured them that its promoters were actuated by a desire to do something in the interest of the particular trades affected. He had heard no argument which at all wont to prove that the workers as a whole were going to be benefited if this Bill were passed. There was no evidence that the articles were made under unfair conditions, although they were often told that such was the case in connection with foreign-made goods. Nor had the question of inferior quality been raised. That had been settled by previous legislation. If no attempt had been made to prove that the articles imported were of inferior quality what could be the object of the measure? To his mind the object was to promote not the interest of the workers but that of the manufacturers. Several speakers had said that under present conditions the purchaser did not know that an article was of foreign manufacture. That seemed to him to be a reflection on the intelligence of the purchaser. Surely all the purchasers did not go into the question whether the firm's name began with an "F," or whether "F" represented that the article had been made abroad. He supposed that the hon. Gentleman wanted two "F's' to represent that the article had been made abroad. How far was this principle going to be carried. It might be driven much further than the hon. Gentleman desired. Some hon. Members who represented labour might demand that there should be some mark to distinguish articles which were made under unfair or sweating conditions in this country; and then it would be found that those who were asking for support for this Bill would go into the Lobby against them. He spoke in the House directly in the interest of labour, and he would oppose this measure, believing that it was not in the interest of the workmen but that it was of a protectionist character, and instead of helping the workmen it would have the opposite effect.

said that the Rill was simple and reasonable. There were a large number of people engaged in this trade in his constituency who were unanimously in favour of the Bill and who had asked him to give it his support; and he intended to do so. It was quite erroneous to suppose that the Bill raised the question as between free trade and protection. It was not intended to restrict the sale of these articles, but that people should see that they were purchasing foreign-made articles. The principle had been recognised in the Act of 1876,which provided that goods should be marked in a distinctive way showing that they had been made abroad, and that they should be marked by the letter "F." But they had heard from the hon. Member who had introduced this Bill that it had been found, from experience, that that mark was not sufficient; and all he asked was that the mark should be made sufficiently distinctive. That seemed to him to be eminently fair and reasonable, and he would give the Bill his warmest support.

said that his objection to the Bill was that it was unnecessary. Why should they load the Statute-book with unnecessary measures? The Act of 1875 provided very clearly and distinctly that full notice should be given to the consumer or purchaser that what he wanted to buy was not made in this country but abroad. Under that Act the letter "F" in an escutcheon was required to be stamped on the article alongside the marks indicating the quality of the metal. By Statute that, letter "F" was declared to moan foreign make. If that notice to the buyer was insufficient what kind of mark would be substituted? He could not see how either workpeople or manufacturers would be benefited by this Bill. In nine cases out of ten the buyer would purchase what most took his fancy whether foreign or British. Under these circumhe objected to the Bill as wholly unnecessary.

said that if he thought this Bill was a protectionist proposal he would vote against it, because he entirely concurred with the First Lord of the Treasury in his objection to a protectionist policy. But this Bill was not of that character. The only intention of the measure was that the purchaser should have the right to know what was the character of the article he was purchasing. There were some goods, such as silks, which were better produced in, say, France than in this country, and always would be, because of the delicate artistic faculty of the French workman, which had not been given to the English workman. Some reference had been made to the Merchandise Marks Act in connection with the discussions in Committee on the Musical Copyright Bill. He believed that that Act had worked in restraint of trade; although the representations made that day by the representative of the shipping houses in Liverpool that it had not so acted, had made an impression on his mind.

said he understood that the object of this Bill was to have a separate mark for foreign-made goods. He was connected with a firm which had manufactured gold and silver articles for a century. They had encouraged native artists and had a largo collection of models; and they found that these models wore copied abroad and the manufactured articles wore brought into this country and were purchased here under the idea that they came from his firm. He hoped that the Board of Trade would alter the whole of the marking of these goods, and would make the marking entirely distinct so as to show which was home and which was foreign-made. What was wanted was that in the case of foreign plate the old heraldic marks of the lion, crown, anchor, etc., should not appear at all, but something entirely distinct.

said that this was in no sense a measure connected with protection. All the bodies connected with the manufacture of gold and silver urged the adoption of the Bill. The hon. Member opposite said he represented labour in a special sense. Ho denied that. He himself represented labour. The great majority of his constituents were working men. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle did not represent labour any more than any other hon. Member in the House. He contended that the interests of the working men were injuriously affected by the present state affairs. The hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division said that he understood perfectly well the marks on these foreign-made goods. Might he ask the hon. Member to look at his watch and see whether it was of English make or of foreign make? He very much doubted whether he would be able to do it. He remembered when the Merchandise Marks Bill was being considered in Committee, the late Mr. Mundella was in the Chair, and when the members of the Committee were asked to produce their watches it was found that the only member who had an English-made watch was Mr. Mundella himself, although several of the members had watches which bore the names of English firms on them. The hon. Member for Durham maligned the late Mr. Mundella in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act. Mr. Mundella took a very active part indeed in the enactment of the Act of 1887. He was also a member of the Committee of 1896 and 1897, but unfortunately his death occurred just before the Committee reported, so that he was not at the final sitting. The Committee reported that they were "satisfied that the operation of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 has been on the whole beneficial. There has been abundant evidence that it has, to a great extent, stopped the fraudulent practices against which it was directed." On behalf of the watchmaking trade it was represented that the marks of foreign origin placed upon watch-cases should be in visible letters, inasmuch as it was found that die watches were made abroad and imported in order to be placed in British hall-marked cases and then sold as British manufacture. The Committee thought the demand reasonable. The Member for Mid Lanark was very emphatic in his condemnation of the Merchandise Marks Act, and he was very glad to hear him say that the words "Made in Germany" had done an immense amount of injury to the trade of this country. If so, why did he continually oppose this Bill, and not alter the words and put in something more definite?

said his answer was that the proposals of the hon. Members were quite as ridiculous as the present system of marking.

said why, then, did not the hon. Member suggest some change? It was all very well condemning everything. The hon. Member was a very clever and a very persevering man and opposed everybody's Bills except his own. He invited the hon. Member to confer with him and see in what way they could remove this injury to the trade of the country. It had been shown by his hon. friend most clearly that the word "F" was of a diminutive character and passed totally unobserved by the ordinary purchaser. That meant that great injury was done to the purchasers of British plate. It was absurd to attempt to distinguish between the interests of the manufacturers and their workmen in this matter. He hoped, therefore, the House would give the Bill a second reading.

thought it was a great pity that this subject could not be discussed without the question of free trade and protection being brought into the discussion. However foreign manufactured silver was marked it would make no difference to the quantity that came into this country or the amount of foreign manufactured silver sold. In his opinion this was a question which the House was entitled to consider and discuss from the consumer's point of view. They had different hall marks for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and it was a common custom for English manufacturers to send silver over to Ireland to be marked, and the letter "F" which was put on foreign manufactured silver was not sufficient to tell the ordinary buyer where the silver came from. Hall marks were at first marks of origin, and for his part he would go much further than this Bill went. He did not consider it was fair that either English, Irish, or Scotch marks should be put on any silver of foreign manufacture, and it would be a wise thing for the Board of Trade to come to that conclusion and to prevent any of the British hall marks being put on foreign silver, and if at the same time some other mark were put on to show that that silver had paid a tax it would be a much better arrangement than that, which obtained at present. If people wanted to buy Irish, English, or Scotch silver they should be at liberty to purchase it, and none of these marks should be put on silver of foreign origin.

supported the Second Reading of the Bill. He repudiated the suggestion that the question of free trade was involved by the measure, declaring that the Party that it was supported by, the Members for Birmingham, did not necessarily raise the question of protection. He stood in a different position, for he was a free-trader, and as a free-trader, declined to associate free trade with fraud. He saw no necessary connection between free trade, which he desired to support, and fraud, which he desired to put an end to. Would it be one of the planks of the platform of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark when, under another Government, he became Secretary for Scotland, or Lord Advocate, to do away with all hall marks.

I must absolutely decline to make any answer to that, because if the event takes place, which the hon. Gentleman predicts, which is very unlikely, one cannot do anything without consulting one's colleagues.

The hon. Member had laid down the point that hall marking simply stamped the quality, hut it went beyond that; it identified the origin, and the date, which was a very important point in the question of the price of gold and silver. Parliament had gone a step further than the date; it had added the letter "F," to distinguish between foreign and British plate. The supporters of the Bill, who spoke for a very large interest in the country, simply argued that what Parliament did then was in the right direction and was justified, but was not sufficient, and all they asked now was to make that measure more effective. It had been said that the letter "F" might refer to a certain manufacturer, but there could be three different "F's" on different shaped shields, one showing the article was of foreign manufacture, one the nominal mark of the maker, and the third signifying the date; and he did not think the doing away with this confusion could be stigmatised as protection. The Bill, he declared, was brought forward in justifiable defence of interests against fraud, and they ought to be thus protected whether they were those of consumer, manufacturer, or worker. This was not a small matter; it was a matter which interested large sections of trade, and it could not do the slightest harm, for any one who wished would still be able to purchase foreign plate.

repudiated in the strongest possible way that any question of protection or free trade was involved by the Bill. If it had savoured of protection, he need not say that his own name would not have appeared in connection with it. The question at issue was a very simple one; it was whether there should be a big "F," or some corresponding mark, to denote that the article was of foreign manufacture. The law had decided that these goods should be marked in a certain fashion, but they were now marked in such a way that the British hall mark, perhaps the highest standard, could be and was regularly, fraudulently used. This was not only obviously defeating the intentions of the law but also the interests of this country. The issue, therefore, was simply whether the mark was to be used as intended by Parliament or used in such a way as to lend itself to fraud; ond he hoped his hon. friends would not vote against the Bill simply because its srigin was in the Birmingham conatituency.

said the Bill was supported by the Board of Trade for reasons stated by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield. The question was one of extreme simplicity. The Legislature had already laid down the principle that foreign-made plate should be distinguished from British, and to effect that distinction the Act o fl876 enacted that he letter "F" should be stamped on foreign-made plate sold in this county. It was found, however, that the mark was insufficient, and this Bill proposed in lieu of it a more distinctive mark. The sacred principles of free trade had been invoked against the Bill, and the Merchandise Marks Act had been dragged in and its principle assailed. But was that Act inconsistent with the principles of free trade? If so it would hardly have passed that House without a division in 1887. It might be desirable that the Merchandise Marks Act should be amended in certain directions, but he thought the Select Committee who inquired into its operation were right in maintaining that on the whole its effect had been beneficial. But it was possible to condemn the general effect of the Merchandise Marks Act and yet hold that this Bill was amply justified. The case of this Bill was a peculiar one, for while the Legislature enacted that a mark should be applied, it had been shown that the mark, which was originally intended to be a guarantee of the quality of the material, had gradually become to be taken as an indication of origin by the great mass of customers. Both customers and producers were entitled to have such a distinctive mark put upon plate that they would be enabled to know what was British-made and what foreign-made. The only consideration which should lead them to leave things as they were was that some particular section of the trade would be seriously damaged by the change. This was not so in the present instance. Every section of the trade, employers and workmen alike, were agreed that the change now proposed

suggested that, in the discussion of the principles of this Bill, the President of the Board of Trade should avoid giving a great and gratuitous advertisement to foreign competitors, as the Merchandise Marks Act had unhappily done. He thought that that Act was one of the greatest disasters to British trade, and had undoubtedly been the origin of other competing lines of steamships from Germany.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it was intended to promote the efficiency, economy, and better administration of savings banks, dealing as it did with various points as to which defects had been shown to exist. It was an omnibus Bill of six clauses, which he would briefly explain. Under the Act of 1891 an Inspection Committee was formed and charged with the duty of inspecting the trustee savings banks accounts so as to protect the public against any repetition of those scandals which had, in preceding years, caused so much serious injury to the poor, both in the loss of their savings, and in the consequent discouragement of habits of providence and thrift. The Inspection Committee had found that as a general rule the accounts were well kept; and that the bookkeeping—though in some few cases rather antiquated—was such as to disclose the real position of these banks. Since the appointment of the Committee it had been necessary to report only one or two cases in which the managers had refused to do their duty. The great body of managers had met every reasonable requirement, and had performed their duties assiduously and attentively, thereby securing the safe and sound administration of these banks. The Inspection Committee reported annually to Parliament on the results of their inspection, and the reports of the last few years had pointed out where defects existed, and how reforms might be effected. The Committee consisted of the Chief Accountant of the Bank of England, the President of the Law Society, the Deputy-Registrar of Friendly Societies, and representatives of the banks, all of whom were experts. Their unanimous recommendations were embodied in this Bill, which consequently had their endorsement. Then again, a Select Committee was appointed in 1902, and presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, which considered the recommendations of the Inspection Committee, and unanimously adopted them as likely to prove conducive to the welfare of the banks. Lastly, the attention of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had been drawn to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to do all he could co aid these banks, and was prepared on behalf of the Government to promise support to the Bill. Now he came to the clauses of the Bill, each of which dealt with a separate matter. The first clause provided that the auditors of savings banks need not give security. The Committee had found that the duties of the auditors did not involve anything like the responsibility which was cast on the managers and clerks. One of the best guarantees of the safety of a bank was to be found in a frequent change of auditors, and it was thought that, if security were always insisted upon, it might prove an obstacle in the way of securing the services of chartered accountants, who might be willing to give them for one year only; in these cases security would be unnecessary. The second clause enacted that the Government, through the National Debt Commissioners, might allow the expenses of forming penny banks. It would be admitted that there had been no better movement in connection with our elementary schools than the establishment of these banks, and that they had done much to help and strengthen the savings bank movement throughout the country, by inculcating in yonng children habits of thrift. The next clause gave power to superannuate. The absence of that power had, in some instances, been a temptation to the trustees to wind up the bank, in order that compensation which could not be given in annual payments might be given in a capital sum to those who had grown old in the service, and the continued employment of whom did not conduce to efficient working. There was also a clause enabling banks to sell, exchange, and let their bank properties on advantageous terms. This power could only be exercised with the consent of the National Debt Commissioners, on the recommendation of the Inspection Committee. Clause 5 dealt with the amalgamation of banks, and assimilated savings banks in this respect to the friendly and industrial societies and provident societies. It was quite obvious that in neighbourhoods where there might be declining banks, or where branch banks were rapidly growing into larger institutions, the power of amalgamation was almost essential. For that purpose also the consent of the National Debt Commissioners and of the Inspection Committee was necessary. The next clause was wide and of rather more importance. Prior to the Act of 1891, there were sixteen or twenty savings banks which had special investment funds. Those departments were accessories of the bank and curried on the habits of saving to larger amounts. He thought the Committee of 1891 made a mistake when they restricted that power to the then existing banks. It was desirable to restore this power to banks, with £200,000 of deposits, which were open daily, and the clause assimilated the English practice to Scottish practice. It would enable trustees by investing in local securities of which they had knowledge—such as municipal investments and School Board rates—to serve local interests while obtaining really good; securities. The last clause provided that there should no longer be an obligation to give notice, when the depositor's account had reached £200, that it would be invested in stock. Under this clause the deposit would rest in the bank, but, while the £200 would continue to bear its interest, any excess beyond that amount would not be interest-bearing so long as no directions wore received from the depositor for its investment in Consols. This provision was, perhaps, more important in a pecuniary sense to the Post Office Savings Bank than to trustee savings banks, because he believed that in the case of the former the cost of sending out these notices amounted to some £33,000 annually and involved in addition a good deal of clerical work. The provision might also avoid a repetition of domestic differences which had not been unknown when, in consequence of the sending of the notice to the house, the fact that the deposit existed, which had been kept secret up to then, was disclosed either to the master or the mistress of the household as the case might be. That clause had not been put forward by the trustee savings banks, but it was one of the recommendations of the Committee, and he had thought it proper to include it in the Bill. He believed that expenditure on savings banks was a gain to the State, not only by saving people from the rates, but also by accumulating a larger national capital. Ho could not agree that the larger depositors were rich people who took advantage of the banks. He believed that many of them were the depositors who had lived longest and saved most, and were therefore the most meritorious class of depositors. He believed, further, that the Bill would conduce to the efficient and economical administration of savings bank, sand seeing that it bore on its back the names of hon. Members belonging to all Parties in the House, that it had the approval of a Parliamentary Select Committee and of the Inspection Committee, and that further it was endorsed by the Government who were the guardians of the national purse, he earnestly trusted that it would be read a second time that afternoon.

said that at the request of the governors of one of the oldest trustee savings banks in the provinces he heartily supported the Bill. He had the greatest admiration for the noble work done by the managers and officials of these banks. Although in Committee some slight modifications might have to be introduced he felt that for the purposes of Second Reading very little criticism was needed. There was one point he would like especially to refer to. Some thousands of penny banks had been established in connection with our public elementary schools, but unfortunately there were no funds out of which the expenses of management could be defrayed. It was too much to expect that officials who gave their services voluntarily and gratuitously should pay them out of their own pockets, and it was equally undesirable to reduce the interest allowed on deposits. They had heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had no intention of reducing the interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. He believed the provisions of this Bill would assist the banks to work with renewed vigour, and for this and other reasons ho begged cordially to support the Second Reading.

had pleasure in supporting the Bill upon the authority of one of the largest savings banks of the country. The Liverpool Savings Bank had over 123,000 subscribers, and he had been requested on their behalf to support his hon. friend. It was very gratifying that the proposals of the Select Committee had been received with so much approval. The terms of the Bill had been lucidly set forth, but he might point out that when amalgamations took place, although savings banks might hold buildings, yet they had no means of giving a title when they desired to part with them. That was a point to be dealt with. Another was that, as far as funds allowed, pensions should be allowed to workers who had spent their lives in the service of the community. It was quite true that the real aim of most investors was security rather than high interest, and he certainly thought that when a subscriber had put together £200 he might fairly be considered to have learnt the art of thrift, and to be capable of forming right opinions as to the proper investment of his money. Having regard to the difficulty some banks had in meeting their expenditure, he fully approved of Clause 7, by which some economy might be effected without any real injustice being done to the subscribers. It was unnecessary to dwell further on the merits of this short but useful Bill; he cordially wished it success, and hoped the House would give it favourable consideration.

speaking on behalf of the savings bank of Belfast, heartily endorsed the Bill, which he thought would be a benefit to savings banks generally. Public savings banks were taking the place of private lending associations in Ireland, and it was for the welfare of the country that some public form of bank should be general, with Government audit, and management without personal interest. The Belfast Bank was one of the most successful in Ireland, and it cordially supported the Bill.

as a trustee of a large and successful savings bank, heartily approved of the Bill. The elasticity of administration which the Bill would afford had long been desired. Certain points would require consideration in Committee, but the Bill as a whole ho cordially supported.

congratulated the mover on the unanimity with which his Bill had been approved, and did not propose to raise any discordant voice. On behalf of the Government he welcomed the measure, and the hon. Baronet would have what assistance he could give in passing it into law. He reserved the right to move some Amendment in detail in Committee if he found that course to be necessary; but there was complete agreement as to the object to be attained, which was to embody in legislation the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol. The Bill dealt exclusively with trustee savings banks, and did not touch those recommendations of the Committee which had reference to the Post Office savings banks. He had announced the other night that it would be his duty to propose legislation to carry out certain recommendations made by the Committee in reference to the Post Office banks, and also in regard to the trustee banks in respect of the deficiency annuity, a subject with which his hon. friend's Bill naturally did not deal. He had not yet arrived at a definite conclusion as to the form in which those Amendments could be most conveniently proposed to the House. It might be possible for him to move the insertion in this Bill of clauses embodying what he desired. It might, on the other hand, be more convenient to bring them in as a short Bill of his own and to refer the Bill to the same Committee, with an Instruction to the Committee to consolidate the two measures. He would consider which course would be the more advisable. Under the conditions now prevailing he did not think it necessary, or even right, to make a proposal to reduce the interest payable, and the changes he sought to make were such; s he believed would receive the unanimous approval of the House.

expressed his satisfaction with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody would be glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared, not only to support the Bill, but also to make the measure more effective in its working. For the last year or so savings banks deposits had not increased with the rapidity that might have been expected, but there had been an uncertain feeling with reference to the question of interest and also as to the future working of savings banks, whether private or Post Office. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman would give general satisfaction, and doubtless tend to the more rapid increase of deposits. He was in the same position as other hon. Members, inasmuch as he had been requested by the largest trustee bank in East Anglia to support this Bill. He congratulated his hon. friend on finding the House so unanimously prepared to accept the measure, and he hoped it would pass into law in the course of the present session.

in moving the Second Reading, said that this Bill had been under consideration on several previous occasions, and if the House was to be at all consistent it would again pass the measure by a substantial majority. The kinds of machinery to which the Bill related were not now, in practice, rated by those unions in which the machinery most largely existed; therefore the passing of the Bill would not in any way interfere with existing practice. Whilst it could not be said that the promoters of the Bill had any reason to complain of the practice in most of the unions of the country, their desire was to crystallise that practice and to remove certain obscurities which sometimes led to considerable litigation. On the other hand, the owners of the kinds of machinery and tools covered by the Bill had no reason to complain of the decisions which had been obtained from the Courts of Law. When previously before the House the Bill was opposed by the city of Sheffield because of a false alarm as to the probable effect of the Bill on the present rating practice in that large industrial centre. He was assured, however, by leading authorities that the Bill would in no sense interfere with that practice, but that the heavy machinery and tools at present assessed within that borough would continue to be so assessed. On the other hand, if the practice which obtained in a few unions, where there was very little loose machinery and tools, was universally followed, a serious additional burden would be imposed upon the industries employing that machinery, an additional burden which might even involve the ruin of some concerns. In most of the constituencies represented in this House the provisions of the Bill were a matter of indifference, as the loose machinery and tools affected did not there exist in any large quantity; but in a few constituencies, such as Oldham, Bolton, and Preston, in Lancashire, and Bradford, Huddersfield, and Leeds, in Yorkshire, it was a life and death matter that the principles embodied in the Bill should be approved by the House. Seeing the matter was of such importance, it was no wonder that the textile operatives were as strongly in favour of the Bill as the employers themselves. The Bill had been before the House on so many occasions that Members were doubtless familiar with the arguments in its favour; he would, therefore, merely say, in conclusion, that in this, as in many other matters, Scotland set a good example, for the Scotch practice was one of which the promoters of the Bill approved and which they do-sired to see adopted in England. If the system of carrying over Bills from one session to another had been in existence this Bill would have been the law of the land long ago, as it had often reached an advanced stage, but had never been able to complete its stages through both Houses. With the hope that it would be more successful this session, he begged to move that it be now read a second time.

on rising to second the Bill, said that according to its opponents the theory of this Bill was that as soon as a mm had saved a little money, obtained a patent, taken a shed, the power being supplied by his landlord, and put therein his movable machinery, down would come the valuer, with the result that the industry would be practically strangled at the beginning. That was not the object at all. The Bill aimed at relieving small industries from increased taxation; consequently it would encourage them. It affirms that machinery provided by a tenant should not increase the value of the buildings. The Bill did not propose to take the taxes off all machinery. The landlords' fixed machinery, such as boilers, shafting, and so on, was taxed already, and it would not be affected by the Bill; the intention was to prevent the tenant who moved his machinery into a building from being taxed out of existence by the rates on the valuation of the building. Moreover, the Bill would diminish the enormously costly litigation caused by appeals to quarter sessions. In the Hunslet Union, Leeds, fifty-five members of the Machinery Users' Association had entered appeals against their assessments. Under the old assessments the gross estimated rental amounted to £45,000 (taking round figures) and the rateable value to £33,000; under the new assessment the gross estimated rental was £94,000, an increase of 103 per cent., and the rateable value £62,000, an increase of 85 per cent., the increases being in consequence of the rating authorities having taxed the tenants' machinery on the premises. The cost of this litigation was estimated to be about £400 in each case, or a total of £20,000, the whole of which would probably have been avoided had this Bill been in force. That was a very startling and instructive instance. He read a letter from Messrs. Early & Co., Witney Mills, Oxford, saying, "It is of the greatest importance to us, as the local manufacturers are rated at double what they would be in the North, and it seriously handicaps us in competition." He gave one example. He was informed on the best authority that the well-known Westinghouse manufactory established recently near Manchester would have been taxed out of existence had not the Corporation wisely followed the lines of valuation laid down in this Bill, a line adopted usually in Lancashire. The Bill would prevent the hampering of small trades, and it would encourage the establishment of small manufactures. These were important considerations in view of the present industrial depression, for by encouraging the growth of home industries, with the consequent increase of employment for working men, the country at large would be benefited. He begged to second the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

said he had often protested against the name given to this Bill, as it created the greatest confusion throughout the country. That confusion, however, was gradually disappearing, and as the people got more thoroughly to understand the real principle of the Bill their objection to it increased. The Bill was called a "Rating of Machinery (Exemption) Bill," but the impression in many districts was that it was a Bill to rate machinery, not to exempt it. The example of Scotland had been cited. He understood from a prominent Scotch Member that many Scotch municipalities were now beginning to adopt the English system in their assessments, and to rate the machinery in connection with their mills. The debates on the subject had been of great service in opening the eyes of various localities to the disadvantages which would ensue if the Bill were passed. Complaint was made of the cost of litigation. But what was its cause? In the North of England they knew what the law was, and they had made their assessments in accordance therewith. In an evil moment there was a dispute in the Midland district between a municipality and certain traders; a gentleman from Sunderland was called in to make a fresh assessment, and he made it in accordance with what they in the North believed the law to be. Litigation ensued, and the Courts upheld the view of the North, with the result that the municipality adopted that method of assessment. This Bill practically proposed to punish those who had been conforming to the law, and to bring the law into agreement with the practice of those who had been systematically breaking it. It was not proposed to exempt all machinery. Greater injustice than at present existed would be created, because the Bill proposed to exempt certain machinery and to rate other machinery. He could not think that this was a time when the House ought to narrow the area of taxation. They were constantly hearing of the injustice that personalty was not taxed in the same way as real property, but if there was any class of personalty which ought to be rated surely it was that which increased the productive power of an industry. The hon. Member opposite said this Bill was intended to assist the working classes, but he was satisfied it would have the opposite effect. This measure did not deal with industries as a whole, and surely workers were as much in need of consideration as the owners of machinery. This Bill proposed to take the tax off machinery and put it on to the workmen, and he protested strongly against any such process. The rates and taxes of this country were going up by leaps and bounds. Municipalities found their expenditure increasing, and all kinds of public improvements were wanted, and the difficulty they were experiencing was to find money for them. Public bodies; were unable to carry oat these much-needed improvements owing to increases in the local rates. Personally he could not see how this measure was likely to benefit any particular industry simply by taking this burden off the manufacturers and placing it upon the general public. This was in reality a manufacturers' Bill. Had hon. Members considered how this measure would affect some of the towns in the North of England. Take Gateshead as an example, where 95 per cent of the inhabitants belonged to the working classes. At the present time machinery there was rated, but if this Bill were adopted the rateable value would be considerably reduced, and who would pay the amount which the manufacturers had been relieved of? Why the population of Gateshead. Consequently the only effect of this Bill would be to transfer a burden from the manufacturer and place it upon the public at large. That was not a justifiable method of attempting to deal with this question, and as a matter of fact it was equivalent to a reduction of the wages of the workers. If the ratepayers had to pay higher rates upon their houses the rents would increase, and therefore this Bill was equivalent to a reduction of wages. At the present time there was a good deal of talk about the housing of the poor, and how would this measure affect that question? It would operate against the housing of the poor, and surely this was not a time to reduce rateable value when they had so many expenses looming in the distance. The present system of assessing the rates had been given in the past as security for loans, and what was now proposed by this Bill would interfere with the security which had been given for those advances. If they reduced the rateable area they must necessarily reduce the value of the security, and this House ought to hesitate before pursuing any such policy. If, in a mining district, they introduced machines for coal cutting to do away with the severe labour in mines, and in order to produce 30 or 40 per cent. more coal, under this Bill they would have to pay increased rates and that would be simply taxing the output. This Bill only dealt with a small part of a large question, and he could not think that the House would be well advised to begin to deal with the great question of rating in a piecemeal fashion. The Government ought to deal with the whole question of rating, and he thought it would be very unwise to tie the hands of any future Government which attempted to deal with this matter by passing this measure. This was a question which ought to be dealt with by the Government and not by a private Member's Bill. He thought the time was fast coming when, instead of people being gathered together in large mills, they would have smaller industries in the country, the motive power being supplied by electricity. He had opposed this Bill for many years, because he contended that, if they were to rate personal property, they ought not to exempt machinery, which would simply relieve the manufacturers at the expense of the working classes. [Cries of "No, no!"] He maintained that that was so. He recognised rates as a handicap to all industries, but they could not get along without taxation, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to see that taxation was levied justly upon all classes, whereas this Bill only created another injustice He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

said that although they had heard this measure debated over and over again, on this occasion they had not heard one single new argument. Therefore the difficulties which stood between them on the last occasion still existed, and they were still waiting for an answer to the arguments used in previous debates upon this subject. They had just been listening to the giants of commercial enterprise, but ho wished the House to bear in mind that the great industrial communities were not the only communities concerned in legislation. This was to a certain extent a struggle between the rural and the industrial interests. [Cries of "No, no."] At any rate, agriculturists thought they knew what was best for agriculture better than hon. Members representing industrial centres, and they thought that this Bill would have an unhappy and unfortunate effect upon some of the industries they were sent to support. It had been said that if they could tax the whole of the personalty there might be something said for rating machinery, but it was no argument to say that because they could not carry out a reform all at once it was wrong to perform a little measure of justice. As a matter of fact, they all knew that under the law, as it stood, all personalty was liable for rates, and it was only by a sort of accident that a person escaped. Those who were connected with the land considered that they had at present a very heavy and direct grievance by this escaping of personalty from taxation, and it was solely because the owners of land were a long-suffering race, and had not the same power of making themselves heard, that the land was suffering at present from those unjust burdens which had been so long imposed upon it. This extremely unfair condition of things had been allowed to go on too long, and they were looking forward to an alteration in the existing state of affairs through reform in local taxation. Last year he was very much struck by an argument used by the hon. Member for Oldham, who said that if they could not rate personalty there ought to be some increase in the Imperial subventions to local authorities. He thought that was a sound and wholesome doctrine, and when the hon. Member had done his best to support the agricultural interest in obtaining such local subventions, then he thought it would be time to support such proposals as were contained in this Bill. Was this an opportune moment to suggest that they should transfer certain burdens now borne by one class of the community to the shoulders of the agricultural class, who would have to take up the burden which others would lay down under this measure? This House had been too much accustomed to hear what was the condition of things in rural districts to entertain a proposal of that kind, they knew only too well how heavily the pressure of the rates affected rural districts, and how difficult it was to carry on agricultural industries, partly on account of the burden of new rates. Under recent legislation a considerable increase had been laid upon the agricultural community whom they now proposed to burden still further by measures like this. Not only had there been new rates involving a considerable amount of money, but in his own rural district there had been a new assessments of all the houses and hereditaments which came under the Rating Acts. He agreed that some of those assessments were absurd in the extreme, and he would give an instance. Recently he had endeavoured to do what he could to provide better housing for the agricultural labourers in his own district, and ho had spent a considerable amount of money upon improving their cottages. Not only this, but immediately after carrying out these improvements, he lowered the rents to those who stayed on the land. Nevertheless, under the new system of rating, in the case of every one of those cottages, although the rent had been dropped, the assessments had been doubled on the ground that the rental was worth more than that which he had chosen to let his cottages for. Of course if a business man was to conduct his affairs upon those principles, a rise of rents would always have to follow a rise of rates. He was aware that many landlords did not follow out this principle, but he wished to impress upon the House if the existing state of things was such as to justify any further imposition of rates, and if this Bill were passed, there would be some additional burden put upon the agricultural community from which a certain section of the people would escape. No doubt he would be told that agriculturists got their share under the Agricultural Rating Act; they did not get under that Act as much as they ought to have got, but if the Agricultural Rating Act was fair and just why should the House of Commons now try to neutralise its value by passing an Act like this. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Rotherham, he still insisted that he understood agricultural matters bettor than he did, and he thought he had given some good reasons why from an agricultural point of view this measure would be inequitable and unfair. He had been very much impressed with the argument which had been repeated by the hon. Baronet opposite to the effect that in his opinion this was a Bill which would injure the working classes and help the manufacturers. In this respect he should like to call attention to an argument which had not yet been answered and which was referred to in the debate last year. He alluded to the question which was asked as to whether it was true that the effect of this Bill would be to place a fine upon West Ham to the extent of £27,000 a year, which would be equivalent to a rise of 7d. in the £ on the rates. Assuming that to be a fact, what justification was there for such an immense burden being placed upon that borough? It had been said that the effect of this measure upon large towns in the North of England would be to increase the rates paid by the working classes by an amount varying from 3d. to 8d. in the £. If that was true, how could it possibly be said that this Bill was an equitable measure in the interests of the working classes, and how could it assist in providing them with better and healthier homes? Since this question was discussed last, the House had suffered a great loss by the death of one of its most picturesque personalities. Hon. Members would always remember the speech made upon this question by the late Sir William Allan, who spoke from personal knowledge, and who pointed out the evil effect this measure would have in the borough he represented, and the extent to which it would oppress the working classes by putting upon them a burden which was borne at the present time by another class. Those who remembered that speech would not be very easily convinced that the measure which was now before the House ought to pass. It was difficult to trace out what the effect of this Bill would be upon minor industries in the country. Some of his hon. friends thought that by starting minor industries in country districts they would benefit agriculture. He did not deny that when certain industries were in flourishing condition they benefited agriculture, but they did assert that at the present time, when they desired to keep a larger agricultural population on the land not only to develop agriculture but also to produce a stronger and a healthier population, they failed entirely to see how this measure would do anything but add to the difficulties which at present existed. Until he had heard a satisfactory answer to the objections he had put forward to this Bill, until some conclusive proof was given that the facts asserted by Sir William Allan and the hon. Baronet opposite were erroneous, and until he could be shown that this Bill would not operate adversely to the agricultural interest, he should associate himself with the hon. Baronet opposite in endeavouring to secure the rejection of this Bill.

said the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down had spoken of this Bill, not as it really was or as it would turn out to be if passed, but what he imagined the Bill aimed at. He had quoted a remark which he had made in regard to increasing the subventions to local authorities, but he thought the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken in supposing that this Bill would operate against the interests of agriculture. What was meant by minor industries being discouraged was that owing to the uncertainty of the law at the present time people were indisposed to erect factories in agricultural centres on account of the rating of machinery, because they knew that as soon as they erected their factories, and placed their machinery in them, the local authorities would come down and rate that machinery. Probably nine-tenths of the amount they often put on for machinery might be taken off on appeal, but so long as that uncertainty existed manufacturers were not inclined to erect their buildings and put in machinery in agricultural districts where no such factories now existed. The hon. Member for the Chester-le-Street Division objected to the title of this Bill as being misleading, but there were many other Bills to which a similar objection might be taken. Very often it was almost impossible to give in a few words a name which would adequately describe what a Bill was really meant to carry out. That, however, was a minor objection. The hon. Member stated that in Scotland they were trying to rate machinery. As a matter of fact they did try to rate machinery a few years ago, but the Scotch people knew immediately that any such action would drive industry and manufactures away from the country, and a Machinery Bill was introduced and carried through this House without any opposition which enacted precisely what they wanted for England. So far as the supporters of this Bill were concerned, they were willing to take exactly the words of the Scotch Bill and apply them to England. When his hon. friend the Member for the Chester-le-Street Division of Durham said that machinery in mines was rated, he he was going beyond the actual facts of the case. In some cases machinery was rated. In other cases the presence of machinery affected the rating of the mine in that the assessment of the mine was increased because the assessment was made on the output. There were some mines which were very expensive to work, and where a great deal of pumping machinery was required. He did not mean to say that the presence of machinery made the assessment lower, but the fact that it was wanted tended to make the assessment of the mine lower. He knew nothing about the rating of mines himself, but he had told the House what had been stated to him by a rating authority.

All the machinery in connection with a mine tends to increase the output, and in that way machinery is rated.

said it was not the machinery that was rated. The mines were rated on the output. He had stated the case as it had been stated to him by a very competent assessing expert. His hon. friend went on to say that what the promoters of this Bill were aiming at was to reduce the rating area of the country. It was nothing of the kind. It was stated that in Northumberland and Durham, and also in Sheffield, machinery was rated by the rating authority. He did not know whether that was the case or not, but he was told that the assessments made by the rating authorities there were not greater than were made in Manchester or Oldham for similar manufactures. He was certain, at any rate, that there were textile districts in the country where machinery was not rated, and where the local authorities would be absolutely opposed to anything which would bring it within the purview of assessment, from the fact that it would tend to add to the cost of production, and that to do anything which would operate against great industries of that kind would be a very serious and a very unwise matter. There were stated to be two principles at work. One principle was carried out in one part of the country, and the other in other parts. He was not able to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite the information he asked in regard to Oldham, because he did not know the circumstances. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree with him that, if two principles directly opposed to one another were being carried out in different parts of the country, the fact showed that there was a case which should be examined by a competent and independent authority on behalf of the Government, and that some settlement of the question should be made. He appealed to the Secretary o the Local Government Board, if he should speak this afternoon, to state what the Government was going to do in the matter. The King's Speech promised a Bill dealing with the question of assessment. As soon as the question was dealt with, in order to put the assessing system on one uniform basis, the question of the rating of machinery must also be dealt with. They could not in a great country like England put manufacturers on a different basis from those in Scotland. If they attempted to do that, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be practically in revolt on this matter. This was a question on which an enormous amount of misunderstanding existed, and it was for that reason that he said there ought to be a thoroughly independent inquiry. If they were going to carry out in connection with the cotton industry what was carried out in Northumberland and Durham, he feared it would mean absolute disaster, and therefore he hoped that hon. Members would see that this was a very serious matter which wanted more investigation than it had yet received. It was a matter on which they could not afford to depart, with regard to the textile industries at any rate, from what had been carried out in the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said that if he would help him to get a large subvention from Imperial sources for agriculture, he would do what he could in their case. He would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if there was one place which suffered from the system of Imperial subvention, and which would benefit by the alteration of that system in the direction which the Royal Commission suggested, that place was the constituency for which he had the honour to sit. He ventured to say that Oldham would benefit much more than any agricultural county if that principle were carried out.

said this question had been before the House on several occasions, but those who had supported the Bill, year after year, in the past would continue to do so, knowing that a great grievance existed in the country. The hon. Baronet who moved the rejection of the Bill criticised the name, but that could be easily altered. He asked the House to confirm the decision which had been arrived at again and again with reference to this measure. There was admittedly a grievance felt by many people in the country in connection with this matter, and, if that was so, something ought to be done to remedy it. He wished to speak on behalf of the city of Norwich, whose industries were of the greatest inportance to it, and where they laboured under difficulties which did not exist in the North of England. It was a city which depended a great deal for its prosperity on agriculutral prosperity. He therefore claimed to be able to speak on this question both from the point of view of manufacturing industry and agriculture. In answer to the suggestion which had been made that this was a Bill introduced by employers and manufacturers he would state, as showing that this was not so, that he had received memorials signed by the workers in connection with fifteen of the manufactures of Norwich urging him in their interest to support this measure. The chamber of commerce in his city had also asked him to support it. He should like to ask his hon. and gallant friend whether movable machinery was assessed in the agricultural district in which he lived. His impression was that it was not, for it was assessed in comparatively few places at the present time. The city of Norwich was one, and that was why they felt the grievance there. It was because the system of rating machinery was not uniform that those in the districts which were assessed felt that there was an uncertainty which ought to be done away with. It was necessary to bring forward the same arguments year after year, but it appeared to him that the arguments in favour of the Bill were stronger now than they were last year in view of the experience they had had. A great deal had been heard during the past year about the desirability of furthering the industries of this country. They had seen their village or small town industries drifting to the great centres. He thought this had been a very serious matter for the agricultural districts. He would put this case to his hon. and gallant friend. Supposing there were some old buildings in his district which he did not want, and three or four active and enterpising young men with a turn for machinery rented them for a small amount. Some movable machinery was put in, and these young men started a little industry which one day might be a great industry in that district. The very moment they put that machinery into these disused premises the assessment would be raised. Such cases had happened, and that was not the way to encourage young men to start small industries. There were places in the United States, and he believed also in Germany, where, in order to encourage the starting of industries, the buildings were either free from rates, or only a very small assessment was imposed, until the industries were properly established. He hoped his hon. friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board would be able to say more to-day on the question than the House had heard from the Front Bench on previous occasions.

said he had taken an interest in this question for many years, and he was bound to say that their labours with regard to the Bill did not seem to be much nearer fruition than they did some years ago. The question was a very narrow one. Movable machinery was personal property, and the question was, was it right or desirable that personal property should be rated? He was entirely of opinion that it should be; but at the present time it was not rated generally, and if that was so, was it right or fair that one peculiar productive form of personal property should be rated? If they were to be logical, consistent, and fair-minded in this matter they would, with regard to the agricultural interest, be obliged to rate ploughs, harrows, and theshing machines; and in connection with the coal industry they must rate trolleys, pickaxes, and shovels. At Liverpool docks and wharves were heavily rated, but to be consistent, why should they not also rate even the ships plying on the Mersey? At present the agricultural interest was receiving half of its rates from the Exchequer, and the people in the towns were obliged to contribute a large portion of that relief to the counties where the rates were only half what they were in the towns. He ventured to say that land was not rated at all. It was income derived from land that was rated, and why should income from land be treated differently from income derived from other forms of property? He wished to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether it was the fact that shortly after the passing of the Agricultural Rating Act the Government agreed, on the entreaty of Mr. Ascroft, the late Member for Oldham, not only to withdraw their opposition to this Bill, but to support it.

said that was certainly not the case. His right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board said in the House last year or the year before that the Government, as all Governments had done, left it an open question.

said he believed that up to that year the Government of the day did oppose the Bill. He hoped the Government would leave it an open question on this occasion, and also that the House would again affirm the principle that machinery was personal property which should be exempted from assessment.

said he entirely agreed that this was a narrow question. The hon. Member for Norwich said that a grievance was felt in that city. But was there no grievance on the other side? Agriculturists had considered for years that they had a great grievance in the matter. If there was a grievance, let it be remedied by all means, but let it be remedied all round. If by this Bill they gave a modicum of relief to a particular portion of the community, some part of the burden must fall on other interests. It would fall on the agricultural interest, which, as the agriculturists had always claimed, was more unfairly rated than any other interest in the country. He would vote against the Bill.

said the hon. Member for the city of Norwich said many people had a very serious grievance in connection with this matter. It seemed to him a very curious and unsatisfactory proceeding to endeavour to remedy one grievance by creating another. The grievance was only a local one, and by passing the Bill they would create even greater hardships in the districts in which it would operate than existed now. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Oldham that this was a serious question, but it was only the fringe of a still greater question, viz., the entire basis of local assessment and local rating. The Government were pledged to deal with the whole question of local taxation, and he thought it would be preferable that they should wait until they had the Government's scheme before them rather than that they should tinker with the fringe of so great a question as was proposed by the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Norwich said that this was not a manufacturers' question, but he was afraid that he could not subscribe to that doctrine; it was a manufacturers' question almost entirely. The first to get relief by this Bill would be the manufacturers; workmen would obtain no relief, at least in the first instance. The area of rateable property would be reduced, the workmen's wages would not be increased, while rents would rise. In the North of England, at present, machinery was rated, and all those who had carefully studied the question—boards of guardians and town and district councils—maintained that if this Bill passed it would reduce the area of rating, and increase the rating of householders. Hard as the workman's lot was at present, he would find it much harder if this Bill was passed into law. He therefore hoped that the measure would not be endorsed by the Government. They had been told that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by the House, but hon. Members must have been struck by the fact that on each occasion when a Second Reading was carried, it was by diminishing majorities. That showed that the opinion of the country—which had been captured by the false and fanciful title under which the measure had been brought into the House, was now becoming alive to the real facts of the case and the true inwardness of the proposal. Believing that if the Bill were carried in its present shape it would prove unjust to owners of small properties, to agriculturists, and specially to householders, he would give his vote against the Second Reading.

said that this was a question in which he had always taken the keenest interest. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member opposite had just stated, that the Government were pledged to deal with the whole question of rating; but when they did so they would deal not only with the question of how light machinery should be valued, or heavy machinery should be valued, or how this and that industry should be rated, hut with the subject as a whole. The hon. Member for Oldham seemed to think that the Valuation Bill, which was mentioned in the King's Speech, and which the House had given his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board leave to introduce, was the occasion to deal with these matters. He was not revealing any Cabinet secret when he said that that was not so. That Bill did not deal with the manner in which a particular hereditament was to be valued, nor with any subject of that description. It dealt only with valuation authorities, and the areas over which those valuation authorities were to rule. He had been asked to intimate to the House what was the attitude of the Government in regard to this Bill. Many Presidents and Secretaries of the Local Government Board of both Parties had declared that the matter was one on which individual Members, if a division was called, might proceed in whatever direction they saw fit. That had always been the general attitude adopted by Governments in the past towards this measure, and it was the attitude which was taken up by the present Government on this occasion. The hon. Member who introduced the Bill, with an exaggeration of language at which he was astonished, said that this measure was a life and death measure for the industries of the country. If that were the case these industries would have been dead long ago. Speaking in an unofficial capacity, and as one who had given great attention to questions of local taxation, he said that with regard to all these rating Bills the attitude he consistently took up was that every man who received an annual benefit from the expenditure of the rates ought to make an annual contribution to the rates in proportion to that benefit; and that, as far as possible, valuation, as forming the basis of taxation, ought to be founded on actual knowledge of facts, and not on efforts of the imagination. The Bill before the House was not supported by any rating authority in the country, except one.

said that it was supported by many.

said that only one rating authority had communicated with the Local Government Board on the subject: and he himself knew that many rating authorities were violently opposed to the measure. To discuss reasonably in that House a proposal for either the imposition of further local taxation or the exemption of certain hereditaments from rating, they ought to look at the matter from the point of view of two considerations. The first was, what annual benefit would the owner of the hereditaments receive from the expenditure of the rates; and the second was, what was the capacity of the owner of the hereditament to bear the rates? He had not heard any hon. Member approach the subject from either of these points of view. No one had attempted to prove that the owners of light machinery received less benefit from the expenditure of rates than the owners of heavy machinery, or, indeed, than the owners of hereditaments to which no machinery whatever was attached. And he was sure that no one would ever attempt to prove that mills containing this light machinery produced less value to their owners, and were, therefore, less capable of bearing taxation than were other works in the same district in which machinery was of a ponderous character. He did not agree with the view that the law in this matter was uncertain and that this Bill would make it more certain. He believed that the law was as certain on this matter as the law of this country would ever be on any matter. The question had been fought out for years. Ever since 1840 it had occupied the attention of the Courts, and at last something like a definite decision had been arrived at. He considered the judgment of Lord Esher in the Tyne boiler case was as plain as anything could be. If this Bill were passed, the whole thing would be again thrown into the melting pot. He did not think it would be fair to ask the House to come to a decision after so short a discussion; but, if a division was taken, he hoped the House would be against the Bill.

rose to continue the debate, when

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

said that this question had been a long time before Parliament, and although the debate had been only a short one on that occasion, he thought it had come almost to a natural termination; and therefore he would accept the Motion.

moved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.

in moving that "the House do now adjourn," said that on behalf of the Prime Minister he wished to announce that arrangements had been made to postpone the discussion on the London County Council Bill, and that the whole of Monday would be devoted to the discussion of the Vote of Censure. A Motion would be made for the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule on that day.

said that the arrangement announced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a convenient one, and he hoped that the House would accept it.