AMENDMENT (MR. MACIVER)—DEPRESSION OF TRADE.

HC Deb 31 October 1884 vol 293 cc668-763

MR. MACIVER

said, he rose to move an Amendment to the Address in I the following words:—

But humbly to direct Her Majesty's attention to the depressed condition of commerce and agriculture, and regret that Her Majesty's gracious Speech contains no reference to a subject of such paramount importance. Nothing could be further from his wish or intention than by his Amendment to anticipate the demand for an inquiry that was being made into the depressed state of agriculture. It did seem to him, however, that, as representing a large and important trading constituency, he had some right to be heard on a question such as that raised by his Amendment; and it also seemed to him that, as no one else stood forward, it was his duty to do so under the present circumstances, which were only too well known, not alone at Birkenhead, but in many other centres of industry. The shipping of the Port of Liverpool was greater than that of the Port of London; and as one-half of the port of Liverpool was in his constituency at Birkenhead, he add not think that he was unreasonable in asking the House to join him in in expression of regret that at a time like this the condition of commerce should not have been considered important enough to justify any mention in the Queen's Speech. His, he ventured to think, was not the only constituency where, to those who were out of work, the means of living were of more importance than any consideration of the Franchise Bill. At Birkenhead, so far as he knew, they cared little or nothing about what the Prime Minister described as "the great object for which Parliament had been summoned." The all-important question to people who were out of work was—"How were they to live?" And, although it might be very bad political economy, he (Mr. MacIver) was very much inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) that the Government had other duties more important than legislation, and that the very first of those duties was to take such reasonable means as might be in their power "to provide the people with bread and cheese." He regretted that the Government had been so blind to the condition of matters around them in every centre of industry as to suppose that they could satisfy starving men with a Franchise Bill. He wished to approach the consideration of this question entirely from a non-political point of view, because it seemed to him that in the House of Commons they thought sometimes too much of Party questions and not enough of those great social problems such as that which he wished now to bring before the House. He wished to say that he had the greatest sympathy with the Question which had been addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member for Sunderland with reference to shipbuilding in the Royal Navy; and knowing as he did the present condition of our Navy, and that ships could be now cheaply and advantageously built at those ports where there was so much distress, he thought that the hon. Member had been justified in asking that the Government should take some such steps. But, in reply to the hon. Member's Question, the Prime Minister went out of his way to administer a severe rebuke to his devoted follower for venturing to raise a question of this kind. The position was now far too grave to be treated as a Party question. Manufacturers and those engaged in agriculture were bound up in each other, and neither could prosper without the other, a truth that was too often forgotten. Agriculture was still the greatest pursuit in this country, and more people depended upon it for a livelihood than upon any other source; but manufacturers sometimes forgot that, and, unfortunately, there were mischievous politicians whose occupation would be gone if they had not a fertile field in which to sow trouble and to foment jealousies. He was not engaged in agriculture, and had nothing to do with it; but, whatever might be the outcome of the proposed inquiry, he would wish that any change that was made should be a change that would be fair all round to every industry in the country. Cheap food might be bought too dear, and the ruin of agriculture meant the destruction of our home markets for manufactures. Surely the incidence of taxation, the removal of our own burdens, and the endeavour to place those burdens upon foreign producers rather than upon producers at home, were subjects which to-day ought once more to be calmly considered and not left to angry controversy. He had no sympathy with those politicians whose political existence depended upon setting class against class, the manufacturing artizans against the agricultural labourers, and who saw in a state of affairs such as this a field for sowing dissensions. When speaking in "another place," Lord Kimberley had argued that there was distress all over the world, and that the condition of other countries was worse than our own. That was partly true. No doubt, trade was not good in the United States or on the Continent; but it was impossible for any Member of the Government or the House of Commons to make any accurate comparison as to the state of trade here and elsewhere. Those who were opposed to him pointed triumphantly to the statistics of the Board of Trade; but, for his own part, he was inclined to doubt the Board of Trade statistics; he had less faith in statistics and in newspaper information than was the case with many hon. Members opposite. There were certain practical considerations which had more reality about them than any amount of Mr. Giffen's statistics or of newspaper paragraphs, from whatever source they might be contributed. He had practical experience of the depression in trade now existing all over the country. He was a shareholder in some woollen mills in Cheshire; and he had received, a short time ago, a communication announcing that they were in liquidation. The fact was, anyone connected with the management of shipping had the opportunity of knowing exactly whither the trade of the world was going. For example, he was interested in certain steamers running to and from the River Plate, a great part of whose business was the carrying of wool. It was impossible at that moment to load a cargo of wool for importation into England; the demand for wool came from France and Belgium, and not from this country. Again, shipbuilding in France, though not in a very prosperous, was in a fairly prosperous condition; their shipyards were not empty as the English yards were. He knew this from his own experience, though, in answer to a Question he had put to him, the President of the Board of Trade confessed that he did not know what the state of the shipping trade in France was. That fact, in itself, was sufficient to justify his Amendment. The Suez Canal Returns, published on the authority of the Leith Chamber of Commerce, showed that, owing to the bounty system, French shipping passing through the Suez Canal had doubled, while British shipping had only increased 7 per cent.

MR. MUNDELLA

What is the relative proportion?

MR. MAC IVER

said, he had not the figures then with him; but he was perfectly ready to furnish them to any hon. Member who wished to see them. For his own part, he had been a good deal about the Mediterranean, and had noticed that there had been a remarkable increase in the number of French steamers trading in that quarter—that, whereas formerly they only saw an occasional steamer carrying the French flag, at the present day that flag was seen everywhere. Would the House believe the statement that under our economical Post Office, which went to Germany for the materials for its postcards, the people of Malta were, at the present moment, actually dependent on French and Italian steamers for the conveyance of their English mails? Of course, a good deal of money was saved; but there were national considerations which ought to take precedence of all others in regard to matters of military and naval importance connected with a great naval station like that of Malta. He held in his hand the Report of a Steamship Company with whose management he had nothing to do, but in which he had the good or ill fortune to be a shareholder. In that Report the Directors stated as a reason why they were unable to pay a dividend that one all-powerful factor was Free Trade, the definition of which, as far as this country was concerned, might be described as the giving away of every privilege and receiving nothing in return, in consequence of which they saw the foreign trade being gradually absorbed by other countries, under a system of bounties and protective duties. The Report went on to say that the agriculturists, though blessed with an abundant harvest, could only sell it at ruinous prices, while the markets of the world were closed to England by the system of duties and bounties, and the labouring classes, though getting bread more cheaply and abundantly than before, were unable to obtain employment, without which cheap food was no blessing. He strongly and emphatically blamed the President of the Board of Trade for much of this. He would not say the President individually, because he had not the slightest personal feeling towards him, but the Department over which he presided. He would remind the House that one evening last Session, when, after many attempts, he (Mr. MacIver) was fortunate enough to get the first place on the Notice Paper for a Motion to inquire into the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade, he was at once "counted out" by hon. Members opposite, and thus deprived of the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. Many persons thought the President of the Board of Trade had met the case by proposing the appointment of a Royal Commission on Merchant Shipping, and that one of its duties would be to inquire into the functions of the Board of Trade. But this was not the case, the fact being that the Reference to the Commission was of a much narrower character; and they still had in that Board a Department which he (Mr. MacIver) maintained entirely failed in its duty, which, in point of fact, was not a Board, of Trade at all, and was certainly not a Department in the sense in which that House had passed its Resolutions in favour of the appointment of a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. He might describe the Board of Trade as useless and mischievous, and as something which ought to be abolished. The view he took of the Department was, he felt sure, pretty much the view taken by those engaged in the sugar trade, as well as by the shipowners, and he might also say by the sailors. The shipowners had a keen appreciation of the state of the law under which our British shipping was handicapped. They knew how the existing law hindered and hampered the British shipping trade, while protecting the foreigner, to the injury of the English owners. As to the sailors, he might state that he was not long ago invited to be present at a meeting of British seamen, who, instead of supporting the Board of Trade, wanted to denounce the President of that Department as an enemy of his country. The ground of their denunciation was that they were in want of employment; and the state of the law was such that they, as British seamen, were placed at a great disadvantage, while foreigners, who really were not sailors at all, came over and successfully competed with them. He would here say it was too much to assume, as many did, that the taxes on importations were necessarily borne by the consumers. [Laughter from the Liberal Benches.] Hon. Members below the Gangway laughed; but could they produce other authority for their incredulity than newspapers inspired by the Board of Trade? Every commercial man knew that the import tax was not necessarily paid by the consumer. It was not long ago that he was lunching at Liverpool in company with Mr. Paul, a partner of the firm of Ross T. Smyth & Co., and a loyal supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and that gentleman had said, in reference to the question what would be the effect of an increase or diminution in the rate of freight on the corn trade, that whenever the rate of freight went up, those abroad who had to sell their wheat were obliged to accept a lower price, while, at the same time, nothing came from the consumer. Mr. John Stuart Mill, in his Principles of Political Economy, Vol. 2, p. 405, said— The imposition of a tax on a commodity almost always diminished the demand, and it was laid down as a principle that a tax on imported commodities, when it really operated as a tax and not as a prohibition, almost always fell partly on the foreigner who had the goods, this being a mode in which a nation might appropriate to itself at the expense of the foreigner a larger share than belonged to it of the increase of productiveness. Mr. Mill added— Those were therefore right who maintained that taxes on imports were partly paid by the foreigner. He thought there was no one in the House who would not agree with him that what was called Free Trade had somewhat disappointed everybody. It had certainly not worked out as its original promoters had hoped. Still, there was a tendency on the part of the Government to dispute this. He wished to put before the House three propositions — first, the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper; secondly, to concur with him in the reasonableness of the demand for an inquiry; and, thirdly, he was ready to suggest, though he did not think that the right occasion, a remedy. But supposing his remedy took the form of a tax on imports, he maintained that there were many imported luxuries about the taxing of which there ought to be very little doubt. We imported last year of silk fabrics alone to the value of £12,000,000, of artificial flowers to the value of £500,000, of musical instruments to the value of nearly £1,000,000. What our imported manufactures amounted to was a point of some importance, because here there was a real dispute. He had heard the President of the Board of Trade speak of their annual value as £25,000,000, the Prime Minister had spoken of it as £45,000,000; it appeared to him that it was as much as £107,000,000. The figures on which he relied were at the service of anyone who liked to see them; but how could the same figures yield such different results as £25,000,000, £45,000,000, and £107,000,000? The explanation of the discrepancy lay in the mode in which Mr. Giffen and his assistants at the Board of Trade prepared their accounts. Sugar, for example, which we imported to the amount of £20,000,000, came, according to Mr. Giffen's classification, under the head not of manufactures, but of articles of consumption; and so, likewise, did oleomargarine. He thought he had said enough to justify the Amendment which he had put on the Paper. It seemed to him that our present commercial system was wrong altogether. There was one other matter to which he thought he should be justified in making a reference. An idea very widely prevailed that certain Members of the Government, as well as certain Members of Parliament, were interested in firms abroad who had entered into competition with British manufacturers. He did not know whether it was true or not, but perhaps the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Holden) would inform the House if there was any foundation for that allegation. Then a similar rumour prevailed with regard to the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), who was credited with being connected with a foreign firm, and he (Mr. MacIver) thought it was only due to the right hon. Gentleman that his attention should be called to the subject. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether it was a fact that he had no connection at the present time with the firm of A. Mundella & Co., Chemnitz, Saxony, which had been established in opposition to manufacturers in this country? Another point to which he (Mr. MacIver) would also desire to call the attention of the House was this. A great portion of our Revenue was now derived from Income Tax. A great deal had been heard about our investments abroad, and it seemed to him that many of these investments escaped Income Tax altogether. That, at least, was the inference to be drawn if the description of these investments given by Mr. Giffen were true. The burden which those investments ought to bear was borne wholly by the industries of this country. In conclusion, the hon. Member urged that the question was deserving of serious consideration, as a very large balance of Income Tax on foreign profits was still unaccounted for. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

MR. ECROYD

, in rising to second the Amendment, said, he desired to disclaim any intention of discussing the question on Party grounds. It could not be denied that there was at the present time a very large amount of industrial depression. Such a state of things affected closely the interests of the working population, and the subject ought, therefore, to interest equally hon. Members on both sides of the House. He accordingly invited the co-operation of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion of the subject. His hope was that the Government might remedy the omission in the Queen's Speech, and take into consideration, without delay, the desirability of proceeding to appoint either a Royal Commission, or a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to consider this question in all its bearings. The depression in trade was almost universal. There was, however, one great branch of trade which must be excepted—namely, the worsted and woollen trade, which was now in a better condition than it had been in for sometime. That was, no doubt, due to the influence of the previous long-contined and tremendous depression, which had the effect of largely reducing the number of firms engaged in this trade. The reality of the grounds on which his hon. Friend based his Amendment was made plain in the communication from a Trade Unionist, which appeared in The Times on Thursday. The writer of that article said that the depression was very widespread; that trade was evidently declining; that profits were becoming less; that wages were being reduced; that in many industries short time was being resorted to; and that in many places the works were being closed. He thus gave a gloomy forecast for the coming winter. The writer also pointed out that the great industries of Lancashire, Staffordshire, the Midlands generally, and of South Wales were in a very unsatisfactory condition from the point of view of Trades Unionists, and that in the Metropolitan area 30 per cent of the dock labourers were out of work. Such a state of things, the writer argued, indicated that it was incumbent upon Parliament to consider favourably any Motion that might be brought forward for the purpose of inquiring into the causes of the distress that existed among the industrial population in all parts of the country. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pooh-poohed by the occupants of the Treasury Bench, and that they would not be put off by references to statistics in regard to the decrease of pauperism, the maintenance of the receipts from Income Tax, and the increase of the rateable value of property. Pauperism had, no doubt, diminished, but the diminution was in great measure due to the manifest spread of temperance and thrift, and to the existence of Friendly Societies and other organizations of that kind which afforded assistance to working men when out of employment. Then before the increase in the rateable value of property was taken as evidence of internal prosperity, it must be borne in mind that formerly property was much undervalued, and it was also necessary to consider what proportion of rateable property was occupied by persons connected with foreign industries, and how much of it by persons who derived their wealth from foreign investments and undertakings. Neither were the Income Tax Returns a real index to the changes which took place in the industrial earnings of the country. It was well known that occupiers of land paid Income Tax at a fixed rate whether their profits were large or small, so that whether a farmer made a profit of £200, or suffered a loss of £300 upon his year's trade, he paid the same amount of Income Tax. The same thing often occurred in the case of persons engaged in manufacturing industries. Many small tradesmen and manufacturers made a return which, when accepted, was maintained through good years and bad years. Then the Returns of Income Tax were swollen by incomes derived from foreign property owned by persons living in this country, and from income the source of which lay in the external trading operations of the country. Now, with reference to the question of agricultural distress, in spite of the late good season, all must admit that the English farmer had little reason to congratulate himself on his financial prospects. It was true he had had a harvest, which, although not abundant in quantity, had been excellent in quality; but, on the other hand, he was receiving for his grain the lowest price he had ever received, and he had to contend with a great depreciation in the value of his cattle and sheep. If these matters were taken into consideration, it would be found that the agricultural depression was pressing as severely on the occupier of the land as it had done at any time during the last seven or eight years. From the national point of view, a reduction of rents would be no remedy whatever for this state of things, because a considerable reduction of the incomes of landowners would be as greatly felt by the nation as if the loss had fallen on any other class. A reduction of rents, or of the value of building land, was an indication of decay in any country. It was not only a consequence of adversity, but a herald of coming adversity. A reduction of the income of property owners necessarily told upon trade throughout the country, and stopped expenditure upon the improvement of the land itself. The result of that in the long run was to throw out of work a vast number of labourers, artizans, and manufacturers of various kinds. It increased the indisposition of the wealthy to embark more capital in property of which they believed the prospects to be exceedingly doubtful, and it induced a disposition to "hedge" to some extent by investing money in foreign lands and property. Thus the money that ought to have been, and would have been, invested in this country was now being used to increase the means of that competition abroad which was reducing the income of all classes connected with the industries of this country. He looked with apprehension at the probable effect of the great disappearance of profit, and shrinkage of rent, which had taken place during the past 10 years, and were still going on, for the same thing which had happened to the owners and occupiers of land had happened on a large scale to the owners of property connected with trade, commerce, and manufactures, and to those who were conducting the operations of our varied industries. He was thankful to acknowledge that the position of the workmen themselves had thus far been better maintained relatively than had the position of the owners of property and the conductors of industries, whether agricultural or manufacturing. But they could not lose sight of the fact that if depression first of all took away profit from the cultivators of the soil and from the conductors of industries, it compelled them to appeal for a reduction of rent, and make that a condition for the further prosecution of their industries. Thus the owners of property were necessarily the next to suffer. Two buffers, as he might call them, had been interposed between the industrial classes and the disastrous effects of this depression. The first of these was the profits of trade and manufacture; and it had practically disappeared. The second was the rent, not only of land, but of buildings; and with the exception of a few centres where foreign productions were imported and distributed, or where accumulated wealth spent itself in a thousand ways, there had been a serious reduction of value in that description of property. In the end the depression must fall upon the industrial classes. One effect of the agricultural depression and of foreign competition in our tillage area was that it had displaced labour on a large scale. A short time ago he had a conversation with a farmer of 1,000 acres or more, who told him that be had only one man in his employ under 30 years of age. The reason, he said, was that all the younger people believed that tillage farming in this country was done for. That appeared to open out a very serious prospect. The farmers had suffered under extreme depression during the past few years; but they were now threatened with another serious difficulty—namely, that of obtaining labourers, as men were now unwilling to engage in what they believed to be a sinking and doomed industry. The rural districts had been the fountains from which a healthy population had been drawn into our towns, and if they were depopulated, the first fatal blow would have been struck against the future success of the industries of this country. He regretted that in this condition of affairs Her Majesty's Speech contained no word of sympathy for those industries which were so deeply depressed, no promise of inquiry, and, what was still more important, no indication of relief from that unjust burden of local taxation which, in spite of the emphatic votes of that House, was still pressing on our industries, agricultural and manufacturing, and disabling them in the terrible competition with foreign countries. It was a remarkable fact that since 1870 the two occasions on which wheat had reached the highest price were those periods in which our industries had been best employed, and when there was a tendency to an advance in wages. In 1871–2–3, when the average price of wheat was 57s. 6d. per quarter, all industries were most active and wages were higher than they had been before. In 1879 and 1880 there was again a higher price of wheat than had prevailed previously. Wheat rose to 45s. and 48s. per quarter, and again there was a movement in our industries, a gleam of hope, and, to a certain extent, an advance of wages among our industrial population. On the other hand, on every occasion during those 14 years when the price of wheat had been at its lowest, there was extreme stagnation of trade and a gloom hanging over all our industries which resulted in a reduction of wages. He hoped, therefore, they had heard the last of the ancient superstition that the sale of produce at prices so low as to contribute to the ruin of those who produced it could conduce to the general welfare of the country. If our present system had not proved good for either our agricultural or industrial interests, in Heaven's name in whose interest was it maintained? It was maintained in the interest of the consumer, who did not happen to be also a producer; it was maintained in the interest of that class who, living in this country, employed their capital in foreign countries where Protection prevailed, and profited by that Protection which was directed against our own industries. The depressions of trade had become chronic, and the prophecies of Free Traders were no longer believed by any class. They had so often been falsified that they would not be believed again by the great mass of Englishmen. In the face of a Dissolution which could not be far distant, he hoped the Government would so far cut the ground from under the feet of their opponents as to grant a complete investigation. Periods of depression had become of more frequent occurrence and of longer duration than they used to be. The recoveries had become more transitory, and, like a flash in the pan, the gleam of hope had disappeared directly. This had been the state of things for the last eight or ten years. He appealed to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) to say whether among the agencies which had contributed to the demoralization of the industrial population of this country anything had been so far-reaching as the violent and sudden fluctuations produced by foreign tariffs? An instance was given the other day by the President of the Board of Trade. The French Shipping Bounties having permitted the import of foreign-built vessels for a fixed period, the effect had been to increase for that time the amount of shipbuilding in this country; but the moment that period terminated shipbuilding for France was stopped here, and repairing was transferred to the French shipyards. A more notable example was furnished by the trade in iron rails with the United States. An enormous demand there produced an activity of trade here; but at the slightest contraction of demand the duty, like a sharp knife, cut off the trade of this country, to the demoralization of the workpeople in our great centres. First, wages were rapidly advanced; the temptation to expenditure was irresistible; and the result of the sudden check was seen in destitution like that of "starving Jarrow," as it was described in a newspaper heading. The manufacturers of mixed fabrics at Lyons and St. Etienne had been using English cotton yarns, the supply of which was cut off under the violent system of Protection adopted by France, which must be injurious to the well-being of the country and of its manufactures in the long run. Some thought that the solution of the difficulty would be that the French Government would be obliged to admit English yarns at a reduced duty, or, possibly, free of duty; but all past experience taught them that the ulti- mate solution would be the establishment by the French of fine spinning mills under English overlookers. We must now look at these matters in the light of past experience, and give up dreaming of a state of things continually promised and never realized. We were told, on the one hand, that our manufacturers experienced difficulty in meeting foreign competition, and, on the other band, that the imposition of a duty on foreign goods would weaken our own competition with those foreign rivals. These propositions were absolutely contradictory and mutually destructive. The foreign rivals whose goods displaced our own belonged to Protected nations, and worked under import duties. Now, if the imposition of Protected duties incapacitated and disqualified manufacturers for foreign competition, how was it that French and German textile and iron manufacturers were successfully invading this free market? We were suffering not only from positive Bounties given, but also from Protective duties imposed. If 30 per cent were levied in Germany upon imported woollen goods, the manufacturer there had created for him an artificially profitable internal market, whose profits furnished him with resources to invade the free market of England, and to undersell those who were working under Free Trade. Thus, foreign manufacturers were enabled to dispose of goods for which, under a system of Free Trade on both sides, they could not have succeeded in finding a market in this country. Our industries, agricultural and manufacturing, had ceased to grow with the growth of our population. It was perfectly certain that to a large extent the new concerns which were started were more a displacement of old ones than a real increase in our productive industries. The export of coal, taking the five years from 1869 to 1873, and comparing them with the five years from 1879 to 1883, had risen 45 per cent in quantity. It was a remarkable fact that in regard to steam engines and all kinds of machinery there had been an immense increase in our exports. As compared with the five years 1869–73, the five years 1879–83 showed an increase of steam engines exported amounting to 40 per cent, and of other machinery and mill work the exports had increased 55 per cent. But the discouraging side of the question was that we had been exporting the implements of production instead of the products of our own industry. In cotton piece goods, for instance, our exports had diminished nearly £3,000,000 in value. There had been practically no growth in our exports of cotton manufactured goods in the last five years as compared with 10 years ago. All healthy growth had absolutely ceased. So in woollen and worsted goods there had been a diminution of our exports in 1879–83 compared with 1869–73 amounting to 30 per cent in value. In cutlery and hardware the diminution was 15 per cent, in earthenware 3½ per cent, in linen 6¼ per cent. [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: Raw iron and wool?] If less was received for raw iron, it followed surely that less was paid in wages. In the same years which witnessed these large diminutions in our exported manufactures there was an enormous increase in the export of coal, steam engines, and machinery, in spite of the deline in prices. But there was no healthy growth; there was positive diminution in the exportation of the articles which we manufactured. Were reductions in wages ever before so prevalent with food so cheap and raw material so abundant? With wheat at 32s. a-quarter, and sugar at 2d. a-pound, was industry ever so depressed? All this indicated that we had entered upon a different period, a different order of things from what had ever previously existed. He did not advocate any particular remedy; this was not the proper occasion for doing so; but he had made out a case in favour of a full, complete, and impartial inquiry. We were overwhelmed with manufactures, which were the fruit of a lower standard of comfort than prevailed among our own workpeople; with imports of wheat, which were the fruit of a less skilful and scientific agriculture than our own. He commended these considerations to the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who represented labour in that House. Those Gentlemen were anxious to prevent undue competition within this country; but how long were we to be subject to one-sided and unfair, and, therefore, ruinous competition from outside the country? The low prices of imports benefited to a small degree even our artizans in their capacity of consumers. But how high a price did we pay for this in the depression of rents and profits, and the inevitable depression of wages which must certainly follow? In every centre of industry the consequences of this unlimited competition were being felt, whilst a comparatively small class of persons were making enormous incomes by foreign investments. There was no part of the United Kingdom upon which this grossly unfair system had produced more unfortunate results than Ireland, which depended so largely upon home productions. Then we had lately been discussing the important question of the dwellings of the poor; but no improvement of their dwellings could be either general or permanent unless they were fully employed and fairly paid. He had been informed that in the East End of London 30 per cent of the labouring population were unemployed. What wonder that they were badly housed! We should be told that we were not suffering more than the Protected nations, and that we ought to be thankful that we were not worse off than they. Had it come to this, then? Was that all that could be said after 40 years of our one-sided Free Trade, and in face of the fact that we possessed a Colonial and Indian Empire with which those nations had nothing to compare? The question was of so complicated a character that it could only be adequately dealt with by a Royal Commission or Joint Committee. He asked for nothing more than a fair field and no favour. Less than that he was sure that the country would not endure. The policy of allowing one industry after another to be destroyed, and the employment and remuneration of our working classes to suffer, was a policy not worthy of the spirit and energy of this country. He would suggest that the development of the resources of India might be stimulated by a carefully considered system of differential duties. He would also be glad to see a much larger outlay on railways and roads, so that the products of that country might more easily be exported, and India become a rival of the United States. He would gladly welcome an expenditure of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 per annum in that direction, which would ultimately be largely productive of profit to our Indian Empire. There was no question that the present condition of affairs was alarming in the extreme. There was no doubt that the inhabitants of nearly all our great centres of industry were united in believing that some means must be taken by the Government to remedy the present depressed condition of our industries and manufactures. These at present were fiscal questions; but they could easily become social questions of the most dangerous character, leading to demands entirely inconsistent with the firmness of the foundations of the security of property of every kind. In conclusion, he sincerely hoped that so deep an interest might be shown by hon. Members in these great questions affecting the condition of the labouring poor, that they, being assured of the sympathy of those whom Providence had placed in a position of greater influence and comfort, might desire not to undermine, but to sustain, the foundations of property, assured that in so doing they were best securing a full share for themselves of those good things, now so abundant, which had been created for the benefit of all.

Amendment proposed, To insert in the ninth paragraph, after the word "us," the words "but humbly to direct Her Majesty's attention to the depressed condition of commerce and agriculture, and regret that Her Majesty's gracious Speech contains no reference to a subject of such paramount importance."—(Mr. MacIver.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

said, his object in rising was to refer to a personal matter which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). He wished, however, first to say that he differed entirely from almost all that had been said by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), whom he greatly respected in fields other than the field of politics, as he knew of his hon. Friend's relations with his own workmen, and of the zeal with which they served him. He should have taken no part in this debate, but as he was leaving the House, this morning, between 2 and 3 o'clock, the hon. Member for Birkenhead tapped him on the shoulder, and said he was going to call attention to the fact that he established foreign industries abroad in competition with British industries at home. He thought it was deplorable that they could not conduct their debates without these constant references to personal matters. It was deplorable to see that they were, night after night, discussing personal questions when they had the Business of this great Empire to attend to. The hon. Member for Birkenhead stated that he had set up foreign industries with the view of their competing with British industries. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in addition, that the hon. Member for the North-West Riding carried a great deal of British capital abroad. He thought, on the contrary, that his hon. Friend had brought a great deal of foreign capital to England. As far as he personally was concerned, he was almost ashamed to make a statement to the House. The facts were these, and he would show the House what use was made of them up and down the country. Hon. Members opposite had denounced him by name, in the most unmeasured terms, as as employer who carried his machinery and capital abroad. Indeed, he believed it had been alleged that his object in advocating the Factory Acts was to limit the hours of labour at home, so that advantage might be taken of the long hours of labour abroad. This was the revival of an old story, circulated at the time of his original election for Sheffield, nearly a quarter of a century ago. In 1853 he was a partner in an old-established concern in the town of Nottingham. Having thrown all his energies into the business, and he had worked very hard—as he always did in connection with everything he took up—his health broke down completely, and he was ordered to go abroad. During his absence the concern was converted into a Joint Stock Company, and when he came back he took his share in the undertaking, and continued his active connection with it till a short time after he became a Member of the House of Commons, It happened that in 1860, or 1861, when the American War broke out, there was an old-established business in Nottingham, which had a branch in Germany, where the old handlooms were very widely utilized for German and American business. But the German and American business came to a standstill, and his firm bought the whole of the plant and machinery of the concern. He went over to seethe business in Germany, and he thought it would be a very good thing to continue it, because it gave an opportunity of insight into the whole system of German manufactures and education. He wished more manufacturers would make themselves acquainted with the method of their foreign rivals. He had already told the House that his active connection with the business ceased soon after he became a Member of Parliament. He had since been a small shareholder, but his maximum interest in this foreign enterprize never at anytime reached the sum of £3,000. As he did not know to what extent the large business in Nottingham had gone on increasing, though he knew they had greatly extended their business, he had telegraphed that day to know how much they had increased their English capital and plant, and a gentleman very well known in Nottingham, and a good supporter of hon. Members opposite, replied that the Company's capital had trebled since the foreign concern was acquired—that was the capital applied to English industry. The building and plant had increased four-fold. He had now shown how far he was a manufacturer abroad, and how far he had injured English workmen by his connection with foreign affairs. But why was it wrong to import anything from abroad? How was it on the other side of the House, and among the advocates of Fair Trade? He found that noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen were proprietors of great stretches of land and cattle ranches in foreign countries for the purpose of manufacturing food. He did not say that the noble Lords and the hon. Members opposite who owned large tracts of foreign land were wrong in sending the produce of their square miles of American territory to this country, becase anyone who imported cheap food into England was a national benefactor; but it was rather strange to see them taking their place among the most prominent friends of the English farmer. He left hon. Members opposite to reconcile the consistency of those two facts. Having disposed of the personal question, he should wish to say a few words upon the general question before the House. Both the hon. Members who had addressed the House from the opposite Benches had spoken as though the Resolution on the Paper was one asking for a Committee of Inquiry; but the fact was that there was no question of inquiry before the House. He would just like to inform the House of the facts which had been brought to his notice as to the state of things in foreign countries. The argument of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was that we ought to have Protection all round; but could the hon. Member point to a single foreign country where Protection was in force that was better off than ourselves? During the Recess he had seen a good deal of the condition of the manufactures, commerce, and agriculture in the different States of Europe, and he had ascertained that Europe, as a whole, had been suffering from depression during the last 10 years, and that that depression was increasing year by year. The Chamber of Agriculture in their Report for 1882 said that it was impossible to say whether the immediate causes of agricultural depression were permanent or not, because good and bad seasons appeared to come in cycles, and with them agricultural prosperity or depression. What was the state of agriculture in France? Everybody who had the most elementary knowledge of the matter knew that matters were far worse in France than they were in this country, and that they were equally bad in Germany and in Switzerland. In the latter country, indeed, the rate of interest on money lent on mortgage had been obliged to be reduced from 4½ to 2½ per cent, for fear that the mortgagors should throw up their mortgages. That was the condition of things all over Europe. In some districts he had been assured that not a good barrel of wine had been made there for the last 20 years, while in others it was said that they had not had a good crop of cereals for the last 10 years. [An hon. MEMBER: There was a good crop this year.] Yes, this year, for the first time for years; but it was not yet harvested. In Belgium the state of the iron trade was infinitely worse than with us. The miners there were working half-time, and their wages were something less than 10s. a-week. But while there was distress in every Department in in France, there was no demand for Protection, except among the agricultural classes, who had already got it. The difficulty with French workmen was to get food, and the French Government was sending every week 50,000 francs here or there to keep these people alive. The writer of an excellent article in the October number of The National Review, on the subject of the depression in Prance, said that the demand of the French working men was for cheap food and the admission of British cotton duty free, and that all that was required to restore prosperity to France was the reduction of taxation upon all the necessaries of life. Was that the direction in which hon. Members opposite desired that the Government should proceed? In this country we imposed but a small duty upon the necessaries of life; and for his own part, instead of increasing that duty, he should be glad to see it abolished altogether. If we could put the labouring classes in a position to get more food for their money, we should, in effect, be increasing their wages. What we in this country wanted was to export our products, because the home trade would not suffice to take our manufactures. Then the hon. Gentleman had said that the amount of French shipping passing through the Suez Canal had nearly doubled, whereas the amount of English shipping had only increased by about 7 per cent. He had never heard a more extraordinary statement than that. In considering that, it must be remembered that the increase in French shipping was mainly due to purchases made in this market, and that the increase of 7 per cent in English shipping was a vastly different thing, and represented a much larger increase than was represented by the doubling of the French shipping, for at least 80 per cent of the shipping passing through the Canal was British. From a statement of the shipping which he had in his hand it appeared that the total tonnage of British ships clearing in cargo or ballast in British ports in the years 1878–9 and 1882–3—that was to say, the two last years of the late Government and the two first years of the present Government—was in 1878, 35,291,000 tons, and in 1879, 37,434,000 tons, while in 1882 it was 43,607,000 tons, and in 1883, 47,039,000 tons. The foreign shipping, on the other hand, was in 1878 only 16,304,000 tons, and in 1883, 18,000,000 tons, so that there had been a much smaller proportionate increase in foreign shipping. Then the hon. Gentleman had said that the cotton trade was a declining industry.

MR. ECROYD

explained, that he had not said that the trade was declining, but that it had ceased to develop a healthy growth.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that the hon. Gentleman had compared the periods between the years 1869 and 1873, and the years 1879 and 1883. But that period comprised those tremendous years of inflation when steel rails, now selling at £5 a-ton, were selling at £20 a-ton, and when iron was three times its present price. It also included the period of the Franco-German War, when, in fact, the whole manufacture of Europe was thrown upon this country, and, therefore, it was hardly fair to compare those two periods. Within the period 1879–83, every kind of manufacture was lower than it had ever been in the memory of man. In the cotton trade the quantity of raw material imported in 1878 was 1,176,500 lbs.; in 1879, 1,173,326 lbs.; in 1882, 1,461,900 lbs.; and in 1883, 1,510,600 lbs. As to the exports, of course, the price of shirtings and such articles depended on the price of the raw cotton at Liverpool; and in 1878 the quantity of cotton piece-goods exported was 3,618,665 yards; in 1882, 4,349,391 yards; and in 1883, 4,538,889 yards; so that regularly in that department of industry there had been a large increase in the exports. Then there was an enormous increase in the annual amount of the deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Banks. In 1878 the amount was £19,344,000; in 1879, £19,547,000; in 1882 it rose to £23,354,000; and in 1883 to £24,123,000, or an increase of nearly 20 per cent. Then, again, what were the facts with regard to the Income Tax? In 1879 the returns under Schedules A, B, C, D, and E amounted to £578,000,000, and in 1882 to £601,000,000. Now, he would give the other side of the picture and give some account of France, which was a Protective country, and had been for some time carefully nursing her trade. During the eight months ending August 31, 1882, 1883, and 1884, the value of the principal manufactured articles exported from France was £48,895,000, £45,836,000, and £41,493,000 respectively; and the total exports, including agricultural produce, were, in 1882, £92,217,000; in 1883, £87,611,000; and in 1884, £81,617,000. Let them look at the contrast of the two countries, and see which system was producing the better results for its people. The hon. Member had said that the nation had been fed upon promises for the last 40 years. All he could say was that anything more terrible than the general suffering of the population 40 years ago, it was impossible to describe. When he was a youth it was for the handloom weavers a life of chronic starvation; they never had enough to eat, and the condition of the artizans in the Midland counties was one of terrible and constant suffering. This did not begin to amend until the Corn Laws were repealed. The wages earned at that time on the average by a man and his family were about 7s. a-week; while the sons and grandsons of those same men were now earning from 30s. to £2 or £3 a-week. That, he believed, applied to the whole of the working classes of the country. Besides that, let hon. Members contrast the consumption of food per head in France with the consumption of food in this country. They would find the preponderance largely in favour of England, showing that our people could afford to buy more food than their French neighbours. They all knew that at the present moment there was a great depression. They could not expect that the results of the last 10 years should pass away at once. He believed that the present cheapness of food in this Kingdom was the one thing that would carry it through this crisis better than any other nation in Europe. At Sheffield, lately, the Board of Guardians contracted for bread at 14 lbs. for 1s. The farmers' friends would, no doubt, say that this was deplorable. He thought that farmers themselves would benefit by this. They would grow some other things that would pay them better than wheat. It was the improvement in the means of the people that created the demand for meat, and this was due to Free Trade. It had been stated that when the price of food was high, then the industries of the country were prosperous. That was not his reading of history.

MR. ECROYD

explained that what he stated was, that during the years 1871, 1872, and 1873, which were prosperous years, wheat was at 57s. 5d.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that this was on account of the Franco-German War, which inflated all prices. The hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested that we should tax imported luxuries, such as silk. What would come of that? Would it be fair that the farmer's wife or daughter should have to pay more for their ribbons and silk dress — if they could afford one — while the farmer's wife got no more for her dairy produce? If they once began they must tax all round. This had been clearly shown by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote). At present many of our Colonies and foreign countries came to the London markets to buy their silks, and coming to buy silks they bought something else. And silk being bought here employed our ships to bring it here and take it away again. London became a depôt market. Now, what was the remedy for the depression? They must make Englishmen the most intelligent, the most thrifty, and the most competent workmen in the world, and then they would have nothing to fear from foreign competition. They must extend the scientific training, not only of workmen, but of manufacturers and manufacturers' sons. He warned the House that if we neglected this higher education, so surely would our industries suffer as the French industries had suffered in the contest with Germany. To mention one instance, Professor Roscoe very clearly pointed out that by far the larger proportion of the raw materials used in the manufacture of colours were imported from Germany and Switzerland, which themselves imported our gas refuse, and subjected it to the necessary chemical processes; £3,000,000 were thus lost to us. In the case of sugar, the technical skill which was brought to bear in Germany enabled them to extract a larger proportion of saccharine matter than any other nation, and as the result they had beaten the French out of their own markets. Was it not also humiliating that the English people were obliged to go to Germany for their gunpowder? Hon. Members opposite, he supposed, would not put a Protective duty on that. They would not deprive British guns of the best gunpowder. What science could do for Germany, science could surely do for England. The success with which science was in Germany brought to bear on manufactures, had led to the remark that in this matter Germany was preparing for France a Sedan, which would be more disastrous to her industries than Sedan was to her arms.

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, that the question before the House was far beyond anything of a personal character, and he was sure the time of the right hon. Gentleman might have been better employed had he attempted to reply to the able, exhaustive, and statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). He thought the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was justified in bringing this Amendment before the House, and in calling attention to the fact that Her Majesty's Government, in the Speech from the Throne, had thought it proper not to refer in any way to, or to show any sympathy with, what he might call the exceptionally depressed state of every British industry at this time. They knew from what they had seen and heard that not only were wages being reduced and short time being adopted by most of their manufactories, but that their markets were glutted, and that the profits of many of their manufacturers amounted almost to nil. He should like to say a few words with reference to the state of agriculture, which, after all, was the oldest, the most important, and the most necessary of all our national industries. He did not hesitate to say that agriculture at this moment, although they had had a good harvest, was in quite as depressed a condition as it had been for several years past. The last good harvest they had in this country was in 1874. It was an average good harvest. They were not suffering very much at that time from cattle disease, and their competition from foreign agriculture was not quite so intense as it was at present. Last summer had been the best season they had known for many years. The ingathering of the harvest had been the best he could remember, and there was almost an immunity from cattle disease. But what they had to contend with was low prices and foreign competition; and the effect of those prices had been to cause agriculture to be more depressed at the present time than it had been during the nine consecutive years since 1874. He should place a few figures before the House in relation to this view. In 1874 wheat was 55s. a-quarter; in 1884 it was 32s. This meant a difference of 23s. a-quarter. Any practical agriculturist in the House would know that a fair average crop was about three-and-a-half quarters per acre, and, there- fore, the loss as between 1874 and 1884 was £4 per acre. He reminded the House that the price of wheat in 1846, when the Corn Laws were abolished, was exactly the same as it was in 1874 — namely, 55s.; and they were told at that time that there was no probability of their seeing wheat at a lower figure than 55s. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was stated at the time. How did the case stand with regard to barley? Barley in 1874 was 45s. a-quarter; in 1884 it was only 31s. 9d., a difference of 13s. a-quarter. Was that the effect of the abolition of the Malt Tax? If so, he thought he might say that its abolition had been of no advantage to the agriculturists, or even to the poor man. Oats in 1874 were 28s. 10d.; in 1884 the price was 18s. 11d., or a difference of 10s. a-quarter. He thought that anyone who had had any practical experience of agriculture must see that, under such circumstances, profit on the cultivation of cereals in this country was altogether hopeless. We in this country were heavily handicapped by rates and other burdens which were not paid in other countries. The soil and the climate of other countries were so much more favourable than ours that it was perfectly hopeless for the British agriculturist to compete with the foreign agriculturist. It was formerly said that freights were a protection of the agriculturist; but that protection was now gone, and the amount of freight was no element in the calculation. What was the future of stock? He thought they ought to be very thankful to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) for the arduous efforts he had made in order to protect the cattle of stock-breeders from foreign disease; and he did not think that in this connection they ought to forget the other much-abused House of the Legislature. In 1878 the Conservative Government brought in a Cattle Protection (Disease) Bill. There were no more vehement opponents of that Bill than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the Local Government Board, and one or two others, and he might say the bulk of the Liberal Party. That Bill contained almost precisely the same provisions as were embodied in the Act passed last year. He wanted to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen what would have been the difference to the agricultural interest if, during that interval of six years, they had had the same immunity from disease which they might have had by the Conservative Bill of 1878? How many hundreds of thousands of cattle had been sacrificed, their breeding and dairy qualities destroyed? How many hundreds of farmers had been reduced to bankruptcy and almost to beggary? The responsibility for those farmers who had failed owing to losses through cattle disease rested on the Liberal Government. He did not hesitate to say so. Cheap meat depended more on the healthy condition of the home stock than on the importation of live stock or dead meat. Store cattle at this time did not sell at the price it would have fetched last year, and yet the farmer had had to keep and feed it during the interval. What were the remedies suggested for this state of things? In the first place, they were told to convert the whole of their arable land into pasture land. That, however, was sooner said than done. The House must remember that this process was going on very rapidly. But it was really a very questionable benefit in a national point of view. He did not hesitate to say that one acre of arable land would produce far more for man and beast than an acre of pasture land. The House must also bear this in mind, that if they were going to convert all arable land into pasture, the question had to be faced as to whether they were to be entirely dependent on the foreigner for their daily broad. What was to become of the agricultural labourers, for whom hon. Gentlemen opposite manifested such a profound interest? If they looked at the Census of 1881, they would find that the agricultural labourers had been gradually diminishing in point of numbers. In the last 10 years the agricultural population had been reduced 10 or 12 per cent. If, therefore, they were going to convert arable land into pasture land, there would be less demand for the services of the agricultural labourer, and he must drift into the towns. He did not think that would be a happy result. Then with regard to the question of Protection. He had never advocated Protection; he had never attempted to deceive anyone that Protective duties would be adopted in this country; but he maintained that the Liberal Govern- ment had made no greater mistake than when they reduced the 1s. duty. That duty was paid by the foreigner. It was a registration duty, and the price of bread had not been increased the one-hundredth part of a farthing by it. What would have been the effect of the 1s. duty had it prevailed now? We imported last year 16,000,000 quarters of wheat and about 4,000,000 quarters of flour—20,000,000 quarters in all The 1s. duty on that would have amounted to £1,000,000. In all cereals we introduced something like 37,000,000 quarters, including maize, oats, and barley. The 1s. duty on that amounted to £1,850,000. He asked any hon. Member whether it would not have been fair and just if that amount had been given in alleviation of exceptional burdens which the agricultural interest now bore? It would have cost the country nothing. The poor man would not have paid the one-hundredth part of a farthing more for his bread than he now did. It was true that he had advocated some readjustment of our local burdens. He did not for a moment suppose that any readjustment of local burdens would be a compensation to the agricultural interest for the distress it now suffered. It was, however, a matter of justice; that was the reason why he advocated it. They contended that when Protection was taken away from them another promise had been made that they would be relieved from the exceptional burdens which were imposed upon them, because they enjoyed certain privileges. Those privileges had been taken away, but the burdens had never been removed. They had peculiar claims on the Liberal Party, who had not only taken away Protection—of which he did not complain—but had imposed all those exceptional burdens on them, such as the police, the lunatics, the highways, sanitary matters, and last, but not least, education. It was true that the Conservative Government had given them some subventions; but the Education Rate had absorbed all those subventions. When the Education Act of 1870 was brought forward he had ventured to oppose it, because he said he did not believe in the limits which the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and the Prime Minister indicated as those of the probable charge; and he had himself predicted that in 12 years' time it would amount to about £2,000,000. Well, the Education Rate was now £1,995,000.

MR. MUNDELLA

asked how much of that sum was paid by the rural districts?

SIR MASSEY LOPES

said, he was speaking of the whole amount for the urban and rural districts, and it was of the exceptional burdens on real property that he complained. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Royal Commission. Now, that Commission, which was not a Party one, alluding to the repeal of the Corn Laws, stated that the pressure of foreign competition had far exceeded the apprehensions of those who were in favour of the Corn Laws and the expectations of those who had opposed them. That was a valuable admission. Why, he asked, had the Government not considered the recommendations of the Royal Commission? One of those recommendations was that the cost of the indoor poor, including the lunatics and the district schools, should be transferred from the ratepayers to the Consolidated Fund; another was that certain local licences should be given to the local authorities in alleviation of local burdens. Why had the Government ignored those recommendations? Some time ago, a Resolution was carried in that House in respect to a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. And what had the Government done? They had appointed a Committee of five or six persons. He never believed in a Committee; it was like a Corporation, it had no responsibility. They were told that the Lord President answered for Agriculture in the other House, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in that House. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seemed to have "flitted," and to have gone to a serener atmosphere, and they were told that his place was to be taken by a right hon. Gentleman than whom no one more deserved promotion. But what did his right hon. Friend know of practical agriculture? Surely, they ought to have a Minister with some experience of agriculture. The only alteration that had been made was that they had scratched out the word "veterinary" and put "agricultural" on the door, and they had altered the colour of agritural statistics from blue to buff. He believed they had got another clerk, but what he did nobody could find out. He would refer to the case of butter. With that article, butterine, oleomargarine, and half-a-dozen other odious compounds came into competition. Surely, the Department of Agriculture ought to see that those compounds should not be sold in this country, at least unless they were clearly designated, and their true character was made perfectly plain to all, so that they should not come into competition with genuine home produce. In New York it was made penal to manufacture oleomargarine, and it was sent over here. He did not see why it should not be made equally penal for anybody to make those compounds here, or, at all events, if they did they should be required to designate them. The want of union and unanimity was the bane of the agricultural interest. They were as sheep without a shepherd, and their opponents, who knew it, sowed dissension among them on the principle divide et impera. There was no interest in this country of a tenth part of the importance or with a tithe of the grievances of agriculture which would not have more influence. And why was that? Because other interests could combine and agitate, and because, unfortunately, no concession was obtained except by means of agitation. The admittedly just demands of the agricultural interest had been continually shunted and shelved and indefinitely postponed. The promises and pledges made to them had been broken or remained unfulfilled. What they complained of was, not only that the Government had refused relief to them, but that they had, in defiance and in spite of what had been done in that House, totally disregarded the deliberate judgment of Parliament. Knowing that agriculture had now for a long period of years been seriously depressed, the Government, during the whole time they had been in Office, had denied them a word of sympathy or of condolence, and they had ignored an industry which, he believed, was the foundation of this country's greatness, and which he hoped might long continue to be its chief mainstay.

MR. DUCKHAM

said, he had been very interested by the able speeches which had been delivered that evening, and he felt, like every other speaker who had addressed the House, a difficulty in pointing out a remedy for the very serious depression under which both agriculture and trade alike suffered. The inquiry which the Royal Commission on Agriculture held was most exhaustive, extending over three years. The voluminous Report of that Commission had been long in their hands; but he failed to see that any part of that Report pointed to a return to Protective duties. As a matter of fact, the people of the country would never submit to have their food again taxed for the advantage of the owner of the soil, and so long as that was the case, agriculturists could never submit to the taxation of imported manufactured articles. The imposition of Protective duties on imported manufactured articles would simply cause a rise in the price of manufactured articles to the agriculturists and others, while agriculturists, with the produce of the soil, would have to compete with all the world. Therefore, to look to Protective duties as a means of redress for the present state of things, was illusory. It was well known that when Lord John Russell introduced the Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws, the noble Lord said that a readjustment of local taxation must take place. That readjustment, however, had never taken place; but, on the contrary, imposition after imposition had been heaped upon real property. At the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, and for five successive years, there was a severe depression experienced. The depression was as severe then—possibly more severe—than it was now. He, for instance, sold wheat at that time at 4s. 8d. a-bushel. It was quite true that was not so low a price as the present; but then good fat wethers were sold at 4¼d. per lb. These prices were ruinous to the producer, and he only mentioned them to show the severe depression under which agriculture laboured in 1849–50–1–2–3. At the outbreak of the Crimean War, the price of wheat went up from 5s. to 11s. a-bushel, and that brought about a very severe competition for farms, a competition which was fostered under the cruel and arbitrary Law of Distress—a law, thank God! now very materially altered. After the Crimean War, came the American Civil War, then the Franco-Prussian War, and then the Russo-Turkish War, all of which wars tended to buoy up the price of agricultural produce. The effect of the advent of the Franco-Prussian War, particularly, was that the trade of the country rose by leaps and bounds; wages rose, every kind of expense for the occupier of the soil as well as for the manufacturer rose, and now it was that we were beginning to experience the evils of the errors which were fostered at the time of the wars he had mentioned; the prices of agricultural produce increased so largely that people were induced to take land at ruinous rents. Again, the agriculture of the United States had not then been developed; it was now, however, being developed to a remarkable extent. At the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, no one ever dreamt of the monster vessels which were now trading between the United States and England, bringing corn to this country as ballast, sometimes even paying for it to be put in their holds, thus conveying it across the ocean for less than nothing. Furthermore, for nearly half-a-century, the agriculturists of the country had had to fight against severe losses in their flocks and herds. Those losses entrenched upon capital, and many men were ruined. When the Cattle Diseases Bill was before the House last Session, he urged the necessity of the measure being passed, and he was thankful to say that the result of the adoption of that Bill was that the flocks and herds in Great Britain and Ireland were now healthy. The importation of meat was greatly diminishing, a fact which ought to be satisfactory to all those who were possessed of the idea that foot-and-mouth disease was indigenous to the soil of the country, that the disease had become acclimatized, and that no effort of the Legislature could free the country from the disease, or guard against its importation. Only that day he was informed, at the Agricultural Department, that not a single case of foot-and-mouth disease had been landed in Great Britain since the passing of the Act; but he had just been told that that state of things was not the consequence of legislation. He, however, maintained that it was the consequence of legislation. He did not mean to say that there had been any absolute interference. There was no necessity for any interference. All that the Agricultural Department of this country had done was to send to foreign countries, warning them that if they sent any animals here suffering from foot-and-mouth disease their importation would be prohibited. It was that warning which had had such a salutary effect. Our trade was now free, we had meat cheaper, and our importations were less by £1,500,000 sterling in the first nine months of the year compared with the corresponding nine months of last year. It had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) that this country should endeavour to send more rails to India, so that that great country could be opened up and its products brought to us. Why, in point of fact, it was the importation of Indian wheat that was now lowering the price of wheat in this country, so that we could not possibly compete with it. It was even driving the United States out of the market, and the more India was opened up the more severely should we feel the effect in the price of our bread corn. It was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) that the harvest this year had been the best in respect to the yield of corn that had been known for many years. The hon. Baronet's experience was very different to his (Mr. Duckham's), or that of anyone connected with agriculture with whom he was acquainted. He (Mr. Duckham) wished the fact was as stated. The hon. Baronet also made a rather marked allusion to some efforts of his (Mr. Duckham's) upon the occasion of the Division which took place two years ago upon the Motion with regard to Local Taxation which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). He (Mr. Duckham) voted against the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, because the Government promised relief of local taxation, coupled with the establishment of County Government Boards. He had been an advocate for County Government Boards for many years, and, in the belief that they would have the two measures combined, he supported the Government as against the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Pell's) Motion. It had been said that the Liberal Government had done nothing for agriculturists. He had known some little of the world for many years, and for the last half-century he had paid some attention to political affairs, and he maintained that the present Government had done more for the agriculturists than had been done for them during his lifetime. Take, for example, the repeal of the Malt Tax. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; hon. Members opposite might cry "Oh, oh!" bat he could remember working with them in favour of the repeal of the Malt Tax. He joined deputation after deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to urge the advisability of the repeal of the tax; indeed, for very many years the Malt Tax was used by the Conservative Party as a war cry; and now, as soon as the Act was passed, it was jeered at and laughed at, and it was said to be nothing at all in favour, but rather against, agriculturists. As a matter of fact, the repeal of the tax had not done the amount of injury to the farmers some people asserted it had. Owing, however, to the altered habits of the people, there was not the same amount of beer drank as formerly. The harvests had not been as good as formerly, and the same quality of barley had not been grown. Those who happened to grow a fine quality of barley could command a high price. Following the repeal of the Malt Tax there was the Ground Game Act. How many hundreds of farmers had been ruined through the devastation of their crops by ground game? He maintained that the Act which gave to the tenant the right, the inalienable right, to the ground game, which so destroyed his crops, was one of the finest measures which ever passed through the House of Commons in favour of the occupier of the soil. Following the Ground Game Act, they had the Corn Averages for regulating the payment of tithes. That measure was greatly wanted; before, all was chaos and confusion. Up to that period the tithe averages were regulated by the Imperial bushel; but almost every market in the Kingdom had its own conception of a bushel. As regarded weight — wheat, in some markets, was sold at 60, others at 62, and others at 80 lbs.; but now there was a standard weight for wheat, barley, and oats, so that, if the Excise did their duty, there could be no mistake in the regulation of tithe payments. Again, there was the subvention of 25 per cent towards the maintainance of the main roads, which proved a great boon to agriculturists. They were told that the subventions that were given by the late Government were all that were given for the relief of local taxation; but the subvention of 25 per cent in respect to the main roads was something substantial. Then, Sir, the late Government passed a measure giving compensation for agricultural improvements; but it was a permissive Act, and, therefore, was barred on all sides. The Agricultural Holdings Amendment Act, passed by the present Government, was compulsory, and no matter what capital a man laid out on his farm with discretion, he was sure to receive compensation for it. Then the Law of Distress was one of the most cruel and arbitray laws that ever existed in the country. The Law of Distress was no longer such an oppressive measure as it formerly was. It always appeared to him arbitary in the extreme to give power to the landlord to seize agisted stock, and sell stock belonging to another person for rent due from the tenant. Again, the landlord could not now distrain for the full amount of rent due without first deducting the just claim of the tenant for improvements effected upon the holding. Much had been said about the Minister of Agriculture. He should certainly like to see the Agricultural Department made more complete. An interest of such magnitude ought to have a Head with a proper title; but he supposed that, like other things, the appointment was a work of time. The success of the Cattle Diseases Act was due to the manner in which the Agricultural Department had acted since the passing of the measure; and too much praise could not be given to Earl Spencer, as the Head of the Department in Ireland and the Heads of the Department in England, for freeing the country from disease, and for maintaining the health of our flocks and herds. In conclusion, he would express the opinion that no good could arise from the adoption of the Amendment now before the House. That Amendment had, no doubt, provoked a very interesting discussion; but its adoption could have no good result, especially when the House could do nothing more than had been done to meet the depression which existed. It was now a matter between landlord and tenant, beyond the necessity of that substantial relief which had been promised to be given to the local burdens, and he trusted that such relief might be given at no distant date.

MR. MARUM

said, that he felt bound to support, upon behalf of the Irish Parliamentary Party, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) in the following form:— As an Amendment to the Address, to add— But we humbly direct Her Majesty's attention to the depressed condition of commerce and agriculture, and regret that Her Majesty's gracious Speech contains no reference to a subject of such paramount importance. He would first refer to the depression of agriculture in Ireland, as they were almost entirely an agricultural community, with but little trade save in Ulster. He held in his hand the official statistics, which certainly presented a lamentable picture of our home husbandry.

GENERAL SUMMARY OF CEREALS, GREEN CROPS, &C.
	1883.	1884.	Increase in 1884.	Decrease in 1884.
	Acres.	Acres.	Acres.	Acres.
Cereal Crops	1,678,691	1,599,629	—	79,062
Green Crops	1,230,283	1,221,413	—	8,870
Flax	95,943	89,197	—	6,746
Total under tillage	3,004,917	2,910,239	—	94,678

Now, statistics of agriculture showed that the continuing decrease of the number of acres under tillage had been going on for a good many years, and between this and last year the decrease had amounted to no less than 94,678 acres. In 1846, the beginning of the Free Trade period, of the entire surface of Ireland there were 9,000,000 out of 15,000,000 acres under a rotation system of farming; now that rotation system was reduced to about 4,500,000; so that they had declined in this regard some 50 per cent, to say nothing of the reduction of the population. This would be all very well if the land so changed in its aspect were suitable for the change; but there was, unfortunately, now a quantity of land suitable for arable purposes, but not suitable for grass, and, in point of fact, at present quite unproductive. As to the condition of tillage, he quoted the language of a high authority on the subject to the effect that not since "Black 1847" had the prospects of the Irish farmers looked so gloomy as at the present time—as the year which, for agricultural purposes, might be said to have closed, was one of the most disastrous on record. Its dire effects had not yet made themselves felt; but, given a hard winter to cap the climax, and then it would be seen that stock would be in a state of semi-starvation, and the small farmers and the agricultural labourers of the country in no better plight. Of wheat there was very little sown; and, since the unfavourable accounts they heard of the price, it would affect but very few; and the same remark applied to barley, which was more than an average crop where sown, but, as its cultivation was utterly ignored, save in a few districts, the fact of its being good or bad would not affect the common weal. The oat crop had been fearfully short in most places, both as regarded corn and straw. Even on the fine plains of Tipperary the oat crop was never worse since 1826; but even that was easily accounted for, as the limestone substratum absorbed the heat to such a degree that vegetation utterly collapsed, and it was a moot point in most districts whether one single barrel of corn would be available for market, if the farmers were only to keep what would support themselves and their families until next harvest. Of the root crops, mangolds and turnips might be written down as a complete failure, particularly the latter, the average of which would not exceed six tons per acre. Potatoes were a fair crop in many districts, and were, as a rule, free from disease, while their table qualities were never better. In quantity they were far below the average of the previous four years; but their immunity from disease counterbalanced that drawback, and they were now nearly all dug out, and stored and pitted dry, which was a great desideratum. Pigs carried a poor price throughout the entire summer months, never once touching £3 per cwt, while most of the time 10s. per cwt. less was about their figure, and now the quotation was only 45s. The hay crop was a very poor one, and hence it was fetching a high price now; and, given a few hard, winterish days, there was every prospect of its going up to a much higher figure. Then, as to the condition as to stock, he would remind the House that in the 1846 period the cattle in Ireland, when there were 6,000,000 acres of pasture, amounted to a fluctuating quantity, averaging about 2,500,000, of black cattle; the sheep numbered from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000, at which latter figure they stood in 1868; and horses about 500,000. Now, in 1884, with 11,000,000 acres in grass, there were 4,000,000 of cattle, 3,243,000 sheep, and about the same number of horses as before; so there was very little more stock on 11,000,000 acres than there were in 1846 on 6,000,000 acres. That was a very alarming fact. But it would be said—Let man and scientific industry disappear let the country merge into a purely pastoral condition. He would not here discuss the matter on the mere ground of the loss of wealth and population to the State itself; but he would appeal to the self-interest of the Irish land classes themselves. About 35 years ago, at the Free Trade epoch, on their 15,000,000 of acres of cultivable land of the Island—they had over 8,000,000 of inhabitants, with 9,000,000 acres under a rotation system of scientific husbandry. They now had under 5,000,000 acres under such husbandry, with some 5,000,000 likewise of inhabitants. Were the reduced number better off now than the larger number had been? Secondly, what was "covering" the 4,000,000 acres now let down into permanent pasturage since 1846? In 1868 they touched the highest figure of sheep — just 5,000,000. In 1883 they were just above 8,000,000 of sheep. They were stationary at about 4,000,000 of cattle. Such appeared their maximum production. Other live stock was in sympathy with these data. When the rainy seasons, which culminated in 1879, set in, the farmers were very hard hit; but then one section at least of them escaped altogether. Those were the graziers; but that section of the farming community had been the hardest hit of any this time, as cattle were worth a trifle less now than they cost in the spring months; and, with a lot of their cattle still on hand, a hay famine, or nearly equivalent to it, in the country, the outlook of the graziers was anything but an enviable one. Those whose main dependence was on sheep were no better off than their beef-raising neighbours, as the sheep, too, had been fearfully depreciated in value, in many cases fully 33 per cent under former years' quotations. Good butter was sold in 1879 at 80s. per cwt. During the past summer it was not quite so low; but the "make" was fully a fourth below that of the year above, named. Now, the question arose, had any remedies been proposed by the Government? So far from that being so, he regretted to say that no single step appeared to be contemplated in that direction. About three years ago mention was made in the Queen's Speech of the agricultural, depression; since then the question seemed completely to have dropped out of the Royal mind. He, like the preceding speaker, did not ask for Protectionism, though he observed that at the Cobden Club one speaker maintained that if we had Free Trade in one thing we ought to have it in all, and, therefore, in land. Let them have universal Tree Trade or Protectionism. They had Free Trade now with a vengeance as to the products of land; let them have the Law of Primogeniture and Entail repealed, and all costs of transfer of land abolished, so that land itself could pass in small quantities, and as free as its products from hand to hand. He had little faith in the Government principles of partial Free Trade, whilst feudal restrictions kept the land out of the hands of the people, and amongst a privileged class alone. What he professed was that Free Trade principles should be fairly tested; but he by no means admitted that obliterating the land classes would be beneficial to Nationality or Imperialism, or that reducing the population of the United Kingdom to the level of mere "Cosmopolitans" would tend to the stability or maintenance of the British Empire. On the contrary, the Free Trade principle tended to teach the population that, provided a man grubbed and vegetated well, it was immaterial under what flag the land of his habitation flourished. The land classes were the kernel and bulwark of the individuality of nations. Under agriculture nations rose and commerce beheld their decline and fall in the history of mankind. So early as 1636, Lord Stafford made a Report to the King and Council, in which he expressed his fears that— They (the Irish) might heat us out of the trade, by underselling, which they were able to do. In 1672, Sir William Temple, writing to the then Lord Lieutenant, says— Regard must be had to those points wherein the trade of Ireland comes to interfere with any main branch of the trade of England, in which case the encouragement of said trade ought to be declined, or moderated, and so give way to the trade of England. And in 1698, in reply to an appeal from the English Parliament, William III. stated—"I will do all in my power to discourage the woollen manufactures of Ireland;" and he kept his word. In the Reign of Queen Anne an Act was passed allowing Irish manufactured goods to the West Indies, provided they were sent in English ships, subject to duty. Again, in the Reign of George I. Acts were passed "for the more effectual suppression of the woollen manufactures of Ireland," and so on till the Volunteers of Dungannon inscribed on their cannon, "Free Trade or else—" He (Mr. Marum) contended that some compensatory equivalent was due from this country to Ireland. They must now look at these things in the light of past experience, and give up dreaming of a state of things continually promised and never realized. They were told, on the one hand, that their manufacturers experienced difficulty in meeting foreign competition; and, on the other hand, that the imposition of a duty on foreign goods would weaken their own competition with those foreign rivals. Those propositions were contradictory, and mutually destructive. The foreign rivals whose goods displaced their own belonged to protected nations, and worked under import duties. Therefore, if the imposition of protective duties incapacitated and disqualified manufacturers of foreign competition, how was it that French and German textile and iron manufacturers were successfully invading this free market? They were suffering not only from positive bounties given, but also from protective duties imposed. If 30 per cent were levied in Germany upon imported woollen goods, the manufacturer there had created for him a profitable internal market, and the trade there furnished him with resources to invade the free market of England, and to undersell those who were working under Free Trade. Thus, foreign manufacturers were enabled to dispose of goods for which they would otherwise have difficulty in finding a market. Hon. Gentlemen were anxious to prevent undue competition within this country; but how long were we to be subject to unrestricted competition outside the country? The low prices of imports benefited, to a small degree even, our artizans in their capacity of consumers. But we paid a high price for this in the depression of rents and profits, and there was going on a depression of wages also. In every centre of industry the consequences of this unlimited competition were being felt, while a small class of persons were making enormous incomes by foreign investments. There was no part of the United Kingdom upon which this grossly unfair system had produced more unfortunate results than Ireland, which depended so largely upon home productions. So much as to commerce. Now, as to home agriculture, the Richmond Commission, which made a very exhaustive inquiry, recommended certain remedies, not one of which had been applied. They reported that bad seasons and foreign competition were the two great causes of the agricultural depression. With regard to bad seasons, the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) had made proposals for planting trees, which, if adopted, would have the effect of checking the effects of rainfall, and benefiting the climate and increasing the productive power of the country; and Irish Members had pressed for arterial drainage, which also would have a very considerable effect on the soil and climate of Ireland; but in neither case was anything done. And as to foreign competition, when the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) carried Motions in two different years for the relief of local burdens, nothing was done. The gross valuation of Ireland was £10,500,000, and her local taxation was £3,500,000, or about 33 per cent. That was on the nominal value; but local taxation in Ireland was about 50 per cent of the actual or marketable value at this moment. The shifting of some of the local burdens by the re-adjustment of local taxation was one of the recommendations of the Richmond Commission; but it was entirely ignored; and how was it that a Motion on the subject twice carried in successive years in the House was also entirely ignored in a Constitutional country? Now, that Commission, which was not a Party one, alluding to the repeal of the Corn Laws, stated that the pressure of foreign competition had far exceeded the apprehensions of those who were in favour of the Corn Laws, and the expectation of those who had opposed them. That was a valuable admission. Why, he asked, had the Government not considered the recommendations of the Royal Commission? One of those recommendations was that there should be a transference, under the Poor Law, of the indoor poor relief, including the lunatics and the district schools; another was, that certain local licences should be given to the local authorities in alleviation of local burdens. Why had the Government ignored those recommendations? Some time ago a Resolution was carried in that House in respect to a Minister of Commerce and Agriculture. And what had the Government done? They had appointed a Committee of five or six persons. In Ireland they had lost within 30 years a population equal to that of one European State—Switzerland—nearly over 3,000,000 of the pick and flower of the people, who went to enrich and develop the resources of every country but their own. The loss of that industrious population left their inland towns falling into decay; it took away so much local demand from their local shopkeepers and traders. The shops of the South of Ireland were empty of customers by the depopulation of the country, the resources of which were but half developed. And the Government, instead of trying to keep the instruments of labour at home, and furnish customers for their shops, were anxious and ready to grant £1,000,000 sterling to promote further emigration. Take the county he had the honour to represent—Kilkenny. At one period the population was 202,000 souls; it was now under 99,000 odd. Shopkeepers now had but one-half of their former customers, instead of having the number doubled, as would be the case if the Government of any other country of the globe, not to speak of ourselves, was ruling our destinies. What was the valuation of the population lost? Why, they had emigrated at the rate of 100,000 for 30 years past. The slave was sold for £80 to £100—nay, the bounty paid during the American Civil War ranged from £80 to £150. Viewed as industrial elements at £100 per head, they had suffered a drain of £10,000,000 sterling per annum during that period, which, if capitalized, would represent one-third of the National Debt. Trade in Ireland was paralyzed; instead of the Government taking hold of their railways to counteract the effect of foreign competition by low internal rates, it allowed the population of this impoverished country to be fleeced by high charges, to the destruction of home commerce and agriculture. He would give the tables. As regards the passenger traffic the following facts and calculations appeared—

	Number of Passengers.	Journeys per head of Population.	Receipts per Passengers
England	612,972,444	23	8½d.
Scotland	52,069,451	13.6	11d.
Ireland	19,308,292	3.8	16d.

Here, again, Ireland presented a bad appearance—on paper. It would thus appear that, as far as passenger traffic was concerned, railway facilities were utitized in England nearly twice as much as in Scotland, and seven times as much as in Ireland. But the Richmond Commission recommended a very considerable re-adjustment of railway rates as well as other rates, now that America was brought absolutely as a town park within reach of the great English centres of population; but nothing had been done. Ireland was a purely agricultural country, and should be legislated for on agricultural principles, and not from a simply commercial point of view. Its economic interests were, to a great extent, antagonistic to those of England. But when that and like considerations were put forward, the House should not imagine that Irish Members were altogether absorbed in a mere hostile separation idea. He, for one, maintained that unless they had an opportunity of legislating from an agricultural standpoint, and as long as they were legislated for from a purely commercial point of view, they could have little hope of prosperity. If the principles of Irish Government were not altered, Irishmen naturally desired to alter the governing power itself.

MR. SAMUEL SMITH

The discussion which has taken place has had the effect of eliciting a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), and also one from the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella). I think it is highly desirable that the question of the depression of trade should occupy the attention of the House for at least one evening, when it is remembered how much suffering there is in all our large commercial communities, and how natural it is that people who are out of work and starving should think that Parliament ought to consider this sad state of affairs, and devise the best remedies possible. I will go so far as to say that the proceedings of this evening will be read with much greater interest by the great mass of the people than even the exciting proceedings of the night before, and I think it is a far more legitimate thing to expend time upon. As to the depression from which we are suffering, I may speak, as representing one of the largest commercial communities in the country, with some degree of personal cognizance of the facts; and I am sorry to state that in the great community of Liverpool we have scarcely ever before experienced so severe a crisis as that through which we are at the present time passing. I have known of more acute crises lasting for a few months; but the present depression is not of that kind. It is a dull, weary, dragging period of bad trade, affecting specially the shipping interest, and also every trade in which the community is engaged. We have, indeed, been passing through a very stagnant state of trade in England for many years past, and the serious nature of the crisis arises from the fact that it has been more or less prolonged for a period of 10 years. I think I am within the mark when I say that the great manufacturing trades of the country have, with little exception, had bad times for 10 years past. The great cotton trade of Lancashire, of which I have had some experience, is certainly enjoying but little of its former prosperity. There have been long periods of depression when the bulk of the manufacturers have not been covering cost. It is vain to ignore the fact that the prosperity of the country has received a very severe check during the last decade, such as has not been known since the introduction of Free Trade. That great buoyancy which distinguished British trade for the 20 years that followed the repeal of the Corn Laws has entirely disappeared, and the profits of all classes of manufacturing and commercial adventure have been almost nil for some time. I have made a rough calculation as to the average profits on manufacturing business during the past 10 years, and I question whether all the manufacturing and mining industries throughout England have yielded more than 2 or 3 per cent per annum on an average. During that time several concerns have had to live without paying any dividend to the shareholders at all. This is a serious state of affairs, and one that ought to engage the attention of the House. Personally, I do not feel so much interested in it from the side of the capitalist as from that of the labourer. The labouring class of this country is at present suffering very severely, and in all the great centres of population large masses of people are unemployed in whole or part. A friend of mine told me only the other day that recently he visited one of the large schools in the East of London, and that he was informed 400 children came to that school without breakfast, their parents being out of work. Further, I was told that on the public wharves of London four times as many men sought for employment as were able to get it. This is a state of things too common throughout the country. There are, however, brighter sides to the picture. Thus the woollen trade has at last, after long depression, taken a start. I think, too, I see some signs of improvement in the cotton trade, and I am told some of the minor industries are beginning to look more cheerful. But the fact has to be faced, that this great commercial country, which for years made such wonderful progress by leaps and bounds—as the Prime Minister in one of his speeches described it—has for some years past shown a tendency towards retrogression. There are, no doubt, many causes for this that lie upon the surface—one of the principal is, that we have lost that unique supremacy which we had for so many years. The Great Napoleonic Wars gave great advantages to this country. We were the first to introduce steam machinery, and, up to 30 years ago, had almost a monopoly of the great trades of the world; but the Continental nations, and especially the Germans, through their devotion to scientific education, their industry, and their admirable technical schools, have come quite abreast of us, and anyone who reads the valuable Report of the Technical Commission will see that all the apparatus of industry on the Continent is equal to our own. We have also to admit the fact that the Free Trade policy of this country has not been imitated by the rest of the world. Nearly all the great civilized nations have clung most pertinaciously to the system of Protection, and many of them have even gone back wards by raising their tariffs. The general condition of British trade now may be said to be this. That we have only the control of the neutral markets—India, China, and the Colonies, and the less advanced States of the world, such as the South American ones. But as to the great civilized countries—the United States, France, and Germany—we have less trade with them than we had at an earlier period. In fact, we have much less command of their market than we had 20 years ago. Now, as to the remedy for that state of things; I have listened with much interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), and have before had occasion to read with attention some of his pamphlets and speeches on this subject. I think, though I cannot agree with him in his views, that the country is indebted to him for the very original manner in which he brings under discussion fresh views, to some extent, upon our commercial relations compared to those which existed before. I will go to this extent with him—that if it were possible to bring about reciprocal Free Trade in a statesmanlike and practical manner, there is a great deal to be said for it. ["Hear, hear!"] No person not blinded by prejudice can deny that reciprocal Free Trade is better than one-sided Free Trade. [Conservative cheers.] I am afraid, however, I shall not receive the same amount of applause when I proceed a little further. After carefully considering the solution, I am not able to see that there has been any practicable scheme put forward. The fact is, the position of our country, speaking broadly, is that of a large importer of the first necessaries of life. Nearly half our population live by foreign food. Nearly half the raw materials of our trade are produced by foreign labour, and it is of the utmost importance to us to have cheap food and cheap raw materials. It is not possible to tax such articles without injuring ourselves far more than we injure those against whom the tax is directed. On the other hand, this country is the largest exporter of common articles of manufacture. We are excelled by some foreign countries in articles of taste; but it is vital to us to be the cheapest producer of the coarser manufactures. The only condition on which we can hold our predominant position is that we are the cheapest producers. Therefore, as respects the largest part of our trade, it is not possible for us to go in for a system of restriction or Protection; but I cannot see the strong objection which the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Mundella) has to taxes on imported articles of luxury. I consider this to be a fairly debatable question; and I think that with such articles as, say, silks, articles of taste and vertu, brandies, wines, and other such articles, fiscal considerations should prevail, and I will not admit that the cry of danger to Free Trade should hinder us from placing a duty on articles consumed, or almost entirely consumed, by the richer classes. However, the relief we should thus obtain would go but a very small way in the direction my hon. Friend wishes. His views are much wider. His object is to band together all parts of the Empire into something like a Zollverein, in which exchange shall take place among 300,000,000 of people, exclusive of the outside world. There is no one who has advocated this so ably as my hon. Friend. I may, perhaps, concede this much—that if it had been practicable we might have tried it with advantage 50 years ago. If we could have foreseen our treatment by the rest of the world, and even by our own Colonies, some of whom have treated the Mother Country more like a stepmother, it might have been a very reasonable thing that it should have been made a condition that there should be absolute Free Trade between all parts of the British Empire, and that we would not undertake the protection of the Colonies on any other condition. It might have been a reasonable thing that we assured certain advantages to our Colonies on condition that they adopted this principle; and had we done so, we should be doing a much larger trade with our Colonies than we now are; and it is not altogether impossible that by the leverage thereby afforded we might, to some extent, have broken down the restrictive tariff of the United States. But, in my judgment, the time has passed away for statesmen to undertake such an immensely difficult task. Our Colonies, which were then young, have grown to man's estate. Colonies like Canada and Australia would resent any attempt to impose upon them compulsory Free Trade. A large part of our population is fed by imports from the United States, and depends upon that supply almost for existence, and it is a sheer impossibility to shut out such a supply. These are my general views as regards what is called Reciprocity; but I do not look upon the scheme as so utterly absurd as some do. I do not believe in Free Trade as a sort of "Fetish," as some do. I believe that Free Trade, like all economic doctrines, is limited and qualified by practical considerations; and I have never felt disposed to regard the United States or our Colonies as so utterly devoid of common sense in adopting the system they act upon as most of our economists do. Free Trade must be founded on practical, as well as theoretical, considerations; but, looking at this subject practically, I am not able to see how we possess in this country the leverage to bring about, to any extent, reciprocal Free Trade. We have to face the fact that the economical position of this country is determined for us by inexorable laws we cannot overleap. We are a small Island with a dense population—with the exception of two or three small countries, the densest population on the face of the globe. We draw half the food of this population from abroad, and I am sorry to think the amount of food produced at home is diminishing. We are growing less in the aggregate than we were 20 years ago. It comes to this, therefore—that the growing population of the country must be fed increasingly with foreign food. At the present time nearly half the population are so fed, and in the not distant future three-fourths must be so fed. These are facts that govern us, and we cannot, as far as I can see, alter them by legislative means; but I will glance at one point of great importance, though it is slightly aside from the main subject of this debate. I do believe that in this country there is one great leak which drains a large amount of the wealth of England. We spend in this country, in spite of the spread of the temperance movement, which we all hail with satisfaction, £125,000,000 sterling a-year in strong drink; and I shall carry the general opinion of the House with me when I say a great part of this, at least, is mere waste—as much waste as if it were poured into the Thames. It involves, further, a great waste of the labour power of the country, and adds heavily to our burden of pauperism and crime. My belief is that it is quite within the power of legislation, and opinion out-of-doors would support such legislation, to place such restrictions on this traffic as would save for the country one-third of the amount I have mentioned—say, including indirect losses, £50,000,000 sterling.

The main elements of our national position may be described briefly as follows:—We have a decreasing production of food at home; a trade nearly stationary; at all events, a non-elastic trade. We exported £240,000,000 last year, and 12 years ago £250,000,000. It is quite true the fall in prices, to some extent, accounts for this. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Much more.] Nevertheless, the trade of the country is very stagnant; profits are extremely small; and a very considerable portion of our population have the greatest difficulty to exist. Another point is that with this decrease of the means of living, as I may call it, we have a most rapidly increasing population. The House may be surprised to hear that in the last 10 years we have added to our population in this Island as many people as in the 600 years following the Norman Conquest. Unless Members have studied the question, they will be surprised at the leaps and bounds by which the population of Great Britain has increased — not including Ireland — it has risen from 10,500,000 to 31,000,000 in 1884, and by the end of the century it will nearly reach 40,000,000—that is to say, within the century we have nearly quadrupled the population of this Island. We have to face the fact that about half have to be fed by foreign food, and the time is near when they will principally depend on that source. Now, I confess to me this opens a prospect anything but cheering. It is fraught with serious—indeed, with anxious considerations for both philan- thropists and statesmen, and I think this question ought to be faced and discussed far more fully than it has been. We should not wait until we have to struggle for existence with revolution or desperate Communism. We have a large margin of our labouring class in a semi-starving condition, and that margin is increasing. We shall be deceived if we look to the statistics of pauperism. Pauperism appears to decrease, because we are applying more rigorously the workhouse test; but outside the workhouse there is an enormous mass of miserable, half-fed, half-starved, destitute people. I can speak of my own constituency, and I believe I am within the mark in saying that there are 20,000 dock labourers there who for several years past have not had more than three days' work in the week as a rule, and whose average earnings have not been more than 15s. a-week. I am told that the case is worse in London, and in all our large towns there is the same miserable state of things. This element among our population will increase, and the pressure of existence will become greater. How can you relieve it. I have pointed out one direction where you might find a great deal of relief. Sobriety of habits will afford much benefit for a time; but it will not permanently tide over the difficulty. We have to face a growing mass of people in this country who never under any circumstances can be maintained, in comfort; and for practical relief we must turn to that Greater Britain, 60 times the extent of Great Britain, where the people are now one or two to the square mile, while here we have 450 (in England and Wales) to the square mile. It is just, it is necessary, it is right that our surplus population should find a home in this Greater Britain. If the county of Kent had a population 100 times as dense as the rest of the Kingdom, should we not see the absurdity of perpetuating such a congestion of population? So it is in England, as compared with the Colonies. I am told that Manitoba alone could grow food for the whole population of Europe. I could dilate upon this, and travel far beyond the limits of this debate; but I hope at a future time I may be allowed to go more fully into this social question, which I have studied closely for 20 years. I have been in the closest contact with the suffering classes. We have a section of the population unskilled, intemperate, and incapable of earning a decent livelihood, and useless for emigration, because they have learned nothing of value in their youth. I am driven step by step to the conclusion that we shall never get rid of this helpless mass of semi-pauperism until we undertake the training of the young in a more thorough manner—until we give the children of this miserable class an industrial training which will fit them for earning a living in the Colonies if they cannot get it at home. I will not proceed further, inviting as the subject is. I am obliged to the House for having given me the opportunity of expressing some of the thoughts and feelings which lie deep in my breast. The subject is a grave and serious one, and I am thankful that the House has had this opportunity of discussing it in its various bearings; and I am sure the people of this country will be grateful to the House for taking this subject into its earnest consideration.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he thought the House was greatly indebted to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) for introducing this question to the House, and also to his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mundella) for their most interesting speeches. He had also listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), who possessed so special a knowledge of the subject of trade. This question was too grave a one for Party politics. Both sides of the House should look at it as part of a great and important whole, and endeavour by every means in their power to solve the difficult problem. If, some years ago, they had formed that Zollverein which the hon. Member had mentioned, no doubt it would have been an exceedingly good thing; but it was not too late even now to do something of that kind. If we found arms and muscles for our Colonies, why should we not make some stipulations in favour of our trade? All the speakers had shown how wrapped up in one another were the interests of agriculture, trade, and commerce. When agriculture prospered, trade and commerce prospered, and it was but natural when people had money in their pockets they would spend it, and no one could spend his money more profitably than in his own country. He was sorry that nothing was said in the Queen's Speech about the depressed condition of agriculture, especially when they remembered that in the Speech dismissing them for the Recess Her Majesty said— I acknowledge with thankfulness the favourable season, and the prospect it affords of an alleviation of the pressure which has so long and so severely affected the agricultural industry of the country. A word of commiseration at this time would have gone far to show that Her Majesty's Ministers were alive to the present condition of agriculture and trade, notwithstanding the magnificent harvest weather we had had, and for which, indeed, we were most deeply grateful. Let them look for one moment at the present condition of the agricultural industry and at the present price of wheat, and he would venture to say that no one could assert that wheat could be grown at a profit in this country. The Economist was a very moderate and fair paper; and taking its calculations, based on the present price of wheat, the loss per acre was £2. He had some other calculations by him; but they were none of them lower than £2. Were they going to allow the great industry of wheat-growing to be absolutely destroyed? Some time ago we had 4,000,000 acres of wheat under cultivation in this country; at the present moment only 2,600,000 acres were under that crop. Taking it in round terms, the yield of wheat was 9,504,000 quarters; but large quantities of that would be used as feeding stuff—as much as 504,000 at least—thus leaving 9,000,000 only to meet the requirements of this country, which were put at 26,000,000 quarters. If 4,000,000 acres were now under cultivation, as they were a few years ago, the produce would probably have been 15,000,000, instead of 9,504,000. They must remember that in case of war, if all these prophets were right who had been looking into the state of the Navy—he knew himself something of the state of the Army—they would, in case of any reverse, be beset with the greatest difficulties in regard to the food supply of this country, and what kind of an indemnity would be exacted from us under such circumstances? He meant—which God forbid!—in case of a defeat, when we had no supplies in the country. The 17,000,000 quarters of imported wheat this country would consume during the year represented £25,500,000, taking the price at 30s. a-quarter. How were they to get that money back from abroad? Some hon. Members with whom he talked said that investments abroad furnished the funds which paid for those imports; but he found those gentlemen who insisted on free imports were mostly men with fixed incomes derived from investments from abroad, to whose advantage it was that the highest purchasing value should be given to their money regardless of the consequences upon the condition of commerce and agriculture at home. He would turn to another point. He had before him the price of wheat for the last 104 years, and it was a very curious fact that for the last half of this year the price of wheat would be lower than any which had occurred during that period. It was quite true that in 1780 the price was £1 16s., which was at present the lowest price on record; but during the first half of this year the price had fallen to £1 17s. 8d., and for the latter it would recede below £1 16s. With regard to the crops, he took The Times report, which was au excellent one, and found the average stated at 29½ bushels per acre. He believed, however, it would not thrash out over 28 bushels per acre. They knew that barley was not an average crop; they also knew that the colour was not good, and, as a consequence, the price was not good also; they knew that oats were a bad crop, beans and peas nothing like an average crop, though potatoes were remarkably good and cheap. The truth was that farmers would get but a very small return for such of their crops as were plentiful, in consequence of their being so cheap this year. Taken as a whole, this year had not come up to even an average year. No doubt, stock had increased owing partly to the saving of heifer calves for dairy and other purposes, and partly to the difficulty of selling stock resulting from the foot-and-mouth disease, particularly in Ireland. He was deeply grateful that foot-and-mouth disease had for the time, at all events, been extinguished. No greater blessing could have been conferred upon this country than the extinction of that subtle dis- ease, which had been brought about by the restrictions on the importation of cattle; and he hoped that the Lord President would take care that on no account should cattle be imported from infected countries. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said that those restrictions would make meat much dearer, whereas the fact was that meat had become much cheaper. The increase in the dead meat trade from Australia and New Zealand had far more than made up for the loss of food occasioned by the restrictions on the importation of live cattle. The price of mutton had fallen during the year from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a-stone, and of beef from 8d. to 9d. a-stone. Another difficulty which farmers had to contend with was the abnormally high price of store stock, which scarcely allowed the smallest margin of profit to the farmer. In his opinion, agricultural depression had never been as great as it was at the present time, and had never lasted so long. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had put the loss to the tenant farmers, caused by agricultural depression at from £130,000,000 to £150,000,000; but he was afraid that it would reach over £200,000,000. In this state of things half of the present occupiers of farms would be unable to continue in their holdings unless something were done for their relief. The great difficulty had always been to say what ought to be done. He would be justified, perhaps, in saying that it was sufficient for the farmers to put their case before the Government of this great country, and to leave them to devise a remedy for the state of things that existed. He, however, was prepared to make one or two suggestions in a non-controversial spirit. He remembered that years ago the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) carried a Resolution in favour of the relief of local burdens by a majority of over 100, when a Liberal Government was in Office; but no notice whatever had been taken of that Resolution until a Conservative Government came into power, when certain subsidies in aid of the local rates were granted to the agricultural interest. Another Resolution with regard to Local Taxation had been carried by his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) in the last Session; but no notice had been taken by the Government of the views of the majority of the House. What he now suggested was that some more such subsidies should be granted. Relief ought to be given in respect of the main roads, the police, and the indoor paupers. An opportunity should also be given to the landowner to free his land from tithes on equitable and easy terms; but such terms should especially be just as regarded the interest of the clergy. This was a question that was rapidly coming to the front, and which deserved serious consideration. As to the question of Free Trade, he was not one of those who argued that there ought to be an import duty on corn; but at the same time he would say that a greater mistake was never made than when that 1s. duty on corn was taken off. He saw no reason why that 1s. per sack should not again be replaced, and even 1s. per sack. No one felt it, and it would be found a great help and leverage towards the payment of local taxation. He believed that, by a fair re-adjustment of the Customs duties on such articles as had been suggested, the taxation on Customs might be raised by something like £10,000,000 a-year without hurting the consumer at all. Was this the only wise nation in the world? He did not suppose there was a man in the House who would say that Prince Bismarck was a fool; and when they found the wisest statesman in Europe keeping his country in the strongest bond of Protection, they must admit that he had some good reason and some good cause for the course he had pursued. Surely an inquiry could do no harm. He would say to the Government—"If you are so strong in your saddles that you think you have it all your own way, and have nothing to do but shake your horse's reins in order to win in a canter, let us have the inquiry we ask for." The agriculturists would ride their horses as well as they were able, and all they asked was that a fair and impartial inquiry should be allowed them; but whether that inquiry was granted or not, he thought that, at any rate, they who sat in Parliament had a right to demand that there should be a fair consideration of the question in all its bearings, and that the agriculturists should have a fair adjustment of that local taxation which was now raised upon real property alone, which class of property was, at the pre sent moment, least able to bear it.

MR. W. FOWLER

said, he thought there had been some exaggeration as to the situation of the country, at any rate as regarded the state of trade in the manufacturing districts. He understood that in the great Union of Manchester there never was so little pauperism as at the present moment. That did not show that the industries, round Manchester at all events, were quite so depressed as they were led to understand. He was also told that there were 2,000,000 spindles now being put up in the cotton district, which, with other facts, hardly bore out the statement of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) as to the condition of Manchester and the cotton trade. While he quite agreed that the condition of agriculture was very serious, and he might almost say naturally alarming, he did not think that they should go away with the impression that the whole country was on the verge of ruin. He thought the Government had been perfectly right in not putting this paragraph into the Queen's Speech, because it would have given the impression that Parliament could do something by inquiry to get rid of the present condition of things. But he did not believe our difficulties were such as it was in the power of this House to deal with. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) told them the other night at Leamington that foreign competition was destroying agriculture and paralyzing trade. He was not prepared to agree with him. In his opinion, the nine bad seasons we had passed through had much more to do with it. In 1851 the price of wheat was very little higher than it was now, and meat was about half the present price, and yet the farming interest was not so depressed as at present. That showed that some cause was at work besides the mere scale of prices. Then again, as they had been told by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the same depression existed in France and Germany and Switzerland. They could not control the seasons, and one good season would not restore a better state of things. He was free to confess that the cultivation of wheat was not profitable at the present moment. But wheat was not our only crop. He should like to ask whether those who came there to in- struct them as to what was necessary for the renovation of agriculture had gone as fully into the question as they ought? He would like to point but once more how enormous was our importation of articles which we could perfectly well grow at home. Let them take only two groups from the last Returns. First, taking live cattle, sheep, and pigs. Of these, there were imported in 1864 to the value of £4,275,000; in 1874, £5,265,041; and in 1883, £11,983,754. Secondly, the import of other provisions, such as beef, mutton, pork, bacon, hams, poultry, game, eggs, butter, and cheese, amounted in 1864 to the value of £12,500,000; in 1874, £25,300,000; and in 1883, £40,500,000; and the total value of all the provisions imported in those three years was respectively £58,658,000, £112,496,000, and £157,500,000. Look at eggs and butter separately. They imported in 1883 eggs to the value of £2,732,000, and butter to the value of £11,773,000. He thought they might well consider whether more of these articles might not be produced at home. They had the best markets in the world, and, perhaps, the highest price in the world for such articles was paid in England. But hon. Members did not discuss such questions. They came demanding other remedies. Again, that evening Local Taxation had been brought forward. For his part, he asked for justice as to Local Taxation, He would join with anyone in reducing the burdens on the land if they could be shown to be unfair. But he denied that any such proceeding would act as a remedy for present troubles. The losses by taxation were as nothing compared to the effect of prices. He supposed that if all that was asked as to local taxes were given, it would not aid the farmer to the extent of 2s. an acre—[Cries of "Not 1s."]—and, therefore, this question of Local Taxation was not so important as it looked. If the farmer had lost 2s. in the last year by taxes, he had lost 32s. an acre by the fall in wheat since October, 1883. But there were other questions behind far more serious. The fact was that their old friend "Protection" was at the bottom of the matter. But Protection would do the farmers no good unless they got a higher price for their corn. He should like to read a few words which, on the 11th of February, 1851, Mr. Disraeli used when speaking on this subject— If I give my opinion, which I do most sincerely, that a moderate fixed duty would not raise the price to the consumer, I wish perfectly to guard myself from being supposed to suggest it as any favour to the agricultural interest."—(3 Hansard, [114] 410.) He evidently did not think highly of it as a remedy for distress. And Sir James Graham, on the next day, in the course of a speech, said— You may convulse the country—you may endanger property—you may shake our institutions to the foundations; but I am satisfied that there is no power in England which can permanently enhance by force of law the price of Dread."—(Ibid. 528.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite must, therefore, dismiss from their mind this idea of putting on a duty. It could not be done, and would not be done. The remedy must be found elsewhere—in their own skill and industry. It was not to be found in any hocus-pocus arrangement of duties. The improvement must be obtained by their intelligence, good sense, and by the power of the money which was so abundant in this country. To give the farmer the idea that this House was able to do much for him by way of legislation was to delude him; and to have put a paragraph in the Queen's Speech would have been only to deceive him. They had heard a good deal of the depression in trade. No doubt the iron, coal, and shipping trades were now, and had been for some months, depressed. But the great cause of the loss of profits which was so much felt by capitalists was the low condition of prices all round. Prices had not been so low since 1848. It had been said that times of high prices were good times; but they were sometimes bad times. There might be high prices and very low profits, and low prices and fairly large profits. At present there certainly was a great diminution of profits, and capitalists were not receiving the income for their capital which they used to do. The poor man, however, was not suffering a similar loss. His wages were not being materially reduced—certainly not in proportion to the fall in profits. On the other hand, they must remember that in the coal and iron mania of 1871–2, though wages were high, they were as nothing compared with the enormous profits that were being made. The poor man's turn had now come. His wages were not materially reduced, and he was far more comfortable than he used to be. Hon. Members might ask for the cause of this tremendous fall in prices. It had been set down to the scarcity of gold. He did not believe there was any such scarcity. But there was an enormous supply of every article. That arose from cheap carriage by land and water. The railway and the steamship brought enormous supplies of everything, and hence the fall in prices. In one year freight from America had fallen 50 per cent. Nor was this the only influence at work. The telegraph had a powerful effect. It was not necessary now to hold great stocks of goods. They could be ordered by telegraph, and the old system of business was a thing of the past. An hon. Member had told him that the old merchant was no longer needed. The telegraph had extinguished him. These things could not be altered by Parliament. Hon. Members would not, he supposed, wish to get rid of the railways, the steamers, and the telegraph; but they would like a little protective duty—a kind of differential duty in favour of our Colonies. But on what was this duty to be imposed? If it was imposed on the raw material our trade would be ruined, for we should no longer be able to compete with foreign countries. Was it to be on manufactures? If so, on which? Silk had been the only one mentioned, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had disposed of that. The fact was that they could not deal with this matter by any legislative Act, but by educating the people and increasing their skill, so as to enable us to compete in the race of the world. It was for the House to pass laws which should leave the people free to do their work. The people could take much better care of themselves than could Parliament. The condition of the people depended more upon their own habits and their own efforts than upon Acts of Parliament. If the people were wasteful in spending money in drink or in other things, no Act of Parliament could prevent them from coming to grief. The House of Commons could not prevent disaster overtaking men in trade who did not do their duty; and, therefore, in his opinion, it would be the greatest folly in the world for the House to hold out an expectation which it could not fulfil. The more he looked into this matter the more he was satisfied that they had done right in getting rid of the protective system root and branch, and in declining to ask a contribution from the people for the benefit of one particular class. The fact was, they could not do this thing; they could not return to this system. If any class of men ought to be protected, they ought to begin by protecting the farmer. They had taken away his protection in 1846; and if they were going to introduce Protection, they must begin by first protecting him. The landed interest were bound, however, to look after their own affairs without assistance from the House of Commons. In his opinion, the system of law by which the land had been held for centuries in this country was one which had done a great deal to repress the landed interest. He did not believe in this system of one man holding the land while the rest of the family were dependent upon him. It frequently happened that under this system the land became starved and impoverished. He did not think any alteration of the law would make a great change; but if a natural state of law had existed for the past 100 years, the state of the land would have been much better than it now was. The present position of things was one which brought one in contact with events which were rather extraordinary, no doubt; but still with events which they could not control by the power of the House. He asked the House to reject this Motion, because he believed that to accept it would be to hold out expectations which would be quite futile and illusive in their character.

MR. CHAPLIN

asked the hon. Member who had just spoken what were the remedies which he proposed for the alleviation of the present distress? The hon. Member said that if the people of this country spent their money in drink they must suffer for their misdeeds; if they were wasteful and extravagant they must pay for the wastefulness which they committed; if they were careless in trade they must suffer likewise. He ventured, on behalf of this class, to repudiate those innuendoes against the working people of this country. These were not the causes of the sufferings which prevailed so widely at present. As far as the hon. Member and his Friends were concerned in the sugges- tion of a remedy, the future of the working classes of the country might be one of despair. He was astonished that no Member of the Government had attempted to reply to the speech which had been made by the Seconder of the Motion. He had heard the greater part of the speech of the Vice President of the Council; but, instead of replying to the speech of his hon. Friend, the right hon Gentleman had favoured the House with a great variety of details regarding the amount of his investments at home and abroad, for what purpose he had been unable to discover. They might have been an admirable advertisement for the business of the firm with which he understood the right hon. Gentleman was connected. The defence of the right hon. Gentleman was altogether unnecessary, because he understood that what fell from his hon. Friend had been cited not in any respect as a personal attack, but simply as an illustration of the evils of the system which the right hon. Gentleman supported. It was the more remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to reply to the speech of his hon. Friend, because a more able, more fearless, or more valuable contribution to the discussion of the industrial crisis had never been delivered to the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not even seem to think it necessary to remain in the House during the debate; but had shown the courage of his opinions in running away, as he had done on many occasions before. He shared the surprise which had been expressed that no mention had been made of the prevalent distress in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Apparently, the Government thought it one of the last matters which concerned them. This was on a par with all their proceedings in matters of national or Imperial importance. Never were affairs in a state more critical for the interests of our Empire in three-quarters of the globe than at this moment; and they could gauge the importance attached to those matters by Members of the Government when they remembered that only the other day a Cabinet Minister got up and described it as a waste of time to discuss the murder of a British Agent and the condition of affairs in South Africa. It now seemed that precisely the same spirit actuated the Ministry in regard to vital and urgent home affairs; and that, although thousands of working men in all parts of the country were daily reported to be cut of employment, and unable to support their families, the Government could only occupy themselves with a purely Party measure; while all those far more important and momentous matters demanded the most anxious consideration. With four years' experience, however, of the effects of their rule on the fortunes of the Empire, he could understand the necessity which induced them to raise a cloud of controversy on a Party question, in order to blind the eyes and divert the attention of the people from their disastrous failures. He was glad that both the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, who were so closely connected with the trading and manufacturing interests of the country, had so clearly recognized the most important fact that the present grave depression in trade was in the main caused by the depression which had so long affected the agricultural interest. They had had a prolonged and exhaustive inquiry into the causes of agricultural depression. The Report of the Commission spoke in the plainest and strongest possible terms of the severity of that depression; they indicated its causes, and also made certain recommendations for its relief. It was true that the main and primary cause had been the bad seasons; but they had just had one of the best seasons known for many years past, and yet the prospects of agriculture had probably never been gloomier than they were at present. Whatever the Vice President of the Council or others might say, the real and true cause of agricultural depression now was the low prices, and nothing else but the low prices, which were the inevitable result of excessive foreign competition. The Vice President of the Council seemed to charge prospectively the Members of the Commission with changing their views on that question. Well, he could not answer for his Colleagues; but so far as he himself was concerned, as a Member of the Commission, he frankly confessed that he had changed his views on the subject. He had appended a Memorandum to the Report, urging the whole question of foreign competition, because he thought it had received in the Report nothing like the attention it deserved. He expressed in his Memorandum the opinion, after weighing the evidence, that they would probably be able in future successfully to contend with any foreign competition they would have to undergo. That opinion he based upon, among other things, the latest evidence received by the Commission, and especially from one of the Sub-Commissioners whom they sent to inquire in America, and who placed before them the view that wheat could not be produced and sold in America at anything like the prices at which it had been sold up to that time. Moreover, he thought that the price of wheat had considerably risen since their inquiry began, and that it promised to be higher than it was at the present moment. He confessed that his hopes and expectations had not been realized in that respect; and unquestionably the price was lower now than it had ever been in the past 100 years. Consequently, agriculture was proportionately depressed, and that depression was likely to remain until some means were found for its relief. He now turned to the subject of trade. Trade was now depressed because the markets had been failing. The foreign market had failed for an obvious reason—namely, simply because of the hostile tariffs imposed on the goods which we should send to foreign countries, if they would only allow us to do so. Then there was the home market. Why was it failing? There ought to be a complete and searching inquiry into that subject at the present time. There might be many reasons for its failure; but the real and main reason was simply the depression of agriculture, which represented the chief element in the home market. As long as agriculture was depressed the home market was certain to fail. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had left the House, because he would have liked to have asked him a question on which he wished, if possible, to elicit a frank answer from those who professed the Free Trade views of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the stoutest allies of the hon. Member for Preston, because he had always told the working men of this country that the depression in their trade was the consequence of bad harvests. He would ask a hundred times if necessary, till he got an answer, if the influence of bad harvests caused such depression to other trades, what would be the condition of trade, when, instead of bad harvests, we had none at all? This was what might happen, for he denied that any human being could grow wheat at 32s. a-quarter in this country without absolutely losing by the transaction. Then the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) had said that they might grow something else; but he had not indicated anything that could take the place of the great wheat-growing industry of this country. It reminded him of the advice of the Prime Minister some time ago, when he had told the farmers to produce jam. Jam was a very good thing in its way, so were market gardening, cheese, and dairy farming, and he considered that there was room for expansion in those directions; but all of them together could not take the place of that great industry of wheat growing. There was no subject which the Royal Commission had more carefully gone into than the endeavour to obtain a satisfactory reply to the question of what produce could be grown which could take the place of wheat growing if it should become unremunerative in the future. But nothing had been suggested that could take its place with any reasonable prosspect of giving a profit. Some hon. Members, and especially the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), were great advocates of this view—"Change your whole system of land tenure, and divide your holdings into smaller ones, and then you will see what you will see." If the hon. Member had had any practical experience on this subject, if he had gone into certain parts of the country and witnessed the absolute failure of that system, and had seen the state of poverty and ruin into which thousands of the freeholders of Lincolnshire had been thrown, owing to the price of agricultural produce, he thought the hon. Member would abandon these Utopian ideas. They had had an exhaustive inquiry into the state of agriculture; in his opinion, the time had now arrived when they must also have an inquiry into the state of trade; and if it were done by no one else, he would himself move for such an inquiry. The hon. Member for Cambridge had told them that the meaning of the inquiry had been to raise the price of food for the people, and would say probably that that would be the object of the inquiry now suggested. But he was getting accustomed to these taunts. The same cry had been raised with regard to the proposals made last Session with respect to the importation of foreign cattle, whereas the result had been exactly the contrary to what had been suggested. The fact was, that since the passing of the Cattle Bill, from whatever cause, the price of beef had fallen.

MR. MUNDELLA

Not through that Bill.

MR. CHAPLIN

He did not say through that Bill. He said from whatever cause; but he would venture to prophecy, if that Act was properly administered by the Government of the day, it would encourage the production of meat in this country, and lead to a still further reduction in its price. It did not necessarily follow that a rise of 4s. or 5s. a-quarter in the price of wheat made any difference in the price of bread. On the other hand, a fall of 5s. a-quarter in the price of wheat constantly occurred without altering the price of bread. It had been found that concurrently with the higher prices of wheat the people had always been most prosperous. He remembered the time when the Prime Minister described the prosperity of the country as advancing by leaps and bounds, and yet that was exactly the time when the price of wheat was between 50s. and 60s. a-quarter. He did not suppose that, even in their most angry moments, hon. Gentlemen opposite would really credit Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House with any intention or desire to raise the price of food for the people. Even if they had that intention and desire, they would not be able to do so. The people of this country, happily, were very much better educated than they used to be. They might have been misled at onetime; they often had been in the past; but he did not think it would be very easy to do so again. They were well able to judge and weigh all these questions on their merits for themselves, and they would not be misled in the future, as they had been in the past, by the fanaticism of the bigots of Free Trade. Well, then, he would conclude his observations by heartily endorsing the views of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) when he demanded an in- quiry into the present position of our trade. And when that had been granted, if it could be shown, as he thought it would be shown, that he and his Friends were right in the views they expressed, that the real cause which laid, at the root of the depression of trade at the present moment was the serious depression of agriculture, it would then be for the people and for the working classes of the country to decide whether they would submit any longer to the present state of things, or whether they would not insist on some general reconsideration of the present fiscal system of the country, which should mitigate, or greatly reduce, at all events, the painful effects of foreign competition on the great industries of the country.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commenced his speech with an attack upon the Vice President of the Council. The hon. Gentleman said that he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman for a short time, and then became tired of waiting, and left the House, having heard no reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). He was quite sure that if the hon. Member had waited a little longer he would, with the rest of the House, have agreed that the Vice President of the Council had completely answered the speech of the hon. Member for Preston.

MR. CHAPLIN

No doubt, that is the view taken on that side of the House.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, the hon. Member for Preston, in his interesting and eloquent speech, had asked that speakers on the Liberal side of the House should not "pooh, pooh!" the question of agricultural distress in the country. Hon. Members on that side of the House, as well as hon. Members on the other side, lamented that there should be any distress throughout the country; but they believed that the amount of distress had been, in many cases, very considerably exaggerated. He knew it was of no good arguing the question from what had always in the past been taken as tests of national progress and national wealth. At this moment they were regarded no longer by speakers on the other side of the House as tests. They were no longer allowed to congratulate themselves on the poor rate having decreased, nor were they to congratulate themselves upon the fact that the country received a larger amount in the shape of Income Tax, and that there were a greater number of Income Tax payers who now paid the tax than there were a few years ago. They were further told that the increase in the Savings Bank deposits was no test of the increase of the national prosperity; and the volume of trade, which was larger last year than it ever was before, instead of encouraging hon. Members on the other side of the House, seemed to fill them with alarm. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), in spite of the fact that last year's total exports were larger than they ever were before, except in the year 1872–3, deliberately asserted that the exports of the country had largely diminished.

MR. CHAPLIN

remarked that he had not said anything of the kind.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said, that no one would deny that trade was bad. It was bad in this sense—that there had been a very considerable amount of over-production, and that prices were very low. He confessed that he had been somewhat astonished to hear the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mae Iver) suggest that we ought to adopt the French system of assisting the shipping trade, because if there was one industry in which there had been more over-production than in another, he thought it was generally acknowledged that it was the shipping trade. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government should foster that trade, and thereby vastly increase the over-production which now existed. In this state of things there was one alleviation, and that was that, the price of everything being so low, the consumer had been gaining. He had been rather surprised at a remark which fell from the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The hon. and gallant Baronet made the somewhat astounding assertion that when the price of corn was high trade was good.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he had not said anything of the kind. What he said was, that it so happened that when agriculture nourished trade and commerce flourished also.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

accepted the explanation. He had misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and would withdraw the observation he had made. He had, however, certainly understood the hon. and gallant Baronet to state what he had suggested. They might lament the existing state of affairs; but, after all, what were the remedies that had been proposed that evening? The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had suggested the increase of education, and especially of technical education—remedies which he (Mr. S. Buxton) thought would commend themselves to the sense of the House. Then the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), who seemed to have a sort of hankering after Fair Trade, but whose common sense brought him up short whenever he came in contact with the actual results of inquiry, had suggested State-aided emigration as a remedy for the evil. The only suggestion made by the other side of the House was that there should be an inquiry into the state of trade. Before they agreed to an inquiry, he wanted to know what inquiry was proposed to be made? Was it, or was it not, to be a veiled attack directed against Free Trade? They knew, of course, that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) had the courage of their opinions; but probably some of those who were sitting on the opposite Benches were not equally as courageous as those hon. Members, because he gathered from some of the speeches which had been delivered in the course of the evening that, although they would not as yet go in for the cry of Fair Trade, it was possible that they might hereafter do so. He confessed that he had been much interested the other day by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in reply to a Free Trade deputation at Birmingham. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman was a very great master of the art of saying "nothing" when there was nothing to be said, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman carried that art to its greatest extent. But he thought that the House and the country wanted the right hon. Gentleman and the Leaders of the Opposition to say "something," and to declare what they really meant on this matter of Fair Trade. Were their minds still open, or were they closed, upon the question of Free Trade? Some hon. Gentlemen said that Party considerations ought not to be brought into the matter, and in that he fully agreed; but he thought that the House and the country ought to know what the Leaders of the Opposition, and those who were responsible, really thought upon this matter of Free Trade. Did they, or did they not, indorse the speeches the House had listened to that evening from the hon. Members for Preston and Birkenhead? The position of those hon. Members was clear enough. They told the House that practically they wanted to obtain reciprocity by means of retaliation. As the hon. Member for Preston said, he required Protection as a lever, in order to obtain universal Free Trade; and the hon. Member for Birkenhead declared that it was necessary for this country to retaliate in order that we might be able to open the ports of the world to our own commerce. There was, he (Mr. S. Buxton) thought, a good deal of loose talk on this question of Fair Trade; and he wanted to know what those who advocated it proposed to do, and how far it would really improve the state of things as they at present existed? The hon. Member for Preston had taunted those on that side of the House with being responsible for the depressed state of trade in England; but the trade of the protected countries was as bad, or worse, and he thought the onus of proof lay not on those who were defending the existing system, but on those who proposed to change our fiscal system. The proposition of Reciprocity, or Fair Trade, was founded on the very erroneous and exploded theory that the injury of one country was the benefit of another. It was now generally acknowledged that the benefit of one country was the benefit of all. He would not attempt to discuss the question from the point of expediency, or from the point of principle, because that had already been discussed and threshed out by previous speakers. He would prefer to point out the absolute impossibility of carrying out the proposal of the hon. Member for Preston. That proposal looked simple enough. They saw that their imports exceeded their exports, and it looked a very simple matter just to clap a duty upon the imports, in order that the foreigner might be brought to his senses, and be induced to accept our exports freely. But there was just this difficulty in the way—the difficulty of knowing upon which of the large amount of imports we could really impose a duty. One thing which had been generally acknowledged that evening, even by speakers on the other side of the House, was that it was practically quite impossible to tax articles of food. He thought it was equally acknowledged that it was quite impossible to tax the imports of raw material. Everyone admitted that that would be fatal to our power of competition in the open market. The consequence was that those two great portions of the imports had first to be eliminated before they could discover on what articles retaliatory duties could really be placed. He found that our imports amounted to £426,000,000, and that out of them as much as £340,000,000 belonged to those two great categories; and represented, to the extent of £195,000,000, articles of food, and, to the extent of £145,000,000, raw materials imported. Therefore, the small balance that was left, which they could effectually tax by retaliatory duties, only amounted to £85,000,000, and of that £85,000,000 something like £25,000,000 or £30,000,000 represented semi-manufactured articles, which were just in the same position as raw material, and were also unfitted for taxation. The remaining £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 represented imported "manufactures," on which, perhaps, retaliatory duties might be placed; though even this sum should be reduced by the amount of re-exports, and of articles of fancy wear, &c, which would not repay any imposition of duties. Granting, however, the whole of this sum, it seemed a considerable amount. But if they looked at the other side of the question they would find that, while other nations might be vulnerable to the extent of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, we ourselves exported manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, on which duties were and could be placed, to the extent of £213,000,000, and would be liable to be attacked to that extent. So that it came to this—that for every injury we could inflict upon the foreigner by retaliatory duties, he could injure us three or four times as much. That seemed to him to be conclusive as far as regarded the possibility of putting on these duties; and, therefore, he thought it remained for those who desired to put on the duties, and who desired to re-invigorate the country by imposing import duties, to show in what way they were to impose them so as to be able to bring the foreigner to terms. It stood to reason that, unless we injured the foreigner more than he could injure us, we should fail to bring him to his senses. Being interested in protective duties, the foreigner would do his best to protect his protective duties, and for every pound imposed by us as a tax upon foreign imports he would put a similar sum upon our exports; and, as he (Mr. S. Buxton) had already pointed out, the foreigner had this pull over us—that his retaliation to our attack would be as four to one. If our trade, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) seemed to suppose, were almost entirely a home trade for home consumption, and if we had no foreign trade, then he thought there might be something to be said on behalf of the view of the hon. Gentleman; but, as had been well pointed out by the Vice President of the Council, at present any attempt to resort to Protection in the case of one article would necessitate Protection for others, and the cost of production would, consequently, be seriously raised all round, and not only would our power of competing in hostile markets be greatly diminished, but we should lose our supremacy in the neutral markets of the world. He would not detain the House at greater length upon this subject, and he was much obliged to hon. Members for the patience with which they had listened to him.

MR. SALT

said, that as this was really a discussion upon an Amendment to the Address, he did not think it right that he should occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes, notwithstanding the importance of the subject which was now raised. Indeed, it was a subject of such great importance to every interest in the country, that it ought to be considered rather upon an independent Motion than upon an Amendment to the Address. He thought, nevertheless, that his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) and his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) were quite correct in the view they entertained, that some notice of this important subject should be taken by the House and the country. He conceived from their speeches that, although they had frankly and honestly expressed their opinions, as they always did, their view did not go further than that, and that they only desired to bring the matter prominently before the House and the country. The question which naturally arose was, whether the condition of agriculture and trade was in such a state as to demand special attention at the present moment? And upon that point it occurred to him that two opinions might be held and two voices might be raised in Parliament. Speaking from his own experience, and he believed that every Member of the House who had had similar experience would say the same, for many years he did not remember — indeed, he might say he had not known — a time in which every man connected with business of any kind suffered so much anxiety. Hon. Members who listened to him must have been in communication with many persons carrying on business in different parts of the country, and they would be perfectly aware that in every quarter, without exception, there had been this expression of opinion—"We never knew such along depression. We really do not know how to carry on. We are making the smallest possible profits, or we are carrying on our business at a loss. Sometimes we think the cloud is lifting, and then affairs relapse and become worse than before." That was the opinion expressed everywhere by people connected with business, and he had, therefore, looked into the question in order to see how far the depression of agriculture and commerce really justified that view, because it occurred to him that it might sometimes happen that they came across a few persons who were in such an unfortunate position, and possessed such a constitution, that they were in the habit of taking a despairing view of everything. There were, however, two or three tests which afforded good evidence of the condition of trade in the country. The first was the carriage on the railways, the second was the volume of trade passing in and out of the country, and the third was the state of the Revenue. He did not want to go into figures at that late hour of the night; but hon. Members, if they wished to have these three figures, would easily be able to find them for themselves. In regard to the railway returns, the condition of the foreign trade in and out of the country, and the position of the Revenue—upon all those points, if the figures were not actually disheartening, they were, at any rate, weak—they had either given way to some extent, or they were showing signs of giving way. This entirely confirmed the opinion which private individuals expressed, and, to a large extent, justified the existing state of anxiety and uneasiness. He did not say that we were in a condition in which we ought to despair. He had no desire to take too gloomy a view of the state of affairs, and, notwithstanding the returns to which he had alluded, no doubt there was still at the present moment an immense volume of trade passing in and out of the Kingdom, and an immense carriage both of goods and passengers over the whole of our railway system, and we might possibly look for brighter times; but he was bound to say that the depression had now gone on for a very long time. In 1874—just after that wonderful year 1873, which some hon. Gentleman that night had said was a great misfortune to the country—in 1874 he remembered saying himself that he believed that we were on the eve of the longest and worst depression of trade which this country had ever known, and that opinion had been more than fully justified. The question was when would that state of things be changed? It was that question to which they required an answer, and it was for that reason he conceived his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) pressed for an inquiry. His hon. Friend went somewhat further than the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). He did not content himself with saying that this matter ought to have been noticed in the Queen's Speech, but he said also that there ought to be an inquiry. As he understood his hon. Friend, he did not press Her Majesty's Government further than that at the present moment; but he contended that the condition of trade was such as to demand inquiry, investigation, and information on the part of the Government. He (Mr. Salt) did not propose to commit himself to what his hon. Friend or anyone else had said that night; but he went entirely and thoroughly with his hon. Friend in regard to the matter of inquiry. The condition of the trade of the country during the past 20 or 30 years, and its condition at the present moment, were such that a public inquiry by an independent Commission would be a very great benefit. There were other reasons besides these. The condition of trade was peculiar in certain ways. In the first place, he had noticed the extreme length of the depression, which was altogether peculiar. The ordinary experience of the last 40 or 50 years was that depressions, when they occurred, endured for a comparatively brief period; they only lasted for six or seven years, and then the cloud lifted, and a brighter state of things was brought about; but if there had been any kind of improvement on the present occasion, it had been slow, uncertain, and short, and then things fell back again to the state in which they were before. That was one of the things in the condition of trade which was peculiar—namely, the extreme length of the depression. There was another matter that was peculiar and demanded inquiry also. It was generally supposed that when food and material were cheap it was a time of prosperity in the country; but it had not been so in this instance, and why? For this reason, that with all this great cheapness there was no purchasing power. Purchasing power was absent, and, although everything was very cheap, the people had got no money to buy with. That was quite peculiar, and not in accordance with what was generally expected in such a condition of affairs, and it was another reason, as he understood, why his hon. Friends pressed for an inquiry. There was a third reason which it was very difficult to understand without inquiry, but which he desired to point out as another matter somewhat peculiar. Anyone who had carefully watched the condition of trade during the last few years would, he thought, have observed that, while the large dealers—the wholesale dealers—had been complaining that they were unable to make profits at all, the small dealers had been making considerable profits, and were doing well. He said this with some hesitation, because it required proof; but it was not his own opinion only, other people had observed the same thing. It had the appearance of a peculiar condition of trade, and might be made the subject of a very useful inquiry, and not an inquiry in any Party sense. It should not be an inquiry to the prejudice of anyone, or to the prejudice of anybody in the world; but it should be an inquiry into matters that were of immense interest to the country—namely, what was the cause of this peculiar condition of trade? We must remember this, that if profits were largely consumed by the retail dealers, and were not shared by the wholesale dealers, then the bulk of the people did not receive benefit from them—in other words, the benefit of cheap products did not reach the consumer. Surely that was a matter of very great importance. There was one other point, and one only, to which he desired to direct the attention of the House—namely, the condition of the people themselves—he meant of those people who worked with their hands. He had observed that whenever anything was said about the poverty of the people, they were referred to statistics to prove that the people were very well off. His observation was this—that at the present moment the country was not suffering from acute distress, except, perhaps, in Sunderland, or anything like the distress which occurred in the Lancashire cotton famine; but, at the same time, it was suffering from a general sense of poverty. Many poor, respectable people said nothing about their poverty. Instead of having full wages for the last three or four years, they had only been able to get work for two or three days a-week, and they were beginning to get very poor indeed, and the sense of their poverty was pressing upon them very much, because they could not see the end of it at all. This poverty went on from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, and almost from year to year, pressing on the people in clothes, in food, in the care of their children, and in their comforts; and there seemed to be no end of this increasing poverty, and no way out of it. That was the result of his observation. At the same time, he had to reconcile that fact with the statistics put forward as to there being better houses, better wages, and better food among the working classes than there were 20 or 30 years ago; all of which was perfectly true. He had had some difficulty in satisfying his mind as to the cause; but he believed it to be this. There were really two ranks of working people in this country who worked with their hands. There was one class—and he was happy to say a large class—of mechanics who, under the altered circumstances which steam, coal, and railways had produced during the last half-century, bad brought themselves into an extremely good position. They were most intelligent and able men, and the strength and wealth of the country was constituted by this better class of the working people. These were the persons whose houses were so good, whose clothes were so good, and who were, in fact, excellent men in every way. But there was another class—namely, the class of very poor people who had not had the opportunity or energy enough to raise themselves in a similar manner. Among these poor people at the present time very great poverty existed, and they were unable to obtain those necessaries in the shape of food and clothing which were even conducive to health. He hoped he had not taken up too much of the time of the House. He did not know whether the Motion for a Commission of Inquiry would be pressed; but he would only say that if the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) did press it, he would give him his cordial support. Before he sat down he might mention one other speech which had been made—namely, the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith). With almost all the hon. Member had stated he cordially agreed. He did not mean to say that he agreed with every word the hon. Member said; but he could accept nearly all he had said, and there was very little difference between them, especially with regard to the use which might be made of the Colonies for the purpose of rendering assistance to our English trade and our English poor. He admitted that that was a question that was very large and difficult; but he felt there were working people of this country who, having these Colonies as their inheritance, ought in some way to be able to make use of them, not only for the benefit of themselves, but for the benefit of the Colonies and the whole world at large. Another pressing reason why the inquiry asked for should be granted, although in no Party sense, might be found in the history of Free Trade itself. In discussing this question of Free Trade he had frequently felt that he had adduced infinitely better arguments on the side of Free Trade than Free Traders themselves had brought forward. Many avowed Free Traders did not condescend to argue. They were quite ready to tell their opponents—"You are exceedingly stupid;" but they never put forward a case for Free Trade which, to his (Mr. Salt's) mind, was as strong as it should be to satisfy the country. What was often done on the part of avowed Free Traders was this—they gave instances of the effects produced by Free Trade, and quoted instances of universal prosperity, and so forth; but the instances manifestly arose from different causes altogether. That, in his view, was another reason in favour of inquiry. We had had the system of Free Trade for the last 40 years, and the country might have prospered, or it might not, by reason of that system. Whether this was the case or not, it would be found that scarcely any other country in the world had adopted the same system. As he had said, the avowed Free Traders scarcely ever condescended to argument, or, if they did, they brought forward arguments which every sensible man knew had no bearing upon Free Trade at all. He did not know whether the Government were going to accept the Amendment or not; but he trusted that when the time came for proposing that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed, in no hostile or Party spirit, but with the idea of ascertaining what was really good for trade and for the people of the country, the Government would consent to the proposal of his hon. Friend that a Commission of Inquiry should be issued.

MR. SLAGG

said, he must confess that he always listened to the speeches of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) with very great interest. They must all agree that his hon. Friend evinced great intelligence in the manner in which he explained his views to the House; and in reference to a remark which had been made that they might possibly lose the presence of the Member for Preston among them, he would only say this—that he would rather submit to the annual recurrence of this debate on Fair Trade than lose the companionship of so agreeable a Member. The debate that night had taken essentially an agricultural turn, and he would not presume, in the presence of so many high agricultural authorities opposite, to attempt to enlighten the House upon the subject. But surely it must occur to hon. Members who asked for inquiry as to the effect of Protection in regard to agricultural produce, that that inquiry had already been made over and over again in the experience of this country. They had gone through the experience of Protection; they knew what results it produced; they knew that it made the people poor and starving, and, instead of assisting agriculture and the farmers, they knew that it had succeeded only in putting a little into the pockets of the landlords. He would be quite willing to concur with his hon. Friend as to the desirableness of an inquiry, if it were only directed to discovering some method of agriculture which might increase the profits of those engaged in that particular industry. But it was perfectly clear that that was not what hon. Members wanted. They wanted something totally different, and, to put it in plain words, what they were asking the House to assent to, by some process more or less roundabout, was a recurrence to the system of Protection, plain and simple. They complained, in so many words, of the curse of cheap food. Now, he could not agree with them that cheap food was undesirable. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said that lambs were too cheap, that heifers were too cheap, and that corn was too cheap.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

I did not say anything of the kind.

MR. SLAGG

said, he had understood the hon. and gallant Baronet to deplore the cheapness of those articles. He thought the expression used by the hon. and gallant Baronet was that they were deplorably cheap.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

No; I did not say so.

MR. SLAGG

said, he was sorry if he had misrepresented the hon. and gallant Baronet. He (Mr. Slagg) always looked upon cheap food as the great blessing to the country; and when hon. Members talked of commercial depression, he would ask them what that commercial depression would be if it were accompanied at this moment by dearness of food? They had tried Protection, and, in his opinion, it had absolutely failed; and he was perfectly sure that it was in vain for hon. Members to seek to induce the country to accept such a monstrous system again. Coming to the textile industries of the country, he altogether dissented from the description which had been given by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the extreme degree of destitution which existed in the commercial world. Such destitution did not exist. He would not weary the House with those always accepted and strong indications of the prosperity of the country, such as the Savings Banks, Income Tax, and Pauperism Returns; but he would take the condition of industry in his part of the world—of which he might be supposed to know something—and he declined to admit that there was anything in the condition of that large textile industry, the cotton trade, which could afford the slightest ground for the belief that our manufactures were languishing. On the contrary, they were largely increasing in productive power, and the people engaged in them did not, as a rule, act as if they entertained an idea that their industry was in a condition of despair. He had always been taught to believe that the prosperity and well-being of the large masses of the people was far more important than the profits of the limited few. The industrial population, as a whole, were in a condition that would compare most favourably with any previous condition with which it could be compared. It was perfectly true that the profits were not so excessive to the manufacturer and the merchant, and, in his humble judgment, they were not very likely ever to be so again; but if they looked at the price of ordinary Stock—for instance, at the investments in the best railways—they surely afforded a fair index of what they might expect in regard to any other sort of industry. The fact was that they were suffering, if they were suffering from anything at all, from over-production, and he ventured to say, in some aspects, from over-prosperity. There was a very great deal of money in the country seeking investment; the competition was very great, and, as a natural consequence, profits had been reduced. That was the case, clearly, in the cotton trade, where the enterprize was as great as ever. He dare say hon. Members would tell him that there were other industries, such as the iron, coal, and shipbuilding trades, which were not so well off. But they were suffering also, he suspected, from over-production. And it stood to reason that if we supplied 10,000 tons or 10,000 pieces where only 5,000 could be consumed, it was unreasonable to expect that a considerable profit, or in many cases any profit at all, could be realized. He should have been more gratified, and certainly more enlightened, if this debate had taken the turn of conferring some definite information as to what hon. Members wanted by the inquiry they asked for. He had been very much impressed by one or two remarks which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. He cordially agreed with his right hon. Friend that an inquiry into those methods of manufacture and those special industries in which this country was not so efficient as it ought to be, would be very useful. Our commerce, in his opinion, was suffering at the present day from two fundamental causes—one was overproduction in the industries which we knew and understood, and in which we were still able to rival the whole world; while the other was the fact that we were unacquainted with very many branches of industry in regard to which we ought to supply ourselves, instead of being supplied by foreign nations. He had had the honour of sitting on a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into Technical Instruction; and during the course of the journeys he had made to several Continental countries, he had been strongly impressed with this fact—that in those industries in which artistic excellence took a part, and in those industries which depended on high scientific skill and knowledge, this country did not occupy the position which it certainly ought to occupy. If we would only bestir ourselves, as his right hon. Friend knew so well how to do, in matters of technical education, he was perfectly satisfied that we should hear in future a very great deal less of depression of trade. He would ask hon. Members opposite what amount of Protection—because that was really in their minds—could possibly avail the industries of this country? It was obvious that the competition with which we were contending was not an artificial but a natural competition, His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) advocated a large railway extension in India. No doubt, his hon. Friend was aware that such an extension had already been considered and sanctioned by a Committee of the House of Commons, and, in the course of the next few years there would be laid down in India probably some 6,000 or 7,000 additional miles of railway. What were those railways going to do? They would bring over to this country from India wheat at a lower price than it could be produced for here. In some parts of India wheat could be grown for as little as 6s. a-quarter; and he would ask hon. Members how they could hope to compete with such a figure as that? The result would be that wheat would be brought over at a very low rate, and it would be necessary, in order to endure such competition, for farmers to consider carefully in what way they could best cultivate the soil rather than trust to the cultivation of wheat, which was evidently not best adapted to the agricultural requirements of the country. Again, looking at the condition of the working classes, he could not see any reason for this Motion. There was one indication always interesting, and that was the way in which that class spent their earnings and occupied their leisure; and he thought hon. Members must agree, that if they were able to spend considerable sums of money in recreation—if they could go in enormous numbers, as they did, to the seaside—their case could not be a very hard one. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) had said that the people of the country wasted a good deal of money, and, as a matter of fact, £125,000,000 was spent annually on alcoholic liquors. Surely this was not all needed. Finally, he believed that the welfare of the working classes was to be attained in other ways than by the expedient which hon. Members opposite had in view—namely, by the extension amongst them of technical education, and by promoting the improvement and enlargement of our industries, by diffusing amongst them a knowledge of science and art, and by developing foreign markets. Those means, he was convinced, would do a great deal more to improve the condition of the national commerce than debates of this kind, treading on the fringe of an obsolete system which was not likely to be again adopted by the people of this country.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg) had made a most becoming speech; no one could have doubted that it was the expression of the opinions of that hon. Member, whose argument, although neatly put, was solely in favour of his own constituency. The hon. Member had glanced at the condition of several branches of trade and industry, and the drift of his address was this—that he recommended that all employed in agriculture and manufactures should seek further knowledge of their business. He (Mr. Newdegate) confessed that he needed education, but did not and would not accept education, as the hon. Member for Manchester was ready to do, exclusively from the Vice President of the Council. It had rather amused him to hear the hon. Member speak as he had of the "miserable condition" of the trade in textile fabrics in the Midland Counties. He (Mr. Newdegate) had represented the ribbon and silk trade while it existed in Coventry and North Warwickshire. But was it in a miserable condition? He was in a position to afford the House an illustration of its condition. Ribbon made within four miles of his house was exhibited at the Silk Exhibition in Paris, and won the first prize. Did that show a miserable condition, or a want of skill, such as the hon. Member for Manchester imagined to exist in the trade? But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister succeeded in passing the Treaty of July, 1860; and what was the consequence? In the following September, he (Mr. Newdegate) was Chairman of of a Relief Committee with 21,000 persons to provide for. That, he said, was an instance of the danger to all classes in the country of the Governmental teaching which the hon. Member for Manchester would have the House acknowledge. The subscribers to the Relief Fund he had alluded to included Her Majesty, who, with her wonted benevolence, sent 100 guineas; the Prince of Wales, who sent 200 guineas; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who sent 100 guineas, to assist—which probably he would not have done had he been of the same temper as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), who said he denied that the Government or Parliament of this country were bound to provide the people with the means of living. He asked himself whether the Educators of the people intended to propose a repeal of the Poor Law, and to what length this form of political economy would extend? Again, the hon. Member for Manchester spoke, as a mild illustration of his argument, of a Petition that came years ago from Manchester, in which the capitalists of that city, whose profits, it appeared, were tolerably large, declared that their capital owed no allegiance to the soil. Having studied the subject for years, he was able to say that the only distinct and systematic list of Customs Duties of all nations then in the Library of the House of Commons was his production, so determined had been successive Governments not to afford the means of education in that respect; and he received for the document in question the thanks of the agricultural and commercial interests in the United Kingdom. In preparing that list, he had been actuated by a desire to show Her Majesty's Government how practicable a thing it was to put the information at their command into a form that would be intelligible to the people at large. He repeated that he needed education in this matter; and he claimed for his constituents more than that—namely, impartial evidence, together with the power on the part of a Committee or Royal Commission which should force the production of facts. The education of the school to which the hon. Member for Manchester belonged, and which, so far as it was represented in the Government Department by the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken third that evening (Mr. Mundella), habitually, wilfully, and persistently denied the people of the country access to the tariffs of foreign countries in a form that they could understand. Believing that in the event of war the safety of this country, together with its greatness and independence as the centre of the Empire, depended on her people and her armies having a proper food supply—believing that men must eat before they could fight, even in defence of their hearths and homes—he was naturally anxious as to the state of the National Commissariat. Had the National Commissariat not been under skilful management in 1803–6, this country would have been starved into subjection to the First Napoleon. Our population was then only 17,000,000, as against 35,000,000 at the present time. In 1802–6 we had provision, homegrown, for nine months, while at this moment we had not provision for more than seven months. Our Navy was deficient. And for that and the other reasons stated he could not join the hon. Members for Manchester and Cambridge in the views they entertained with regard to what he considered to be the primary means of national defence. Therefore, in their opinion, he needed education, and he should consider it a manifestation of Parliamentary hard-heartedness if they denied him the opportunity which he desired of becoming better informed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

Sir, we have listened for some hours to a very interesting and, to my mind, useful debate, and it is my intention to contribute to it at this time (12.35) but a very few words. Amongst the speeches which have been delivered in the course of the debate, I wish to refer particularly to that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), who has contributed very useful matter to the discussion, although, as a Free Trader, I cannot, of course, agree with him on many points. With regard to the general subject, the complaint of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) is that there is, in the Speech from the Throne, no paragraph directing our attention to the depressed condition of Commerce and Agriculture. I have listened attentively to all the speeches on this Motion, and I would ask what really is the omission of which hon. Members opposite complain? The Speech from the Throne, at the end of last Session, referred to the favourable condition of the weather up to that time, and to the prospects of a fine autumn; and the fact has been that during the months which have since elapsed, the weather has been all that could be desired, and has realized the expectations which Her Majesty placed before Parliament. The summer and autumn have been the most remarkable that the country has enjoyed for 20 years past. What is it, then, that Her Majesty's Government ought to have said? Ought they to have put into Her Majesty's mouth words of this kind—"The anticipations which I put before you concerning the weather have proved to be cor- rect We have had very fine weather; and the prices of the first commodities required for the enjoyment and comfort of the people, are lower than they have been for a long time past?" Sir, I think that to have put such words into the mouth of Her Majesty three months after the Speech at the end of last Session, would only have been ridiculous. But the discussion has not been directed to certain words which might have been introduced into that Speech; the complaint of most speakers being that we have not indicated a wish to appoint a Joint Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the present state of Agriculture and Commerce. That, therefore, is practically a complaint which is covered by words very different from those of the Amendment before us; and here I may, perhaps, be allowed to point out the great inconvenience resulting from a debate upon something totally different from that contained in the Motion on which the debate arises. Then, Sir, I would ask what is the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who commenced this discussion, and by the hon. Member for Preston, who followed him? The line of argument of those hon. Members has been very remarkable. The hon. Member for Birkenhead said that he disbelieved all statistics and all the news to be met with in the newspapers; and what he really founded his view of the present condition of trade upon was his experience of the failure of a woollen mill in which he was a partner, the failure of that mill having led him to believe that the state of the woollen trade was altogether unsatisfactory. Now, on the question so raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am only going to make one remark, and that is this. He wishes the House to believe—and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), who followed him in the same line, wishes the House to believe—that it is our interest to promote the export of our manufactured goods by putting duties upon similar goods imported from foreign countries. Now, the answer to that I venture to give in one word. I will not take past years, but the present year. The only figures I should like the House to notice and to weigh, are these—that during the first nine months of the present year we exported in manufactured goods to other countries, £158,000,000 worth, and that we imported manufactured goods from other countries, £41,000,000 worth. These figures appear to me absolutely conclusive that, so far from our taking any stops with respect to duties on manufactured goods coming to this country which might provoke the foreigner, our great interest is the interest of an exporting country, and that, therefore, there could not be any worse policy than risking that enormous amount of exports by, in any way, irritating our foreign customers by placing a duty upon the comparatively small amount of manufactured goods that comes into this country. I will not carry the argument further, but leave these figures, which I do not think have been given in this debate previously, with the House. They show, I think, what our interest is in respect of manufacturers—namely, that of a large exporter and a comparatively small importer. Let me now deal with the only other illustration of declining trade which was given by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). The hon. Gentleman was very pressing with respect to the state of the shipbuilding trade. He gave us figures to show that we were in considerable peril from the rivalry between our shipbuilding business and that of other nations, especially that of France. Again, I will only give one set of figures. The tonnage of ships built in this country has increased rapidly of late, until, in 1882, it reached 783,000 tons, and in 1883, 892,000 tons, of which 106,000 and 123,000 tons respectively were built for the foreigner. Now, the entire tonnage of ships built in France during the year 1882 was 56,000—that is to say, something like 1-15th part of what is built in this country—and the country which used to be our great rival in shipbuilding, I mean the United States, only built in 1883, 265,000 tons, that is to say, considerably less than a third of the amount of shipbuilding in this country. The fact, therefore, is that, so far from the rivalry of France being a matter of any considerable importance, France is shown to have built altogether very much less tonnage in ships than we ourselves built for foreigners alone, putting aside altogether the very large amount that we built for ourselves. The notion that there is some great danger to our shipbuilding interest from the rivalry of France, the tonnage of which is diminishing instead of increasing, is, therefore, out of the question. Let me say a word or two in reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd). Let me ask the hon. Member, however, what, after all, his speech came to? He gave us some facts as to the state of the cotton and iron trades, and beginning with the year 1869 he carried his comparison down to 1883. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) has proved conclusively that the comparisons he gave are unfair, because the peculiar circumstances of the years 1870, 1871, and 1872, affected by the Franco-German War, rendered a comparison of that time with the subsequent period impossible. And what is the case when you compare the present time with 1869, which was not disturbed by the Franco-German War? In 1869 the exports of cotton manufactures exceeded the imports by £52,000,000, while in 1883 the excess amounted to £60,000,000. The experience was just the same with respect to iron and steel. In 1869 the exports exceeded the imports by £21,500,000, and in 1883 the excess amounted to £25,250,000. These figures show a great improvement in the two trades in 1883 over 1869.

MR. ECROYD

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to make an explanation? I took the two periods as being, the first period the first five years, and the latter period the last five years, of the last 15 years. I may remark that in the first two years—1869 and 1870—prices were low.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

But the first period was one of extreme inflation in consequence of the Franco-German War. I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ecroyd) what are the other plans which are put before the House this evening? The hon. Gentleman proposes to have a system of what is popularly called "Fair Trade."

MR. ECROYD

I purposely avoided entering into the details of those plans which I laid before the House in detail a year or two ago.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I am entitled to take the hon. Gentleman's speech of to-night in conjunction with his former speeches; we have to deal distinctly with the proposal with which the hon. Member has so long been identified. The hon. Gentleman not only proposed the alteration of our fiscal system, which would be involved in the adoption of the principles of "Fair Trade," but he proposed that £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 sterling might be expended every year on railways in India—that we should take, by loan or otherwise, out of this country, £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 sterling every year, and spend it on Indian railways. He suggested that the necessary amount should be raised by taxes on American corn.

MR. ECROYD

I must beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. When I alluded to the taxing of American corn as a means of promoting the construction of Indian railways, it was with the view of the effect of a preferential treatment applied to India in inducing private enterprize to find the money necessary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I do not quite see the difference. At any rate, as part of his proposition, there is to be a tax on American corn. Let me ask the House whether that is not simply a proposal that this country should go back from Free Trade and commence again a system of differential duties based upon Reciprocity arrangements? We are asked in 1884 to go back to those Reciprocity arrangements which Parliament gave up 40 years ago. It is very well we should know that when we are invited by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacIver) who made this Motion, and by other hon. Gentleman, to undertake an examination of the present condition of trade, that examination is proposed by them with the express hope that that will be the result of the examination. I am addressing a body of Gentlemen who, I believe, are by a very large majority confirmed Free Traders; and it is only fair to ask what is the use of our entertaining a proposal to reverse Free Trade in favour of Reciprocity, when it is perfectly well known that the country will not listen for a moment to such a proposal? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, that is my view, and I have stated it in very moderate terms. Then, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who supported this Motion, dealt not so much with the questions raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Ecroyd) as with the other recommendations, which he hoped would be the outcome of the proposed inquiry. He proposed, in the first place, that Local Authorities should have, what he called, more subsidies. My hon. and gallant Friend went on to give his views with respect to Free Trade. He said that, without any hesitation, he would propose to raise £10,000,000 sterling a-year by way of Customs duties; and he begged us to follow the example of Prince Bismarck, who, he said, kept his country in the strongest bonds of Protection.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

No, Sir; I did not say anything of that kind. What I did say was this, that it was a very extraordinary thing that we alone of all countries were Free Traders; and although some people might use very strong language, I did not think they would call Prince Bismarck a fool, and yet he is a Protectionist.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

I really do not see the difference. He certainly said that Prince Bismarck kept his country in the strongest bonds of Protection, and that this was no folly. If not approvingly, I do not quite know what object the hon. and and gallant Gentleman had in referring to Prince Bismarck at all. Something has been said about an Imperial Zollverein. If time permitted, I think I should be able to show the House that anything like the adaptation of the German Zollverein system to our Empire, with its distant Colonies, would be absolutely impossible. I have endeavoured to condense in the very smallest compass my observations upon the proposals which have been made to-night from the other side of the House. My observations may be summed up thus. Is the House prepared to censure us for not having referred to the present condition of Agriculture and Commerce in the Queen's Speech, and is it prepared to censure us for that omission on the ground stated by those who have proposed the censure — namely, that this country ought to give up the system of Free Trade and adopt again, either as proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd), or as proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), a system which is nothing more or less than Protection—protection of certain interests in this country which are supposed to be benefited by duties levied on imported goods similar to those which we either produce or manufacture? That seems to me to be the simple question before us to-night; and I must say I should be very much disappointed if the House, which as yet has never shown itself disposed to adopt Protectionist doctrines, did, under cover of a Resolution of this kind, censure the Government. I have been very much tempted to carry the case further. I should have liked to have referred to the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission, and to the remarks which have been made as to the portions of that Report which we have adopted or have not adopted; but I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House if I now conclude by an expression of the hope that the House will negative this Resolution.

SIR EDMUND LECHMERE

said, he would not detain the House more than a few moments; but representing, as he did, both agriculture and trade, and trade, perhaps, more than agriculture, he wished to make a few observations. By the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not but feel that the question had been presented to the House on a false issue. What the trading classes of the country asked for was simply an inquiry. They were not desirous of passing a Vote of Censure on the Government; but they felt that the experience they had had of Free Trade during the last 30 years was such as to render it desirable that an inquiry should take place into its working. The House had had sufficient proof to-night that there was great depression in trade; but whether or not that depression should be mentioned in the Queen's Speech was a matter of opinion. There could, however, be but one opinion that the time had come when there should be a fair and impartial inquiry as to the desirability of continuing the policy of Free Trade. America, by its Protective Duties, had brought about the establishment of large steel and iron interests, which were completely excluding our iron from their markets. France, Germany, Italy were excluding our traders from their markets; and our own Colonies made us pay duties on our cotton manufactures imported to them. This being the state of affairs, the time seemed to have arrived for a fair in- quiry;and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Ecroyd) would decide the question by going to a Division.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 86: Majority 19.—(Div. List, No. 3.)

Main Question again proposed.

MR. SEXTON

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sexton.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he noticed that to-day the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had placed an Amendment on the Paper; and what he had to ask the hon. Gentleman to do was to allow the Address to be passed now, and take his Amendment on Report. ["No!"] He was appealing to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo, and was asking him, considering the great importance of time, and the necessity of getting through the stages of the Address as rapidly as possible, to take his Amendment on Report, which would be the first Order on Monday. The hon. Gentleman would then be able to make his statement at length, and by adopting the suggestion would greatly promote the interests of Public Business.

MR. HEALY

As a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to put the Question?

MR. SPEAKER

I put the Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned. "That is the Question before the House.

MR. PARNELL

said, he listened very attentively to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he failed to see he made out his case—that any time would be gained by the adoption of the course which he urged upon the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The case that the Irish Party had to make against the general administration of the law in Ireland was distinguished from the particular administration of law as exemplified by the Maamtrasna case, and it would take just as much time to state properly. It would not take any less time if taken on the Report stage of the Address than if it were taken on the present stage. Besides, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) had given Notice of an Amendment on the Report stage, and as that Motion would have precedence over any Motion which could now be put down by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton), if his hon. Friend were to accede to the request which had been made to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would be required to defer the statement he wished to make until a later day than he was otherwise required to. They would, therefore, lose an advantage they had now got. They would derive no compensating benefit for the loss of that advantage, nor would the Government or the House or the country generally derive any gain whatever in the matter of speed or in the greater progress of the debate. It was really a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If they look the discussion on the Address it would occupy exactly the same time as it would take on the Report. On the other hand, if they yielded to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, they would, as he had shown, lose a very important advantage, and one which they considered all important, which they had now got by the position in which the Amendment of his hon. Friend now stood upon the Notice Paper.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not know whether he could alter the views of hon. Members opposite. He only wished to say that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was under a misapprehension, as there was no Notice down for the Report. Therefore, no other Motion would have priority over this if it were put down for the Report. No Motion could be put down until the present stage was passed, and there could be no recorded priority over the Motion of the hon. Member. Under these circumstances, he trusted that hon. Members opposite would consent to discuss the question they were anxious to raise on the Report, and it would certainly promote the public interests, if the present stage of the Address were now taken.

MR. LEAMY

said, he failed to see why the Irish Members should give way, and deprive themselves of the advantage they now possessed. They had had sufficient experience of the Government to know that they were not likely to study or concern themselves with, the feeling of the Irish people in regard to the administration of the law. He, therefore, did not see why the Irish Members should allow themselves to be shorn of the advantage they had gained.

MR. HEALY

said, he had waited attentively to see whether the Home Secretary would point out to the House what advantage would be gained by following the course suggested. He had listened with great respect to the two speeches which had been delivered on that question; but he failed to see the slightest advantage that would be obtained. They were all anxious to get on, but not the smallest advantage had been shown to the Irish Members why they should accept the proposal now made to them. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) said that the time lost now would be lost on the Report, and the Government must remember that the lives and liberties of the Irish people were at stake. They had already been treated in the foulest manner in the Cornwall trial. He did not wish to go into that matter; but he would adduce that case as an instance. Therefore, at that late hour of the night (1.30), he had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw his suggestion.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, that, with the permission of the House, he would make an explanation. If the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were taken on the present stage of the Address, there would still remain another day before the Report could be taken; whereas, if it were taken on the Report, a day would be saved. He hoped he made himself understood?

MR. HEALY

No.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

would explain again. The House was now engaged on the consideration of the Address. If the Motion of the hon. Member were not pressed now the Address would be voted, and the Report stage only would remain. The Amendment, in that case, would be taken on Monday at exactly the same hour as it would be taken if the debate on the Address were now adjourned; but a day would in reality be gained, because, if the debate were adjourned, the Report of the Address could not be taken until Tuesday.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he really knew as much about the matter as he did before. It seemed to him that the Government had some special object in evading the real point of the case. If the discussion took place and ended on Monday, the Report would be taken on Tuesday; and supposing they finished the debate stage that night, and the Report stage on Monday, the matter would be just in the same position. He really did not see why the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been made at all, and he thought that, in common fairness to those who were asked to give way, the Government should state their real motive.

MR. GRAY

said, he did not think the difficulty in which the Government were placed, and which had induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his suggestion, was insuperable; whereas the sacrifice he asked of his hon. Friend was a more serious one than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. There was nothing, as he (Mr. Gray) understood, in the Forms of the House to prevent the Report stage being taken after the present stage, on the same night, by the leave of the House. Assuming the debate on the Address to be satisfactorily closed on Monday, he imagined, although he did not profess to be a master of the technical Rules of the House, that it would be perfectly competent for the right hon. Gentleman to propose, with the leave of the House, that the Report stage be taken the same night. That would dispose of the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman, presuming there was no desire to continue the debate over Monday. Assuming the House to be satisfied with the debate, the two stages could be taken on Monday as easily as the one. But the difference to his hon. Friend would be a very serious one. His hon. Friend wished to raise a question which he deemed to be of vital importance. If he raised it on the present stage, and the reply of the Government was unsatisfactory, he would be within his right in raising it again on the Report stage. If, on the contrary, he agreed to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and the reply of the Government was unsatisfactory, he would lose the opportunity he now had of again raising the question. Therefore, he (Mr. Gray) submitted that the argument for adjourning the debate was all on the side of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend was now asked to give up a really solid advantage, and the right he now possessed of raising the question a second time on the Report. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the proposal was a fair one.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.