Commons Sitting of 22 April 1890

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER'S INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition;
Whereupon Mr. Courtney, the Chair man of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECURITIES.
Return ordered—
"Of the Amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1890, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 312, of Session 1889)"—

Other Securities.

Annuities for terms of years.

£3½ per Cents.

£2¾ per Cent. Consols (including Certificates).

£2¾ per Cent. (1905).

£2½ per Cents.

Local Loans £3 per Cent. Stock.

£3 per Cent. Book Debt.

Exchequer Bills, Bonds, Treasury, &c., Bills.

Red Sea and India Telegraph Annuities.

Other Annuities.

—Mr. Jackson.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are many ancient monuments in Ireland which it is desirable to protect, for which existing Acts of Parliament are insufficient; is he aware that a por-

  1071
  tion of the Abbey of Kells, County Kilkenny, is being utilised for building walls elsewhere; that the ruins at Kil-mallock, one of the finest in Ireland, urgently need protection; that the great tumulus at Rathmore, County Kildare, is being carted away to repair the neighbouring roads; and that there are numerous other instances in which, if immediate steps be not taken, ancient Irish monuments of great interest will be seriously injured, and possibly destroyed; and whether, in view of the fact that the present machinery, under the Irish Church Act of 1869, and the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882, is defective, there is any intention of legislating with a view to giving wider and efficient protection to the ancient monuments of Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions. Representations have been made to the Government as to the condition of some of the ancient monuments—the Abbey of Kells, the ruins at Kilmallock, and the great tumulus at Rathmore— referred to by the hon. Member. The Treasury and the Irish Government have now the subject under consideration. I understand that there is power to take over any additional ancient monuments with the consent of the owners of them.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask that, in addition to the particular places to which the attention of the hon. Gentleman has been drawn, some attention will also be paid to the interesting castle and cathedral remains at Athenry?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly, if it comes within our power.

  MR. JOHN MACKEY.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to proceedings at Ramelton Petty Sessions on 29th March, as report d in the Londonderry Sentinel of 1st April, where Mr. John Mackey, Sessional Crown Solicitor for Donegal, acknowledged to having attacked with a sword Mr. Hugh Hegarty for having by accident broken a pane of glass and hiving refused to accompany him to the
  1072
  police office; and whether he will inquire into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed that the matter referred to in this question is the subject-matter of legal proceedings still pending. The Irish Government will await the result of these proceedings.
  MR. WEBB: Is it not the case that Mr. Mackey was charged with having stabbed this man twice?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand—but I do not speak with confidence in the matter—Mr. Mackey is not charged with stabbing. What he is accused of is that having a sword in his hand he assaulted the man whom he accused of having maliciously broken a pane of glass in his house.

  PROSECUTION FOR DISPLAYING A FLAG.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to a prosecution brought by a policeman named Balls, stationed at Fermoy, against Mrs. Foley, a respectable publican of Watergrasshill, for displaying a flag with the inscription "Cead Mille Failthe" from her house and place of sale; whether he is aware that it was sworn by another policeman that the flag was no obstruction, and that both the magistrates, after declaring that they were not acquainted with the law under which the prosecution was brought, and had never heard of any similar prosecution dismissed the case; by whom is the cost of this prosecution borne; and whether any remonstrance will be addressed to the policeman in question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that proceedings were instituted against the publican mentioned for persisting in a breach of the Licensing Laws after warning. The statements in the second paragraph of the question are true; but with this important addition, that an offence had been proved under the law; but that, as the defendant did not seem to be acquainted with the law in the matter, they dismissed the case with a caution. There were no costs incurred by the prosecution beyond the ordinary

  1073
  1s. stamp on the summons. The local police were acting in the discharge of their duty.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second part of the question, whether the magistrates did not state that they were utterly unacquainted with the law under which the prosecution was brought, and having never heard of any similar prosecution, they dismissed the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that the facts are as they are stated in the second paragraph of the question.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that this is the first case in which this man Balls has offended in a similar manner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must not understand that the officer referred to exceeded his duty.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to give notice that upon the Estimates I will again bring the matter under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.

  DR. AMBROSE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board intend taking notice of negligent inattention of Dr. Ambrose, of Newcastle, West, who on Thursday, the 10th ultimo, neglected to attend, on visiting ticket, until 7 p.m., although an urgent summons was given him at 9 a.m. on that date, the poor patient dying in the interim; and whether Dr. Ambrose is, or has been, obliged to reside in his dispensary district?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No complaint appeal's to have been made either to the local Board of Guardians or to the Dispensary Committee, alleging neglect on the part of Dr. Ambrose on the occasion referred to. The hours mentioned in the question are not consistent with the statement which has been made by the doctor to the Honorary Secretary of the Dispensary Committee, his statement being that he received a visiting ticket at 2 p.m., and was at the patient's house—a distance of five miles—about half-past 3 p.m. As regards the second part of the question, no change has taken place since the hon. Member who puts this question asked a similar one in regard to residence on 13th December, 1888, when it appeared that the situation
  1074
  of the doctor's residence was convenient for doing the work of the district.
  DR. TANNER: Has the Local Government Board Inspector taken steps, for the benefit of the poor people who come under the ministration of Dr. Ambrose, to ascertain whether the allegations which have been made are justified, and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire into the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that there was no negligence.
  DR. TANNER: From whom has the right hon. Gentleman received his information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No complaint appears to have been made either to the Board of Guardians or to the Dispensary Committee, and when such a complaint is made it will be time to consider it.
  DR. TANNER: If I give the right hon. Gentleman chapter and verse to show that the patient died in consequence of not being visited by the doctor, will the right hon. Gentleman condescend to give me a proper answer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Any communication that may be made by the hon. Gentleman will receive attention.

  CUSTOMS—MR. JAMES M'ALISTER.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. James M'Alister, Supernumerary Principal Clerk of the Customs in Dublin, is about to be superannuated against his wish, though in good health and only in the 61st year of his age; and whether, in the event of his retirement taking place, it will be a breach of the engagement made by a previous Secretary to the Treasury?
  *MR. JACKSON: Mr. James M'Alister, who held the office of principal clerk at the Port of Dublin, and who is now in the 61st year of his age, has, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of Customs, lately been put on the Superannuation List, after a service of 42 years, at the highest retiring allowance to which he could become entitled. Mr. M'Alister did express to the Board of Customs his desire to be retained in the Service a little longer; but as the place which he vacates is no longer required, and has, in fact, been for some time redundant of the proper establishment,

  1075
  the Board of Customs did not think that he had any case for appeal. There will not be in the case of Mr. M'Alister any breach of an engagement made with regard to him by a previous Secretary to the Treasury.

  SILVER MARKING.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I bag to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to Parliamentary Paper No. 59, "Foreign Countries (Gold and Silver Marking)"; whether, considering that every article of silver plate manufactured in the United Kingdom for home sale or for exportation must be of British standard 925, and must be hall marked; that the standards of all continental countries differ from ours, and for the most part from each other, and that most of them have marking systems of their own based upon their own standards, those standards are for the most part inferior to that of the United Kingdom; and that, in the case of foreign countries, although there are strict laws with reference to their home trade, manufacturers are permitted to make plate of any quality for exportation, British manufacturers can have similar commercial facilities extended to them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Theoretically I have no objection whatever to British manufacturers marking plate of any quality for exportation. I understand, however, that the great majority of the tradesmen are in favour of compulsory hall marking, and I do not know how the two can be combined. It is a matter for discussion, and it shall receive due consideration.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in reference to the Indian trade, that the manufacture is from rupee silver 916, and that this is slightly reduced in working?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I did not understand that the question referred to the Indian trade. I understood that the hon. Gentleman's question referred to the exportation of manufactured plate, and not to the importation of Indian silver manufactured articles. We do intend to arrange that Indian silver manufactured articles shall be imported with a special mark at the rupee
  1076
  standard, or with a special mark corresponding to it. That is the concession which we hope to make and in regard to which we are in communication with the Secretary of State for India.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will the Goldsmiths' Company not interfere with the arrival of Indian silver plate?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member must understand that I have given a full answer in regard to our intentions.

  KNOCKANORE POST OFFICE.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the amount of business transacted at the Post Office of Knockanore, dependent on Tallow, County of Waterford, is not such as to render desirable arrangements being there made for a Sunday delivery of letters?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): In the absence of my right hon. Friend I am authorised by him to say that he will be happy consider the question if, in conformity with the usual practice, a Memorial in favour of further accomodation is presented.

  THE POLICE RATE.
  MR. JAMES ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the power of levying the police rate rests with the County Council or the Standing Joint Committee?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The power rests with the County Council and not with the Standing Joint Committee.

  STRANGEWAYS PRISON, MANCHESTER.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the inquiry recently conducted by Captain Wilson in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, included charges against the chaplain; and, if so, what was the result of such inquiry?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): A complaint was made to a member of the Visiting Committee that the chaplain did not attend sufficiently to the prisoners in hospital.

  1077
  The Visiting Committee reported this to the Commissioners, and Captain Wilson accordingly investigated the matter, and, with the concurrence of a member of the Visiting Committee who assisted him in the inquiry, reported that the chaplain had performed his duties in the prison in a satisfactory manner, and that the information given to the contrary effect was unreliable.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, towards the end of last year, a prisoner, who had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment at Lincoln Assizes, was transferred, after he had completed six months of his sentence, from Lincoln to Strange ways Prison, Manchester, and after he had been there a few weeks was flogged, and shortly afterwards was sent back to Lincoln; and, if so, why was the transfer made, and for what reason was the prisoner flogged?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that this prisoner was sentenced on July 2, 1889, to 12 months' imprisonment. He was believed to be feigning insanity, and was placed in association and watched. After a time the Governor reported that the facilities at his disposal for placing prisoners in association were too limited to allow of the constant supervision of this man. He was accordingly removed to Strange ways, the nearest prison where accommodation in association was available. While at that prison on one occasion he was exceedingly violent, and his misconduct was reported to the Visiting Committee, who, after taking evidence and hearing, as usual, the opinion of the medical officer, sentenced him to be flogged. He has since behaved well, and some time after, on his asking that he might be sent back to Lincoln, where he could more easily see his friends, his wishes were complied with.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Am I to understand that the prisoner was under observation for insanity?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The plea was insanity, and the prisoner was placed under observation on that account.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Was this man forwarded to Strange ways Prison in order that he might be under observation there, being suspected of being insane?
  MR. MATTHEWS: He was not suspected of being insane, but insanity was pleaded on his behalf, and, therefore, he was kept under observation.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Was there not a case in which a prisoner last year was flogged and died after being flogged who was suspected of insanity?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Gentle man must give notice of the question.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter again.

  THE BUDGET SCHEME.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of duty levied per gallon of proof spirit contained in beer and in spirits respectively; the amount per gallon of proof spirits contained in beer, represented by the three pence per barrel which it is proposed under his Budget Scheme to allocate to local purposes; and the amount of Spirit and of Beer Duty paid during the last financial year by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until Thursday. I have had so many matters to attend to, and only having received notice of the question this morning I have been unable to make inquiry.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of gallons of home made spirits on which duty has been paid "retailed for consumption as beverages" in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively for the past financial year; whether he is aware that Scotland consumes close on three times as much home spirits as England in proportion to the population; whether the duty on home spirits is more than double the duty on other alcoholic beverages; and whether of the £1,304,000 to be set aside as grants in aid of local taxation the larger amount per head per population will be payable by Scotland?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I can only make the same reply to the hon. Member as that which I have given to the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron).

  THE TEA DUTY.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the losses which the retail dealers in tea would suffer if the reduction in the duty from 6d. to 4d. were to take effect from the 1st proximo, he will consider whether the date at which the reduced duty only will be levied can be postponed until 1st June, and thus allow the retail dealers an opportunity, such as was given to them when the duty was previously reduced, of getting rid of their existing stocks.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: This is a matter of very considerable importance, and I have been engaged in endeavouring to ascertain what, on the whole, would be the most convenient course in the circumstances. While, on the one hand, I have received a number of communications urging that the reduction should be postponed in order to enable the dealers to decrease their stocks, I am informed on the other hand that postponement would cause considerable confusion in the trade. I shall make inquiry, in order to find what will be the most convenient course. With regard to precedents, it is true that on the last occasion additional time was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian. But there were special circumstances then, and on former occasions the reduction came into operation at once. But I will make inquiry and answer the question on Thursday.

  BECHUANALAND.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the additional Estimate of £30,000 for Bechuanaland is to go to police charges, and how much to land survey; whether the lands to be surveyed are exclusively within the Crown Colony; whether the extra police are to be used solely in the Protectorate; and who are the Native Chiefs whose unfriendly attitude has caused this increase in the force; where is their territory situated; and what action is it intended to take against them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): £25,000 of the additional Estimate is
  1080
  for police and £5,000 for surveys. The answer to the second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. It is not desirable to name publicly any chiefs whose attitude is at the present time unfriendly, as it may be hoped that if patiently dealt with they will before long appreciate the protection afforded to them. Their territories are in all cases within the British Protectorate, and it is not intended to take any action against them, but only to prevent any possible interference with telegraph construction or the passage of traders and others through the Protectorate. With regard to the supplementary question put by the hon. Member, the first paragraph of the letter referred to shows that the offer was made by the British South Africa Company; and the second paragraph shows why it was declined, namely, because it was not desirable that the Bechuanaland police should operate beyond the Protectorate.

  WHITEHILL PUBLIC SCHOOL, GLASGOW.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch Education Department are aware that Black-friars Hall, Dennistoun, Glasgow, has been sanctioned as a free school and known as Whitehill Public School (No. 2 Temporary); whether it is a condition of admission to that school that a schedule of particulars be filled up and that the authority of the Glasgow School Board be received; whether he is aware that children, who applied for admission on Monday last week, have not yet been admitted, owing to the alleged want of sanction of the Glasgow School Board; and whether such restrictions on admission to free schools are in accordance with the Code or with law?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTYSON,): The Blackfriars Hall has been sanctioned as a temporary school under the name of the Whitehill Public School, No. 2. It is presumed that the school is to be one to which the relief of fees is to apply, but the School Board have been asked to submit regulations for this relief in terms of the Code. The Education Department know nothing of any such condition of admission to the school as is referred to in the hon. Member's question; and until I have further

  1081
  information on the point, I am unable to say whether the condition imposed is, or is not, in accordance with the Code or with law.

  HALF HOLIDAY TO WRITERS IN PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the recently issued Treasury Minute giving a half-holiday to writers in public Departments has been so far nullified by the power given to Departmental authorities to refuse the boon in cases where business was pressing; and whether the Treasury would be willing to give directions that in such a case a half-holiday in lieu of the one lost should be given as soon as the pressure was over?
  MR. JACKSON: The Civil Service Commissioners have issued a notice that copyists may, provided the Heads of Departments in which such copyists are employed are satisfied that the state of public business will permit, be allowed a half-holiday without loss of pay on alternate Saturdays. It is the essence of the concession that the state of public business permits the absence of copyists in hours for which they receive pay, and the Treasury cannot undertake to extend the privilege in a manner which would in effect lead to duplicate payment for the work.

  PLATE DUTIES.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the whole of the trade engaged in the manufacture of gold plate has been at a standstill since he made his Budget Statement; and whether he will consider the claim of the manufacturers to a rebate on the stocks in hand?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have received representations that the trade in gold plate has been thrown into some confusion by the proposed abolition of the duties on plate. Some inconvenience is, however, inevitable when an abolition or reduction of duty takes place as regards the articles affected. My attention has been exclusively drawn in respect of the difficulties in which manufacturers or others are placed as regards their duty-paid stocks to the case of wedding rings. As wedding rings have been for years
  1082
  specially exempted from a drawback on exportation, no question of rebate can arise in their case. But it may be worth considering whether an extension of the date for the duty on gold plate to come into operation would not convenience holders of duty-paid stocks.

  THE EDUCATION CODE BILL.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education on what day the Education Code (1890) Bill will be printed and distributed?
  *THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Bill will be delivered to hon. Members to-morrow. It is down for Second Reading on the 28th pro forma, but will not be proceeded with until a general discussion has taken place upon the Code.

  PROHIBITION OF MEETINGS OF POST OFFICE OFFICIALS.
  MR. PICKSRSGILL: I had intended to ask the Postmaster General whether he has prohibited meetings of telegraphists, sorters, and postmen outside the Post Office building for the discussion of official questions except under certain conditions; and whether one of these conditions is that "an official shorthand writer be present, if required by the authorities"? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

  THE LICENSING BILL.
  MR. BONSOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the provisions of the Licensing Bill will be made known before the Second Reading of the Inland Revenue (Budget) Bill?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): It is not in my power to give a definite assurance that the Licensing Bill will be produced before the Second Reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue (Budget) Bill; but I will take care that the general provisions of the Licensing Bill be made known before the Second Reading of the Budget Bill.
  MR. BAUMANN: Will the Bill apply to Ireland?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The provisions which are intended to authorise the raising of money can easily be extended to Ireland.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Are there to be two Bills—a suspensory Bill, and another Bill?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be two Bills. There will be a Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and a Bill dealing with the question of licences under the conditions explained by my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. BAUMANN: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if it is still his intention to give to the hon. Member for South Derry (Mr. Lea) any special and exceptional opportunity for reversing the decision of the House on the 26th of March?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a question of which notice must be given.
  MR. BAUMANN: Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the question of which I have given private notice.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: There is a Motion on the Paper which is intended to give the House an opportunity of re-considering the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill to-morrow; and I stated, in answer to a question put to me by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that I thought the House ought to have that opportunity, seeing that the effect of the Resolution moved with respect to the previous Bill was certainly not foreseen by the House at large, and the House, in fact, was taken by surprise. I am myself, therefore, of opinion that that Resolution does not bind the House; but it is not for me to interpret the Rules and Orders of the House: that is to be done by higher authority. If it is felt that that Resolution ties the hands of the House it would be desirable that by a Resolution of the hon. Member for South Derry or myself the House should be at liberty to consider the question, especially as the Bill would be nothing more than a continuance Bill with amendments.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: May I ask whether, when the Resolution was put from the Chair, a division was not distinctly challenged by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther)? I certainly
  1084
  cannot see how the House can be said to have been taken by surprise.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to know whether the Resolution will affect the Budget so far as it applies to Ireland?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I would rather not enter into a discussion of the question. The point can only be properly dealt with in debate. My opinion is not in the slightest changed by the remark of my right hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). I am convinced that if the House had realised the importance of the subject there would have been a Division.
  MR. BAUMANN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me plainly whether, if the Motion of the hon. Member for South Derry is not reached this evening, the Government intend to put down a notice on the Paper to-morrow morning?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: As at present advised, certainly the Government will do so.

  THE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  COMMANDER BETHELL): May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Budget Resolutions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to move in Committee of Ways and Means do not appear on the Paper?
  *MR. JACKSON: The responsibility rests with me. I understood that it had not been the practice to put the Resolutions on the Paper, but I find that that was done last year. My attention, however, was not drawn to that fact, and I followed what has been the general practice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    TEA.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in lieu of the Duty of Customs now chargeable upon Tea, there shall be charged and paid, on and after the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, the Duty following, and such Duty shall continue to be charged and paid upon Tea imported into Great Britain and Ireland until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one (that is to say):
    Tea …the pound Four Pence."
    MR. CHELDERS: A conversation occurred a few minutes ago in reference to the desirability of placing these Resolutions upon the Paper. The Secretary to the Treasury very handsomely took upon himself the responsibility of not having put them down to-day, but I trust that he will go further, and promise that the omission will be repaired in future.
    MR. JACKSON: I think that the general feeling of the House is in favour of that course, and I will see that, as far as I am concerned, it is adopted in future.
    MR. PICTON: While I am sure that we all of us rejoice that the Tea Duty is to be reduced, I trust that, at the same time, I may be permitted to express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has frittered away an opportunity of conferring a very great blessing upon the people of this country. We are often told that half a loaf is better than no bread, but the proverb scarcely applies to a third of a loaf. The taking away of a third of the duty will, of course, confer benefit upon some people, but not exactly upon the people whom the right hon. Gentleman himself desires to benefit. The Committee will remember the fervid eloquence with which the right hon. Gentleman urged and insisted upon the buyers of tea standing out for their rights. He was evidently afraid that they would not get the benefit of the reduction of 2d. Indeed, the language which the right hon. Gentleman used on the subject, if it had been used in Ireland upon a matter of popular interest, would most probably have subjected him to the attention of the police. He said that all buyers of tea should consider whether, by better organisation—which I take to mean combination—or by other means— which I take to mean the boycotting of refractory shopkeepers—they cannot secure to themselves the benefit of this reduction. I know that, at the present time, there is a very keen competition in the wholesale tea business, and, doubtless, enterprising merchants and middlemen will see it to their interest to give to those who buy from them the full benefit of the reduction of the duty. But how far this applies to the shopkeeper, and those especially who sell to the poor, is altogether another question. In
    1086
    suggesting this doubt, I do not wish to insinuate anything against the shopkeepers I am quite sure that they desire that the poor should have the benefit of the reduction of duty: but I question their capability of conferring it upon them. With regard to those who buy tea by the pound, or in larger quantities, it is easy to imagine how they will get the full benefit of the reduction of duty; but in regard to those who buy tea by the ounce, and they comprise hundreds of thousands of the population —probably millions—it is difficult to see how they can get any benefit from it at all. A reduction of 2d. per lb. amounts to half a farthing per ounce. I do not recollect having seen a half-farthing lately, and I do not think half-farthings are actually coined. Therefore, it may be difficult, if not impossible, to take off half a farthing per ounce, and consequently in regard to the enormous majority of the consumers of tea the reduction of 2d. will practically confer on them no benefit whatever. But there is another matter. This halfhearted measure for the reduction of the Tea Duties does not at all affect the evil principle of a tax which is essentially and necessarily an unjust tax, by reason of the disproportionate and unequal way in which it bears upon the rich and the poor. It still bears an enormous and an extraordinary disproportion to the value of the commodity. It amounts to at least 50 per cent. upon the average cost price of the tea before the duty is paid. I see from the Returns of one of the largest tea brokers, that of late the average price has been 8d. per lb., although some teas have fetched 9d. A duty of 4d. per lb. is 50 per cent. upon the price of the article—an enormous duty upon an article of necessary consumption. The light hon. Gentleman himself treated it as an article of necessary consumption, because, in urging upon the consumers the desirability of combining in order to obtain the benefit of the duty, he styled it an article of primary necessity. Yet, upon an article of necessity to the very poor, he is content to go on imposing a duty of 50 per cent. Further than that, it is an imposition which falls unequally upon the rich and the poor. The poor buy the cheapest tea they can get—fourpenny tea—and upon that the duty is exactly 100 per

    1087
    cent. What the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make for the dwellers in houses between £20 and £60 a year rent is essentially a middle-class concession—a concession to men of moderate wealth, with incomes ranging from £300 to £500 and £1,000 a year. From sundry passages in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I had hoped that something very much better might be expected from him. It will be recollected with what earnestness and manifest depth of feeling he dwelt upon the disgraceful fact that at every fresh wave of prosperity the population of this country rush to the beer barrel, the spirit tap, or the wine bottle, in order to attest that prosperity, while he knew that, at the same time, he had to acknowledge a diminution of the amount brought in by the Tea Duty. Some of us formed an inference, from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that he was about to propose a great shifting of the financial burdens, from those articles which are a necessity to a sober and decent life, to articles of luxury, such as intoxicating drinks. And he could have done so. He could have made an immense revolutionary change in the incidence of the burdens of the people, for he had a surplus of £3,4 59,000, to which he has rightly added an additional duty of 6d. upon spirits, which he expects to yield £500,000, and if he retains, for Imperial purposes, the extra duty upon beer of £350,000, he would have a surplus of nearly £4,500,000, which would have been sufficient to give us a free breakfast table. That would have been a bold stroke of finance, and would have been extremely popular to all sections of the people, while the right hon. Gentleman would have conferred a special benefit upon the most needy and the greatest number. Instead of that, the right hon. Gentleman has frittered away his surplus by dividing it among burdens the relief of which will be very little felt indeed. Take the House Duty; a man living in a £60 house will have to pay less by 15s. a year. What gratitude can the right hon. Gentleman expect for relief on that account? People do not scrutinise so very minutely the rate bills which come in from time to time. The cause of annoyance is that any rate bills come in at all, but a difference of 15s. between one year and another will not
    1088
    excite a fervid burst of gratitude in the breast of a man who is living in a £60 house, whereas, if every man's tea had been put into his house free of any duty whatever, all would feel the benefit. In his Budget Speech last year, the right hon. Gentleman used these remarkable words: "I admit that the Tea Duty is a Poll Tax on a very low scale." We all admit that of all taxes a Poll Tax is the most unjust. It takes no notice of a man's means, but presses with iron uniformity upon all alike. This tax presses more heavily upon the tea of the very poor than it does upon the tea drunk by the rich, and therefore, it is even worse than a Poll Tax. I do not believe that any one who takes a sound view of what is good for the prosperity of the country can ever support the plundering of the poor by a heavy tax, like this, upon what the right hon. Gentleman himself treats as an article of primary necessity to life. Then, again, let me consider another aspect of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman just now, in answering a question put to him from this side of the House, referred to the amount of confusion wrought in business transactions by the uncertainty of the amount of duty paid.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Temporary uncertainty.
    MR. PICTON: But the right hon. Gentleman in his speech also told us that one reason of the diminution of Revenue from this source was that for some time past people have been speculating on the reduction or abolition of the duty, and, therefore, that there has been much less doing in the tea market. Will not the same thing occur again this year? In no case can we suppose that a duty of 4d. can hold on very long, and this is one of the evils of Customs Duties imposed on articles of this kind. They always have an unsettling effect upon the market at particular seasons of the year, and when once it is felt, as it is now, that the duty is doomed, the uncertainty will increase and be felt painfully every year when we approach Budget day. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been doing a better thing for the trade if, once for all, he had settled the question by sweeping the duty away altogether. He has not done quite justice to the great

    1089
    Empire of India in the manner in which he has dealt with this question. I, for one, would be the very last to suggest that a protective difference should be made in charging the tea which comes from India less than the tea which comes from China. I object to all such differential duties, on principle, but, looking at the very rapid and conspicuous growth of the tea trade from India, surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that it is most important to encourage, as far as possible, this source of prosperity to our great Dependency. I do not think that it is treating India as an integral part of the Empire to charge duties on goods—especially goods of this character—that are sent to us from its shores. I hope that this point will be fully considered in regard to future Budgets. One word more in regard to the time for making this change. We all credit the right hon. Gentleman with a sincere anxiety to cause as little trouble as possible to the markets. I have been strongly urged by my constituents interested in the question to secure from him, if it is at all possible, some little delay in making the change. I trust that he will carefully weigh all the addresses which will be made to him from different parts of the country, and that he will do his best to satisfy the wishes of those who have a substantial interest in the matter. I hope that what he will hear as to the trouble occasioned by these constant changes will convince him, in future, that it is his first duty to make use of what surplus may be assured to him to sweep away, once and for over, a burden upon an article of primary necessity.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It would scarcely be thought that the duty which has been denounced by the hon. Member who has just sat down is one which has existed for 25 years at the amount of 6d., and that no serious attempt has been made during those years to diminish the duty. I have the good fortune to be the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who has been able to deal with this question by reducing the duty by 33 per cent., and I ought not, therefore, to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer who should be singled out by the hon. Member for maintaining part of the duty, while no attempt at the reduction or abolition of the duty
    1090
    has been made during the reign of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. The hon. Member wishes to persuade me that the duty ought to be swept away altogether, and charges me with having called it a Poll Tax, for the retention of which there is no justification. When I called it a Poll Tax, I meant that it was a Poll Tax, in the sense that it was borne by nearly every member of the community. This small tax is the only one of the Imperial taxes which rests upon the greater portion of the community, and if it were repealed a great number of persons would contribute not one single shilling to the Revenue. It has always been held that representation and taxation ought to go together. But, if so, the reverse is true also, namely, that taxation and representation should be combined, and that every person who exercises the franchise should contribute in some degree to the Revenue. I do not know whether hon. Members think that portion of the working classes who do not smoke and do not drink should contribute nothing to the Revenue. [Cries of "Hear, hear !"from the Irish Members.] If that is the view of hon. Members I am sure it is not the view of the working classes of this country. On the contrary, I believe it to be the general opinion that some small portion of every man's earnings should be contributed to the maintenance of the country. I would defend that principle before any working class audience. A very large question is opened up, but I wish to protest against the view that this tax ought to be entirely swept away, because it is a tax which rests, to a certain extent, on the working classes, and upon those who are in straitened circumstances. The hon. Member rather complained that the consumer will not gain by the 2d., but really his argument would almost go to the point that the consumer would gain very little indeed, even though the duty were taken off altogether.
    MR. PICTON: My argument is that we have no coin which represents half a farthing.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member made a mistake of supreme importance in this connection. Tea is not always sold by weight at all, but by the packet. In Whitechapel an enormous quantity of tea, is sold in ha'porths. The customer

    1091
    asks for a ha'porth and gets a certain amount of tea for the halfpenny. If the tea costs so much less the customer ought to get so much more in quantity for his halfpenny. I do not say that that will be so. It rests entirely with the good faith of dealers whether they get honest quantity and quality. I think the argument that the remission of 2d. will not benefit the consumer may be pushed a great deal too far, because, if it were well founded, it would almost go to show that you could never make reductions in articles of consumption. Wherever a reduction is made in the duty upon an article of general consumption, it should certainly go to the benefit of the consumers, and consequently they ought to feel the full benefit of this reduction of 2d. I believe that, where competition is good and effective, the consumers will get the benefit, and I have heard already, from many parts of the country, that grocers have advertised that the price of tea of the same quality has even now been reduced by 2d. per lb. In a vast number of places, the 2d. will distinctly go to the working classes and to the purchasers of tea; and where tea is sold not by weight, but by packet, it is possible to give the working classes immediately and easily the full benefit, and I hope it will be done. Now, I owe an apology to a portion of the tea trade, who think themselves aggrieved by certain words which I used the other day. I said that tea could be bought at 11d. and 1s., and that it was sold in certain villages at 2s., and even 3s. I have received vast numbers of communications from grocers and others on the subject, and I have to express my regret if I have, even unintentionally, in any way exaggerated the situation. But there is a large quantity of tea that is dealt with in this way; it is bought at 6d. or 7d., being separated into two qualities, of which the inferior would only cost 5d. or 6d., at most. That tea is sold somewhere. Is it sold to the better classes who are paying 1s. 6d. for their tea? While I express my regret to those to whom it is due, I am bound to say that I had in my mind dealers in distant villages, where there is no sufficient competition, and I know, as a fact, that in many such villages tea of no good quality, which ought not to cost more than 11d. originally, is sold at 3s. per lb. The Committee will forgive me if I
    1092
    dwell upon this matter for a moment. I think the tea dealers have a right to ask for an explanation on my part, and the Committee also have a right to an explanation how the working classes are to get the benefit of the 2d. This is no new question, but for years past I have thought that the organisations of distribution are too imperfect, and that the consumers generally do not get sufficiently the value when prices are cut down. I attach less importance to letters which I have received couched in identic language, than to some other letters, which are evidently genuine. I have not had time to make an inquiry as to what the facts are in regard to distant villages, but I have made inquiries, since yesterday, as to how tea is sold in parts of East London. An officer connected with the Customs went round to 24 different places, in order to see how the article is sold, and at what price. He bought a halfpenny worth of tea in each place, and it has been weighed since, and the samples work out at the following prices per lb. Sample No. I weighed ·49 of an ounce, and it worked out at 2s. 8½d. per lb. The other samples worked out 3s. 9d., 3s. 7d., 3s. 11d., 2s. 11d., 2s. 10d., 3s. 7d., and so on. One of the common facts of the system is that the dealers refuse to sell half-an-ounce. They say "We cannot give half-an-ounce, but here is a packet for a halfpenny." Now, I say, that that is a very unsatisfactory system. Of course, there must be a large profit when an article is sold in these small quantities; but when we find that tea which is not worth 1s. per lb., or even if it be worth more than 1s., say 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d., costs the retail consumer 3s. per lb., I say that that is not a satisfactory state of things. What I want to call attention to is this, that by the system of selling so much for a given sum dealers have it in their power to take the whole of the concession from the working classes. With regard to the House Duty, I entirely differ from the hon. Member. He seems to think that the benefit of the relief will not be appreciated, but that is because he takes a grandiose view of relief and of income. I know, from communications I have received, that the reduction measured by the hon. Member at 15s. a year, is a matter of considerable personal importance to persons occupying houses between £20 and £40 a year.
    MR. PICTON: Fifteen shillings a year would be the reduction to a man occupying a house at £60 a year.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: It is not only the question of the amount of the tax, but of other burdens in addition. If we add together the whole amount of duties paid by this class, it will be found that they are very heavy compared with those paid by the wealthy, and they feel that this 15s. is given to them as an acknowledgment of the principle that they should not be taxed more than is proportionate to their means. I have endeavoured, in constructing the Budget, to consider, as fairly as I could, the claims of every class of taxpayer. I have endeavoured, not only to consider the absolute pecuniary relief that can be afforded, but also the claims of classes of taxpayers all round, and the hon. Member is unjust in calling this a class Budget. I have endeavoured to lighten the burdens of taxation as far as I fairly could, and I believe that considerable gain will accrue to the working classes from the reduction of the Tea Duty.
    SIR W. HARCOIJRT: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the Budget generally, but one observation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so important that it ought not to be passed over without notice. It is one which, as a principle of finance, may have a large and extensive future operation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with reference to the House Duty, and said that he attached value to it. as establishing the principle of graduation in taxation. He has said that it is not merely the money he considers, but the fact that the rate at which the tax should be levied should be less in the case of persons with small incomes. That is a very important principle of finance, and is the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted as his basis in dealing with the Inhabited House Duty. This may be only a small beginning, but it opens up a large prospect in the future. I believe that it is a sound principle of finance, and it is one which I am not sorry the right hon. Gentlemen should have adopted as the principle upon which he is, more or less, constructing his Budget. I thought it necessary to take notice of this because the principle itself is far more important than the application of it the Chancellor of the Ex-
    1094
    chequer is making to-day. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation of his statement the other day in reference to the dealers in tea. I have myself received a large number of telegrams from dealers in tea, complaining very much of what was said the other night. They seem to have taken amiss what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I hope now that they will prove themselves in no way open to the imputation they supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer cast upon them, by giving the consumers full advantage of the concession made in the Budget proposal. We shall have an opportunity, upon the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, of referring to the Budget as a whole, and I do not wish to enter on the subject now; the only criticism I am now disposed to make as to the Budget is that there are rather too many bites to too many cherries. I would rather there had been a larger dealing with fewer subjects. I am sure we must all feel that this Tea Duty cannot remain upon its present footing. In reference to the Inhabited House Duty I am not sure that I can quite agree with my hon. Friend below the Gangway. I believe that a larger dealing with it would have been a great relief. The duty is unequal in itself, and is felt to be extremely hard. On small houses the duty is levied to the full value of the house, but we know that on large houses, large country houses especially, the assessment is ludicrously below the value. A man who lives in a house of £50 or £100 has his house valued to the full extent, but a man who lives in what, practically, is a palace is assessed at £300 or £400. This inequality is in itself a great objection to the tax; the highest value bears the lowest burden of taxation. I do not know that this can be redressed except by getting rid of the tax altogether. I know that there have been strong desires expressed for the remission of a penny from the Income Tax; but it should be observed that the remission of the whole of the Inhabited House Duty would amount to less than the remission of a penny on the Income Tax. Of course the remission of a penny on the Income Tax would be the greater boon to the richer classes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are now engaged with a particular Resolution having reference to the Tea

    1095
    Duty, and it would be against the usual practice to discuss the general effect of the Resolutions, as may be done when the Bill itself is before the House.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The Income Tax Resolution comes next.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I bow to your decision, Sir; but my excuse must be that I was following the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    THE CHAIRMAN: A reference by way of illustration in a general way may be permitted, but not entrance into a subject beyond the scope of the Resolution.
    MR. CRAIG: Before we pass from the subject, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is possible to introduce a measure to compel the sale of tea by weight whenever a purchaser demands it?
    MR. HOWARD: I should be glad to learn on what date the reduction of the duty is proposed.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM.: There is this disadvantage in taking off part of a duty, that the cost of collection remains the same whether the duty is 6d. or 4d. I rejoice in the fact of the reduction, for I believe that in a short time the Tea Duty will have to go altogether. I am one of those who would gladly see the duty taken off. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need have any fear, if the duty is abolished, that some portion of the community will eseape their portion of taxation. I do not quite see how a man can do that unless he is a very exceptional person indeed. I would remind the Committee that those who pay the largest share of this tax are the poorest people among taxpayers. Our system lays the greatest burden on the weakest shoulders. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to abolishing the Tea Duty, and adding something in the shape of a regulation of the Death Duties, he would do something to remedy this mistake, and I hope this view will be accepted in the future. A. successful Government will endeavour to make the path of the poor smoother, and certainly any proposal to lighten the burdens of the poor will have our support. For the reductions the right hon. Gentleman has made I thank him, though I wish
    1096
    he had been a little bolder. I hope future Chancellors will continue the work he has begun.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I only rise to confirm the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Howard), as to the feeling of the retail tea traders. I wish to express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the Tea Duty instead of the Income Tax, and I differ entirely from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Bristol.
    MR. HALLEY STEWART: We have wandered away somewhat from the incidence of the duty before us. I wish to point out how the duty works in the per centage paid. Tea at 4d. per lb. has, I believe, been sold for years past in the London market, and recently I saw tea siftings quoted at 2d. per lb. Yet this equally pays the duty with the high-priced teas. The new duty on the tea at 2d. will be 200 per cent., while on tea at 2s. 7½d. it will be only 20 per cent. Whatever may be said in favour of or against an ad valorem duty, this at least must be allowed, that the richer classes escape the burden of taxation to an extraordinary degree. I should like to say a word or two in vindication of the poorer dealers in tea. I do not think anyone who knows the circumstances of the poorer class of shopkeepers in London, those who retail to the poorer classes, will think their lot at all an enviable one. In this one article of tea, that which is represented as the sale of 11b. means the weighing and wrapping of, perhaps, 32 ½ oz. parcels and 32 payments. It is hardly fair, and does not help us to a right judgment, to tabulate this as the sale of 11b. in one parcel. You must take into consideration these conditions in contrasting the prices charged to small consumers with the prime cost of the article.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL): It seems tome were engaged in the somewhat ungracious task of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Now, in my view, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to give us a free breakfast table, he has made a great mistake in not giving us free education, which has been almost promised by the Government, and which

    1097
    we are bound to have. It is a great mistake to make a remission in a way that is not sufficiently felt; the right hon. Gentleman might have given it in a manner that would have been thoroughly felt throughout the length and breadth of the land. I disclaim all sympathy with the view of the hon. Baronet opposite in reference to the Income Tax, and I was struck with the remarks in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect to the effect of taxation on the richer and poorer classes. I am not sorry to hear the defence of the grocers, and I admit their difficulties; still I hope the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be appreciated, and that their effect will be to assist the consumers to obtain the benefit of remissions of taxation.
    MR.GOSCHEN: As to the time when we propose this reduction shall take effect I mentioned, at an earlier period, that I am making every inquiry to find what would cause the least disturbance in the trade. While, on the one hand, I have had many desires expressed that the change shall not take place at a very early period, on the other hand I have had remonstrances against delay. My answer to either must be the same, that I hope to give the information within the next couple of days. In reply to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Halley Stewart) I have to say that I did not intend to make any charge against grocers and others. I have been charged with exaggerating the difference between the cost price of tea and the price at which it is sold to the consumers, and I produced the figures to show that, from whatever cause it may arise, I attached no blame to anybody; the difference is extremely wide; it is for the Committee and for the public to judge if they consider the difference was exaggerated at all.
    MR. PICTON: There seems to be an impression that I have an objection to the reduction of the Inhabited House Duty, but that is not so. As between the two I prefer the abolition of the Tea Duty.
    MR. CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the question I addressed to him, whether it is within the power of the Government to provide for the sale of ten, by weight in the same
    1098
    way as the retail sale of coal is regulated?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: That is a matter upon which I cannot answer off-hand; it requires some consideration, and is not without difficulty. There is the convenience of the small consumers to be considered, and the question of interfering with the progress of the trade. It is, however, a matter worthy of attention, and this it shall have.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    INCOME TAX.
    2. Resolved that, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year which commenced on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):—
    For every Twenty Shillnigs of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Six Pence;
    And for every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the same Act,—
    In England, the Duty of Three Pence;
    In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of Two Pence Farthing;
    Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty Pounds, and in section eight of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876," for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds.

    CURRANTS.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    3. "That in lie of the Duty of Customs now chargeable upon Currants there shall, on and after the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety, be charged and paid upon Currants imported into Great Britain and Ireland the duty following (that is to say):—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Currants

    the cwt.

    0

    2

    0

    SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman now make some statement as to the time when the alteration must take effect? The currant trade is a season trade. I am informed that imports take place between September and December. So

    1099
    that large stocks are now held by grocers and others in this country, and, unless some drawback is allowed, the taking off of the duty at once will cause great disturbance to trade. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having made a very useful remission, especially to the poorer classes, but I would suggest that he should allow a drawback upon stocks if the change is enforced at once, or that he should postpone the remission until, say, September 1st.
    *MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I was about to make the same suggestion. I have received letters pointing out that the currant trade is entirely a season trade, and that postponement to the 1st of August would be a convenience to allow dealers to dispose of last season's stock. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the trade, I am assured he will find that there is a general view in favour of fixing the date as August or September 1st., but I merely give utterance to the views of correspondents, and profess no know-edge on the subject.
    *CAPTAIN VERNEY: I also have received communications from Co-operative Societies, strongly urging that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make this concession to the requirements of the trade.
    MR. CRAIG: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, there is one question I should like to put. He has told us that, as a compensation for this large concession, Greece has agreed to make reductions in the import duties upon cotton yarns and other productions of this country. I would ask, has not Greece commercial treaties with other countries in which the "most favoured nation clause" is operative, and under which those nations will claim similar reductions, unless the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in making the bargain, has provided that the reductions of import duties by Greece shall be given exclusively to this Kingdom?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I have received a large number of communications asking for further time before the remission of the duty on currants shall come into force, and, on the other hand, I have received remonstrances against delay. My answer must be as before, that I am making inquiries through the officers of Customs, and I hope to be in a posi-
    1100
    tion in a day or two to declare the decision for the Government. Of course; as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have no objection to the slightly-increased receipts which a postponement of the remission would afford, but my desire is to meet the views of all classes engaged in the trade. Of course a drawback is out of the question, it is only a question of postponing the date. As to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Craig) no doubt Greece has "most favoured nation clauses" in her commercial treaties, but providing we get the advantage of the importation of our manufactures into Greece upon a reduced tariff, I presume the hon. Gentleman, as a Free Trader, would not claim that we should have the protection of Greece against the imports of other countries. That would be a fair condition to make if we reduced a duty we otherwise had no inclination to reduce, but we reduce the Currant Duty quite as much upon its own merits as on the desire of the producing country.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is put under pressure to postpone the relief from the Currant Duty in the interest of the traders, but I think we have primarily to think of the interest of the public generally. I do not think it is of any advantage to the public to postpone the remission until August or September. I should imagine that the public desire to have their currants cheap at the earliest moment. I hope that will be taken into consideration, as well as the interest of traders. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not think himself under any pressure from this side of the House to continue the duty longer than he thinks right.
    *MR. HOYLE: Is it not the fact that between August and September the importations are small in amount?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, that is so. It is not a question of cheapening the cost to consumers; it is a question whether those traders who have their stocks should lose the amount of the duty they have paid, and it is their contention that this will not be affected by importations until September. A great deal depends upon the amount of stock necessary to keep in the trade. In the tea trade, be it remembered, the amount of stock is

    1101
    much smaller than in other trades. But I am examining the whole question.
    COMMANDER BETHELL): I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the traders who have stocks in hand have it not in their power to keep up the price until they resume importations under the reduced duty?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, that is an argument that has been put to myself, and there is force in it.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SPARKLING WINE.
    4. Resolved, That from and after the date of the passing of an Act embodying this Resolution, there shall, upon Wine rendered sparkling or effervescent and bottled in a warehouse, be charged and paid the same duty as is imposed by the "Customs (Wine Duty) Act, 1888," upon Sparkling Wine imported in bottle (that is to say):

    £

    s.

    d.

    The Gallon

    0

    2

    6

    This duty is to be paid in addition to the duty in respect of alcoholic strength under "the Customs Amendment Act, 1886."

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    5. Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY PURCHASE BILL.—(No. 19.3.)
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. COURTNEY in the Chair.]
Clause 2
SIR G. CAMPBELL): Before the 2nd clause is passed I should just like to ask the representative of the India Office whether it is usual, instead of saying in each case "The Secretary for India in Council," to insert a provision to the effect that wherever the term "The Secretary of State" is used, it shall mean "The Secretary for India in Council." It seems to me very misleading, and I think it would be better in every case to say "The Secretary for India in Council." I should like to know what is the usual practice.
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no doubt that the usual practice has been adhered to. All these Acts are drawn by one draftsman, and there is a common form.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to remind the Committee that this Bill was closured after 10 minutes' discussion on the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and in the absence of the representative of the India Office. I am anxious for an explanation on several important points with regard to this clause, and, hitherto, we have had no proper opportunity for discussing the matter, or for obtaining an explanation. I wish to give the Under-Secretary for India (Sir J. Gorst) an opportunity of giving us some explanation, and, with that view, I propose to move to amend this clause by reducing the amount proposed to be granted by the sum of £500,000. There are many questions on which I should like to obtain information. It seems to me that this is a notable instance of that which I have several times drawn the attention of the House to, namely, the abuse, as I regard it, of the system of guaranteeing Indian Railway Companies. I am very much disposed to sympathise with what, judging from his action, appears to be the view of the Under Secretary for India, namely, that the less the House of Commons interferes with Indian affairs the better. An exception ought, however, in my opinion, to be made with regard to financial matters. When it is necessary to come to Parliament for powers to deal with financial matters, it is well that some attention should be paid to the demand, and that the debate should not be closured after a 10 minutes' interval. I think this is a not able example of the extent to which the system of Government guarantees is carried. I am told that there are hon. Members who intend to oppose this clause altogether. I do not quite sympathise with them, because I am very much in favour of Indian railways being-acquired by the State. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot vote with my hon. Friends. My opposition is not directed against the purchase of this railway, but is confined to the extravagant terms on which the projected purchase is based. I am afraid that we are bound to these extravagant terms, but I object to the vicious system tinder which we are continually guaranteeing new Indian railways.

1103
When the construction of railways in India was in its infancy it was wise and just that considerable guarantees should be given, and the profit paid to the promoters of the early lines was legitimate. This South Indian Railway is not one of those old railways, but is a modern line. I think the Under Secretary mentioned 1873 as the date at which the railway was guaranteed. It has never approached paying the guarantee. It has been a continual loss to the Government of India, and now they want to buy at a very large premium—I believe a premium of about 30 per cent. It must have been a very unprofitable contract; and if the people of India have had to pay a very heavy fine on account of the improvidence of such transactions, we certainly ought not to go on giving fresh guarantees, as has been done in the course of the last few years. I understood the other day that it was not proposed to give any more guarantees. I hope my impression on that point will be confirmed, and that we shall avoid such jobs in the future by having no more guarantees. I cannot understand how there is to be a profit out of the transaction which this Bill is intended to authorise. I should like the Under Secretary for India to tell us what is now proposed. I observe a very peculiar provision in the Bill, namely, that the Government should raise money by loan or by Debentures, or in the shape of Capital Stock. I know that in several cases these railways have been bought up by the Government of India—I think to the advantage of the State. The Bombay and Baroda Railway has not yet been bought up by the Government of India; but the Government have leased the railway on certain terms, and the result is that a very large addition has been made to the profits of the line— profits which are, to a great extent, earned by the leased line. I think that the £100 shares of that line now stand at something like £185. I am, however, as I have said, not opposed to the purchase of this railway. I only want to know that the terms are not extravagant, and that nothing is conceded to the railway beyond what, in the strictest terms of our bargain, we are bound to concede. I beg to move that the sum mentioned in the clause be reduced by £500,000.
Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 2, line 15, to leave out £5,200,000, to insert £4,700,000.—(Sir G. Campbell.)
Question proposed, "That the words '£5,200,000' stand part of the Clause."
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): I do not think I should be in order in following the hon. Gentleman in all the remarks on Indian railway policy which he has engrafted on his Amendment. But it will, perhaps, shorten the debate if I so far follow the hon. Member as to explain what is meant by this clause of the Bill. In this case it is not for the Committee to sanction any guarantee. That was done long ago. It is an inheritance which we have obtained from our forefathers. I believe that if it were in order to discuss the past with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I could show that. the conduct of the Government in former days in guaranteeing these railways was not so extravagant and foolish as he seems to think. That is, however, necessarily a matter of ancient history with which we have at the present moment nothing to do. We came into an inheritance under which the Government of India was bound to pay the guaranteed interest on this railway, and we shall have to go on paying it.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Will you mention the date at which the guarantee was given?
*SIR J. GORST: It was long before the year 1873; because in that year two railways then guaranteed were amalgamated under the name of the South Indian Railway. Since that time the Government have had to pay the guaranteed interest. They have to pay 5 per cent. on upwards of £3,000,000 of Stock. The hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) shakes his head. Perhaps he will allow me first to make my statement, and then he can make his. This was the state of things before the purchase was effected. The Indian Government had to pay 5 per cent. on £3,066,344 of Stock. That amounts to a sum of £153,317 a year. It also had to pay 4¾ per cent. on a further sum of £142,164 of Stock. That amounts to £6,753. The amount of guaranteed interest which the Government, therefore, had to pay on the Stock of the Rail-

1105
way Company was £100,070. They had, besides that, to pay a guaranteed interest on Debentures. They had to pay 3½ per cent. on the £756,300 of Debentures, amounting to £26,470, and 3¼ per cent. upon £313,700 of Debentures, amounting to £10,195. The total guaranteed interest which the Government had to pay on Debentures, therefore, amount d to £36,665, making a grand total which the Government of India had to pay to the company of £196,735. That was the state of things on the 1st of March of the present year. On that date the Secretary for India had the right to purchase the railway. Of course, it was his duty to consider whether it was to the interest of the taxpayers of India that he should exercise that right or not. The price he was to give was not a matter of discretion, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy seems to think. The bargain was made in the year 1873, and, if purchased at all, the railway had to be purchased at a certain specified rate. The Secretary of State had no choice in the matter. He could buy it at that rate or could let it alone. The price was settled by the contract made in 1873. It was a sum equal in amount to the value of all the shares and Stock of the company, calculated according to the mean market value during the three years immediately preceding (he expiration of the year during the six months after the expiration of which notice was given. The notice was given in March. The Secretary of State considered whether it would be for the benefit of the taxpayer of India that he should buy the railway at this price. He assumed he would be able to borrow the money in the English Money Market at the rate of 3 per cent.; at par. That is the assumption, and if the Committee will pass the Bill and allow the Secretary of State to operate upon the London Market no doubt that can be done. If the Committee choose to stop the Bill until advantageous terms are not available, the blame of imposing an additional burden upon the taxpayers of India will rest with the Committee and not with the Secretary of State. If the money can be borrowed, the amount required is the amount stated in this clause of the Bill.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the premium to be paid?
*SIR J. GOBST: No premium is to be paid, but the price is settled in the contract.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the price?
*SIR J. GORST: I have read it once. The price to be paid is to be equal to the amount of the value of the shares.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the value according to the calculation?
*SIR J. GORST: I will tell the hon. Member if he will not interrupt me. According to the calculation, the sum of money which is to be paid is £5,267,557.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: What is the percentage on the original capital?
*SIR J. GORST: That is the price which is to be paid. I hope the rest of the Committee will understand the point. There is a contract fixing a certain sum of money. That sum of money is paid by the Secretary of State, and thereupon the line becomes the property of the Government. That being the sum, the interest, at 3 per cent. upon that sum, is £158,026, and there is a payment to be made to the Bank of England for carrying out the transaction, which amounts to £360 per £1,000,000 of Stock. That payment amounts, therefore, to £1,896. That is the cost of carrying out the transaction, making the total annual charge in the future, £159,922. Well then, inasmuch as the charge in question is £197,000, it is obvious that it is to the interest of the taxpayer of India that you should free India of that charge of £196,000 by incurring the liability for a future charge of £160,000. The annual saving to be effected to the taxpayer of India from the time that the transaction is completed will be £36,813. Now, that is the whole history of the transaction. The Secretary of State, having found that he could effect a saving of that amount to the taxpayer of India, gave notice to the Railway Company. The Government is now liable to pay that sum to the Railway Company. It only requires the sanction of the House to enable the Secretary of State to raise the money in the most convenient way—in the way in which it would be the least burdensome to the taxpayer of India to fulfil the obligation which is already incurred, and which the Secretary of State is legally bound to

1107
carry out. This explanation has been as short as I could make it, but I hope it has been satisfactory to the Committee. All that is really now required is that the House should sanction the Secretary of State borrowing in the London Money Market the sum of money which he has contracted to pay, because by doing it he will relieve the taxpayers of India from the obligation to which they would have been otherwise subjected.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I really do not know why the Under Secretary of State should have such an extreme objection to explain to us the exact terms in which this railway is to be taken over. The bargain was not that the railway should be taken over at a fixed sum, but that it should be taken over at a price equal to the average price for three years succeeding the date of the notice. That involves a very considerable premium upon the original capital. I want to know what the price was at which each £100 of the railway was taken over? The market price, I gather, was £130, but I wish the Under Secretary to tell us exactly what the sum was.
*SIR J. GORST: I misunderstood the hon. Member's question. If he merely asks what was the mean market value I may tell him that is 131·116279.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Now I understand it has been taken over at a premium of a little over 31 per cent. The result is that the railway, which has never approached paying the sum required to meet the guarantee, is to be taken over at a premium of 31 per cent. Such being the case, the calculation of the Secretary of State is that he can borrow money at 3 per cent., and that the result will be a large gain to the taxpayers of India. I want to know whether the Under Secretary can tell us deliberately whether there is any reason for believing that he can borrow in the English Money Market at par at 3 per cent. A further point I want to know is whether this £196,753 is payable annually—whether it is a permanent or a terminal annuity? If it is a terminal annuity is there not something which ought to be deducted?
*SIR J. GORST: The payment on one line is for 999 years, and on the other for 99 years. With regard to the price at which the Indian Government
1108
can borrow money, the hon. Member would do well to study the Money Market and the Times. My impression is that the Stock is above par.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India has had the very great advantage of being able to lay before the House a satisfactory and complete answer to the questions addressed to him from above the Gangway; but those questions were of so elementary a kind that one might almost have been spared them. My objection to this clause is of a very different character. If hon. Members had the time and convenience, I should invite them to examine for themselves the figures which bear on this matter in the account which has been furnished to us by the Indian Authorities. They will find that no two of the statements furnished to the House of Commons are in accord with each other. The Indian Financial Statement with regard to railways, the statement of the moral and material progress of India, and Blue Books which relate to railways, the annual Report with regard to administration of railway work and other things, are all different. It is perfectly impossible to make any two of them agree. The same observation applies with respect to the figures of Indian finance; they are absolutely misleading. With regard to the loss by exchange, those railway accounts are so manipulated that it is almost possible to produce any result you set yourself to produce with respect to the railways. But we have had lately, during the last two years, some further and better light in regard to their condition than we had previously. I mean a Report by an officer—I think his name is Colonel Conway Gordon—in which he deals at very much greater length and more clearly than any of his predecessors with these railway accounts. What do we learn? I ventured to say in the House some months ago that the accounts of these railways were cooked. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was very much shocked, and he said it was an unworthy suggestion; but I will quote an authority, which I think the Government cannot reasonably object to, and that is the authority of the Times newspaper, in an article reviewing

1109
this very matter of the Guaranteed Railways, including' the South Indian Railways. It says—
"That from first to last the grand total loss —actual and prospective — from thy Guaranteed Railways is set down at £34,844,000."
"The State lines," the writer of the article says,
"Have been always known to be unprofitable as a commercial undertaking, however defensible for military reasons;"
but there is an incorrect impression as to the Guaranteed Lines. They have been looked on in the past as yielding a steady revenue to the State, but now we are told the state of things is the very opposite. The explanation is that a sort of juggle has been practised over the shifting value of the rupee. The liabilities of the Guaranteed Lines have been incurred in sterling, and in sterling must be paid, while the receipts have been counted in rupees at an advancing rate of exchange, thus making the railways to appear what in reality they are not. That is a perfectly fair criticism, though I quote it from the Times, and I think it applies to every branch of Indian administration, as well as the railways. But in order to show how impossible it is to arrive at an exact financial estimate in connection with this proposed transaction, I find from the Revenue Account, that from the opening of the railway to the 31st March, 1888, the line has cost the Government 1,917,313 tens of rupees. The Railway Report gives the loss down to the 13th June, 1888, as £1,948,000. These two accounts are absolutely irreconcilable, because the one which gives the loss in sterling shows a total which is much greater than that which gives the loss in rupees, whatever rate of exchange you may take. According to the Act of 1874, the rate of exchange was to be 1s. 11d., so that on this item alone there is an error of nearly £250,000. Under these circumstances, it is not unnatural that inquiries should be made as to the exact figures, whether in rupees or in sterling, that the Government bases its proposal upon when it asks us to agree to this Vote. The Government say that the adoption of this scheme will enable them to economise to the extent of £36,000 a year. Well, I demur to that statement. I think it proceeds upon a
1110
fallacy—the fallacy that because a certain half-year's accounts of the company showed so small a margin of receipts over working expenses that the Government had to pay for that half-year a large sum of money to meet the guarantee interest therefore that liability is certain to recur annually for 999 years. I say that this is a fallacy, and I base my objection to it on the accounts of the railway itself, from which I find that so far from such an amount of 'money being required in a normal half-year, no such sum has ever been required before, and it often happens that the earnings of the railway have proved nearly sufficient to meet the liability. Now, Sir, the capital expended to the 31st December, 1888, was £4,095,000. For that year, the net revenue, after paying working expenses, was £160,000. The amount required to meet the guaranteed interest on the capital paid up and expended was, I think, £213,004. If you deduct the net revenue for the year at £160,000 from the total guaranteed interest, the balance for which the Government is really responsible is only £53,345. I do not know the rate at which the Government of India can borrow money in the London Money Market at the present time; but taking the account for the year 1888—the last year for which I, at any rate, have been enabled to obtain a complete account— it is perfectly clear that it requires nothing like £5,000,000 to meet the liabilities. I think the sum of £1,700,000 at the very outside would amply and adequately provide any funds necessary to secure the annual income for meeting any liabilities on the part of the company. If the Indian Government are able to raise money at 3 per cent., you do not want more than £1,750,000 to meet this liability. Now, the Government, for some reason or other, have apparently jumped at the opportunity of acting under the terms of the contract with the company, and have given notice of their intention to purchase the railway, and to purchase it under circumstances which are abnormally unfavourable. If they had considered the amount which they had been called upon to pay over and above the net Revenue during the last 10 years, they would have found that they did not require anything like the amount of money they now ask for. The arrangement as to price was

1111
entered into in the original contract in 1874, and it was practically the same as was embodied in the contract with the Carnatic Company 16 or 18 years before that. When the Government chooses, at a certain period, to give notice to buy up the line on the average of throe years' price of the share capital, is it not perfectly plain that the market value of the share capital has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the financial history of the line? Whether the line is making an enormous fortune or whether it is a hopeless failure, the Government guarantee of 5 per cent. will always keep the Stock up to the figures at which it now stands, namely, 131, and that is the price which is secured by the shareholders whenever they wish to part with their shares. In the case of a railway which, as a going concern, pays such a dividend as to justify a premium, the shareholder gets credit for that. Suppose the Indian Government purchases a line, which is very successful as a business concern, you will be in the position in which, if you had not purchased, and the company had gone on working the line, you, as a Government, would not have been called upon to pay a single farthing in respect of the guarantee of 5 per cent.; and in such a case there could be no reason for asking the House to make an advance for that purpose. But take the other side of the question. Suppose the line is in a bad commercial condition. Do you not see that you lose by making the purchase, because at present you are bound only to pay the 5 per cent., which you have guaranteed, whereas under this Bill you are not only going to make a capital payment which represents a liability equal to 5 per cent., but you are also taking upon yourself the responsibility of working a commercial concern which is hopelessly unsuccessful. On either horn of this dilemma, then, it appears that this proposal of the Government is an unwise one. So far as the shareholders of the line are concerned, it is a matter of supreme indifference to them whether or not the Government buy up the undertaking, for they, at any rate, are secure of 5 per cent. on their investment. It appears to me, on the grounds I have stated, that the Government are making a very great mistake, and I invite the House to consider the arguments I have put before it. Those arguments have not been met by
1112
any statement we have heard from the Under Secretary for India. I agree with the observations which have been made with regard to Guaranteed Lines, and that to continue our old policy as to them under the present circumstances would be a very great mistake. It may have had some justification for the past, but there is no doubt that the real secret of success in railway management is the incentive to personal gain and to dividend earning. Only the other day, at the meeting of the Legislative Council, the Public Works Minister, in a discussion on the Budget, spoke of the admirable example set by certain Indian Railway Companies which did not ask for guarantees from the State. I believe if the Government had refused to buy this line, and had left the company to work it under the strict supervision which the State is authorised to exercise, they would have caused this line, which has been increasing its traffic (both goods and passengers) for the last five or six years, to have earned the dividend of 5 per cent. for itself; and' if the company had failed to keep the line in repair, if it had failed in any way to do its duty, the Government would have had it in their power, under the Act of 1874, to do what repairs were necessary and to deduct the cost of those repairs from the guaranteed interest. I very much doubt whether the Government have exercised such a power in any case. If they had, I am inclined to think that this question of buying up lines would never have arisen. I invite the Committee to observe this fact, that we have not had a single word from the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount or condition of the rolling stock, as to the condition of the line, or as to the repairs which are likely to be required immediately after the Government takes over the concern. The right hon. Gentleman, too, has not mentioned that there is to remain an undischarged liability of £420,000 on account of the Debenture Bonds.
*SIR J. GORST: That is so. The Debenture Stock is irredeemable.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: There are Debenture Bonds and there is Debenture Stock. As I understand it, the sum of money provided for in the Bill will include the purchase money and a capital sum of £1,700,000 for Debentures, which are to be paid off when

1113
they mature. But over and above all, there is a sum of £420,000 which is to remain as a charge on the undertaking. Indeed, it is very difficult to make out what is the exact liability this Bill represents. We do not know the amount of liabilities ahead, or the condition of the line, or the amount and condition of the rolling stock. Yet these are points on which the Committee might reasonably have expected information.
SIR J. GORST: I think the hon. Member is mistaken in his ideas as to the supposed disastrous results of this proposal. He supposed that the railway might turn out to be an extremely bad concern, and would not pay working expenses. Well, the Government in such a case would not be obliged to go on with it. But, in regard to this particular line, there is no prospect that it will get worse than it is. What is the state of things now? The Government is liable to pay £197,000. Under the Bill it will be liable to pay £100,000, or a saving of £36,800, so that, even if the line only just pays its working expenses, £36,800 will be saved to the Indian taxpayer. But, supposing the line turns out to be an extremely good enterprise, and itself pays not only the guaranteed interest, but has a large surplus of over £200,000 beyond that at present, the Government, under such a state of things, would be relieved of the payment of the guarantee, but would not share in the surplus.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Yet the Government is entitled to a half share.
*SIR J. GORST: Yes; I am wrong in that. Bat if this Bill is carried, the Government will not only be relieved of the payment of the interest, but the £200,000 will go into the pockets of the taxpayers, so that on either horn of the dilemma the Government would have been a gainer by the transaction. The hon. Member has complained that I have given no information to him about the condition of the railway. My reason for not giving it to him is that such information is not relevant to the question before the Committee. If it had been a discretion as to purchasing the railway, such information would have been extremely relevant and would have had to be taken into consideration; bat this is a case in which the price was fixed many years since, and we are bound to
1114
buy at that price or not to buy at all. It is because it will be a profitable thing for the Indian Revenue to purchase the line at this price that this transaction is submitted to the Committee for approval, and I hope that this Bill will now be allowed to pass.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I think the real answer of the Government to the criticisms which have been advanced is to be found in the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State has apparently gone to the company and said, "I will buy the line." He has entered into an agreement, which is now of some months standing, for the purchase of the line, and whether that agreement is reasonable or not—I think it is fatuously foolish and extravagant, although the right hon. Gentleman thinks it wise and judicious—the House has no option bat to pass the Bill, and is merely going through a pure formality in doing so. It is all a foregone conclusion. True, it is scarcely a dignified position for this Committee to be placed in; and I must complain of the power which enables the Secretary of State to enter into a large negotiation involving the expenditure of millions of money without first obtaining the sanction of the House.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, because I am satisfied, that on the whole, the proposal of the Government will be an advantage to India. But I hope we shall take warning from the result of this transaction and not enter into such imprudent engagements in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses agreed to.
Bill reported to the House without Amendment.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS V.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17.640, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the

  1115
  Expenses of Various Services (other than Consular) in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
  MR. HANBURY: This is. I think, one of the most unsatisfactory Votes which comes before the Committee. The object sought to be attained by the expenditure of money in this direction is no doubt good, but the means employed to bring about the object have been of a most unsatisfactory character. The Vote, too, appears on the Paper without practically any information being provided as to the results achieved by this large expenditure of money. In addition to this, I would point out that this Vote does not represent the expenditure incurred in the suppression of the Slave Trade. As it is, the results are very small indeed considering the loss we annually sustain in Slave Trade hunting in Africa, and the vast amount of life sacrificed in this miserable business. The fact is, that the result of our whole expenditure is only about 130 to 150 slaves liberated from year to year. This is very unsatisfactory when we remember that the number of slaves we liberate only amount to l–20th or l–30th of the miserable creatures captured in the interior of Africa. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total cost we incur in the suppression of the Slave Trade on the Fast Coast of Africa. Of course, the expenditure, properly so-called, is stated here; but I want to know what is the additional cost incurred by our Navy? There is no doubt it is a very unsatisfactory work for the Navy to perform, and it is also to a certain extent demoralising to our men, there being constant complaints of the service that has to be carried on upon the East Coast of Africa. Besides the cost to which our Navy is put on this service, I want to know what results are shown for the continuance of this system; also what causes are in operatain on the African Coast to prevent its being worked effectually; what nations there are whose flags still cover the Slave Trade; whether France is still ottering obstructions to its suppression; or whether there is any other country whose flag is being abused in a similar manner? I also want to know what has been the result of the suppression of domestic slavery at Pemba? I would
  1116
  further ask is it not possible to go about the suppression of this trade in a totally different fashion? The present system is practically obsolete. It is a relic of the old days of sailing vessels, when the best way of suppressing the trade was by sea; but those days have gone by. We have now penetrated the interior of Africa, and we know how slave-hunting is managed. From all that is told to me by people who understand the subject we shall do more for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and at a much less cost, if we take up a position in the interior and stop the trade at its source—that is to say, if we were to take up positions on the main caravan routes, and stop the trade along those routes. The advantage of this plan would be that, even if the present amount of the trade continued, we should save the enormous expenditure of life which is at present incurred in carrying the slaves from the interior to the coast. I regard this as an important matter, and I am confirmed in my view by Commander Cameron, who states, in an article contributed to one of the Reviews, that it is quite possible, by establishing military stations along the lines of route from the Great Lakes, to stop the caravans, which he says could be done for from £50,000 to £70,000 per annum. I do hope that the Foreign Office, looking not so much at the importance of the English trade with Africa as at the importance of effectually suppressing the Slave Trade, will not let the so-called understanding between ourselves and Germany as to the sphere of action of the two Powers remain in its present unsatisfactory state. The Great African Lakes are of the first importance in the consideration of this question. Who is to be master of those lakes? That is a point which is still undecided; and although we are told that Germany has undertaken not to do anything outside her own sphere of interest, which is almost defined with regard to the Great Lakes, I say that in the interests of Africa, which is being depopulated at the rate of about 2,000,000 a year, it is time we came to some understanding with Germany as to who should be in a position to go to those lakes, and so tap and destroy the Slave Trade at its main source. Or, at any rate, if we cannot come to an understanding as to who should be

  1117
  master, why cannot we come to an understanding as to why we should not work with Germany in the neighbourhood of the Great Lakes, just as we have come to an understanding with Germany as to the suppression of the Slave Trade on the sea-coast? If something is not done in the way of such an understanding with the great Power which, with ourselves, is becoming a predominant power in that part of the world, it may happen that if the Slave Trade is allowed to go on, when we come to deal with those lake districts we may find that instead of a trade being open to us there, there will be nothing but a desert, which will be of no use to anybody. I do not propose to move a reduction of the Vote; but I do hope that the Government will take up this question in a more masterly and businesslike way than has hitherto been the case. I cannot but think we are muddling away a great deal of money with but little or no result. If the Government will only adopt the suggestion I have made as to occupying stations in the interior along the route to the Great Lakes, I believe they will do away with at least nine-tenths of the horrors which are constantly occurring in the conveyance of slaves to the coast.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Although I do not believe we have done all we could in the suppression of the Slave Trade, I believe we have done a great deal of good, and I trust that the Government may see their way to support any operations it may be seemed desirable to take in the interior of Africa for the suppression of this traffic at its source. I venture to think that it is beyond the power of the Government to establish military stations in the interior of Africa; never the less, I hope they will support the many endeavours now being made to open up that great Continent for the introduction of commerce and other civilising influences which will tend to stop this infamous traffic at its Source.
  (5.12.) MR. DILLON: I desire to support the argument urged by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), and in doing so I have to state that I was about the first Member of this House to attack the principle on which the suppression of the Slave Trade was carried on by this country, and the
  1118
  mode in which the work of suppression was administered. Three or four years ago I pointed out that, in my judgment, as far as I could gather from the books I had studied on the subject, the system carried on by the British Government in attempting to put down the Slave Trade by the employment of British cruisers on the African Coast, instead of being the means of suppressing that trade, had only had the effect of increasing and intensifying it. On that occasion I did not receive the support of a single Member of the Committee of this House, and the consequence has been that I have not brought the subject forward since. It is now more than 15 years since Dr. Schweinfurth, one of the greatest travellers in the slave districts of Africa, pointed out that the efficiency of the British cruisers in the Red Sea, for the suppression of the Slave Trade was absolutely illusory; and he also gave full details of the sufferings to which the slaves were subjected, and the methods by which they were captured by the Arab traders. The result of his information was that, so far from our diminishing the evils inflicted on the slaves, for every slave brought down to the coast and captured by the British cruisers probably two or three slaves were captured from the interior of Africa to supply the places of those who were thus released. It is manifest that there are only two ways of interfering with the Slave Trade in a manner likely to prove effectual in diminishing the sufferings the slaves have now to undergo. In the first place, you must stop the supplies of these slaves at the sources whence they are obtained, or, in the next place, you must stop the bringing down of the men en route; because so long as you have an increased demand for slaves, and as long as the Arab traders have an interior field to operate on in providing the supply, the only result of our interference in the conveyance of those poor creatures from the coast will be that for every slave we intercept and set at liberty the Arab traders will obtain an increased number to supply the loss. Probably, for every slave delivered in the slave markets of Arabia, as many as 10, or probably 15, will be killed or destroyed on their way down from the interior; and therefore it seems useless to expect that we can suppress this in-

  1119
  famous trade by dealing with it in the way we have adopted. It is a perfectly illusory and useless method, and I go further, and say it is mischievous. You have three or four cruisers in the Red Sea, and there is a considerable loss of life, even to British sailors. It is a most unhealthy region in which to keep British sailors. As a result of the presence of these cruisers, you have nothing but an increased loss of life and additional suffering to the negroes of Central Africa. It has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite that he would desire to see the Government support a movement by the German and other Governments in favour of stopping the Slave Trade. In my judgment, the first step towards concerted action is to get rid of the sham, and let the public know that no honest attempt has been made to put down the trade. After 15 or 20 years in the Red Sea, you have not made the smallest impression on the trade, nor saved the life of a single negro. It would be a good thing to drop this Vote out of the Estimates, on the general principle that it is wrong to waste money. But there is the higher object of bringing home to the public of England that no serious and earnest effort has been made to put a stop to this trade, which is a blot and disgrace to the whole of the civilised world. Nothing is more certain than that a fourth of the cost lavished on useless wars would have sufficed to stamp out this trade in six months. Eastern Africa is in a peculiar position. The hon. Member is not prepared to put military posts into the interior of Africa. I do not suppose he is, because Prince Bismarck would not allow it. We are informed that we have got one of the greatest Foreign Ministers England ever possessed. I do not pretend to be very well versed in foreign affairs; but all I know is that, wherever you go in Africa and Australia, the people living there appear to think that we cannot move without the sanction of Germany. In Samoa it was so, and it was the same thing in New Guinea. And if England stands by in Eastern Africa, it is that by some mysterious bargain, the details of which we do not know, that part of Africa is under the control of Prince Bismarck, in pursuance of what is known in America as the "Deal." I hope the German people will
  1120
  make a better use of their power than the English people have done, and that they will deal with this trade, having the English people, if it be necessary, to assist them in their efforts. Still, I think, it would be the best way to open the eyes of the people of England to the truth of this question, if this Vote were removed from the Estimates, letting them know frankly that the day has gone by for their cruisers in the Red Sea. If you do that, you will take a great step towards inducing the English people to take up this question in a really earnest manner.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Sir, I will offer some considerations to the House, why it is undesirable at this moment to enter upon an extended debate of the policy of suppressing the Slave Trade, or upon the further measures which may be thought desirable to give effect to that object. The Committee will remember that there is at this moment a Conference of nearly all the Powers of the world sitting at Brussels, on the initiation of Her Majesty's Government, to consider this very matter. Every possible suggestion that experience can suggest for more effectively suppressing this devastating trade is now being considered by selected experts from all the nations of the world. Every practicable suggestion will be considered with the greatest possible advantage. The suggestion of my hon. Friend below the Gangway must occur to persons who are at all conversant with the history, and especially the recent history, of the Slave Trade. It must be evident that you only palliate, if in some respects you do not aggravate, the horrors of the Slave Trade if you merely cut it down on the seaboard, leaving almost untouched the area of its origin. Our information has brought closely to our knowledge the manner in which the slaves are brought to the East Coast of Africa. They are used as porters for the conveyance of valuable merchandise for export. It is only the miserable remnants of the caravans, that have traversed hundreds of miles to the seaboard, who, if opportunity offers, are put on board some vessel and transported to the markets of Zanzibar and different parts of Asia. The hon. Member has said that we do no good by our operations to put down the maritime Slave Trade;

  1121
  bat it is a fact that since the British and German squadrons have been operating in these seas the Slave Trade has there ceased. Great efforts have been made, for a long series of years, by Her Majesty's Navy to put down the Slave Trade, but I have always admitted that we do not strike the evil at its roots in employing these measures. Bat I cannot, on that ground, agree that those measures ought to be abandoned; but, undoubtedly, it is a reason why we ought to take some further measures, if possible, to save the remnant of the people who, at this moment, are being so extensively scourged and destroyed by this iniquitous trade that thousands of square miles of territory are absolutely devastated. As to the establishment of military Ports on the Lakes, the Committee will at once recognise the the difficulty of establishing them without a base, while for their relief you might be led into undertaking military expeditions of unknown magnitude. It is exactly to check the progress of the Slave Trade in Africa, by the adoption of measures additional to those in use on the seaboard, that this Conference in Brussels is sitting. Therefore, I venture to think Her Majesty's Government, in promoting that Conference, have taken the best means of ascertaining how to deal with this trade, seeing that, hitherto, the efforts of this country have been applied to only a small part of Africa. The hon. Member asked what Powers permitted the Slave Trade to be carried on. I know of none. The French have consistently refused to allow their ships to be searched by the ships of other nations, but, in recent years, the extensive granting of licences by agents abroad have been stopped, the abuse has been rectified, and French vessels are not now sailing, under cover of the French flag, to prosecute the Slave Trade. I do not think there are any other remarks on the general question which I need offer to the Committee. I venture to think the Committee will not draw back from the work this country has for many years pursued, for which it has made such great sacrifices, and in which it is now honourably engaged in concert with the other nations of Europe.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I should have thought that some discussion on this Vote would have tended to strengthen the hands of
  1122
  the Government. I am bound to say I have long thought that our present methods of suppressing the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa have done very little good. On the West Coast we were extremely successful, but on the East Coast the circumstances are quite different. The vessels employed in the trade are small, and can easily escape the observation of our cruisers. I do not desire to get rid of the cruisers, however, because, although I do not think they do much good, I should hardly like to say that they do none. The right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary put his hand on the sore when he said that the large amount of the Slave Trade arose from the necessity of carrying ivory to the coast. If roads were made for the traders you would get rid of a great deal of the Slave Trade in East Africa. In the last few years part of Africa has been very much opened up, and the result is that what I may call the centre of gravity of the Slave Trade has been removed very much to the north—to the neighbourhood of the Victoria Nyanza. I do not think there would be any serious difficulty in establishing military forts on the Lakes, but I do not think that would be the true way of suppressing the trade. I believe the true way is to encourage the opening out of the country, and to try and get animals of some sort that will do the work of transport more cheaply than the slaves do it. No doubt, in both the German and British spheres of influence, a great step has been made in stopping the trade by opening up the country.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I quite accept the view of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that we cannot go into this most difficult question of the Slave Trade at a time when a Conference is sitting on the subject. I may say, however, I do not think the establishment of military forts in the interior of Africa is so easy a thing as the hon. Member seems to think, and I consider that the only alternative to our present policy is the occupation of large tracts of country. I confess I notice with some regret that, in the course of his travels, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) seems to have inherited a large amount of Jingoism, as was evidenced by his remarks respecting the Germans in East Africa. I wish to call attention, however, to a more practical subject in con-

  1123
  nection with this Vote. £16,000 out of the £26,000 seem to me to have no connection with slavery whatever. It is the amount of a subsidy to the British India Steam Navigation Company for a, mail service to Zanzibar. I do not know why this is put in the Slave Vote, because it certainly has no direct connection whatever with the Slave Trade. It seems, however, that it is a very easy way of getting the item through by putting it under the Slave Vote. The suppression of the Slave Trade is an object which will justify almost anything in the eyes of the people of this country. I observe that the British India Steam Navigation Company is very intimately connected with the East African Company, and it seems to me that this item in the Vote is something very like an indirect subsidy to the East African Company. I want to understand why the amount appears in this Vote, and what is the nature of the subsidy. I also want to know why they contracted so much with the British India Steam Navigation Company for service on the East Coast of Africa. I want to know if the East African Company, or any other Companies, are to pay anything towards this Contract Service?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The reason the subsidy paid to this Company appears under this Vote is, because it has, for many years, so appeared. I admit the justice of the hon. Member's criticism, and I suppose the explanation is that when the contract was made many years ago it was found that the mail service was of great assistance in keeping up regular communications, and thereby checking the Slave Trade. The contract has been presented to the House, and an explanation of it will soon be made, when hon. Members will have an opportunity of discussing it. The companies referred to do not contribute to the subsidy.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me pointed out the great benefit of communications by land for the putting down of the Slave Trade. When this subsidy was first granted there was no question whatever of opening up Africa by land, but since that time we have made a considerable advance, and we know now that there is a fair prospect, through the "spheres of influence" and the German and English
  1124
  Companies, of opening up Africa by land. Formerly there was no regular communication with Zanzibar at all, and one of the recommendations of the Committee, which sat nearly 15 years ago—and which I had the honour of serving on—was that the best way of putting down the Slave Trade was by encouraging legitimate commerce, and that commerce along that coast would be encouraged if a subsidy were granted to a steamship company, so that there might be a regular communication. This was unanimously agreed to, and thought a very practical measure at that time. Whether it may be necessary any longer I cannot say. I suppose the contract is entered into for a considerable time, and I can conceive it possible that when it comes to an end it may be advisable to reconsider its continuance.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the present moment is inopportune for the discussion of any general measures for the suppression of the Slave Trade, as the Conference is still sitting. But since such a strong expression of opinion on the subject has been put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo, and the point has also been dwelt on by other hon. Members, I do think it is only right that those who think differently should put forward an equally strong expression of opinion. I do not at all agree with the hon. Member that no honest attempt has been made by this country to suppress the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa and in the Bed Sea. I think a considerable amount of success has attended our efforts, and I am quite certain of this, that public opinion in this country will never sanction—at least not in our time—the course of policy recommended by the hon. Member, that of abandoning these attempts to put down the Slave Trade. At the same time, I am free to confess that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston possibly does go a little too far. The establishment of military posts up in the interior of Africa would, clearly, involve this country in very serious responsibilities, to an extent to which we cannot quite see the conclusion. I think our true policy in this matter is to support the pioneers of civilisation in Africa—to give our moral support to the Mis-

  1125
  sionaries, and the commercial companies and traders who venture into these regions. It may occasionally be necessary for that moral support to take the form of military expeditions. It always, of course, involves naval operations. Beyond that I do not think the public would support the Government in going. But I am quite certain that public opinion would not support any abandonment of the measures now taken.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to me to put the cart before the horse, for he proposes that we should first vote the money and then take into consideration the terms of the contract. I apprehend that the contract is a new one, under fresh terms, for I see that last year we voted £6,870, with a Supplementary Vote of £3,000, and that this year we are to vote £16,000. I do hope that after, the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that this contract only appears under the Slave Trade Vote because it always has done so, in another year we shall not find these Estimates arranged in such a form as to deceive the country, making it believe that this money is spent in the suppression of the Slave Trade, whereas it is expended for other purposes. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said it was undesirable that we should enter into a discussion of this Vote at the present moment. Well, I never yet heard any proposal to enter into a debate on any Estimate which was not met by the Minister in charge of the Estimate explaining that under other circumstances the debate would be desirable and legitimate, but that under present circumstances it was neither the one nor the other. Why does the right hon. Gentleman say it is undesirable to discuss this matter now? It is because there is at the present moment a Conference sitting on he question. I should have thought the fact that a. Conference is now sitting at Brussels on the subject of the Slave Trade would make the present discussion particularly appropriate, as Ministers would desire to receive suggestions from Members for the assistance of the Conference. I do not approve of the suggestion to establish forts in Africa, as that course has always been followed by the annexation of the surrounding' country, and I have always
  1126
  thought that King Theodore explained the thing pretty clearly when he said—
  "I understand your civilised countries. You send to us first your missionaries, then consuls to look after the missionaries, and then armies to look after your consuls—and what becomes of the poor African?
  I do not think anything would be gained so far as the Africans are concerned, by the establishment of these forts. The specific complaint is that money is wasted by the attempt to put down slavery in the Red Sea. When we first went to Suakin the plea was—though we have changed it a dozen times since—that it was necessary to undertake the expedition in order to suppress the transport of slaves from Africa to Arabia. We expended millions then, and have expended millions since, but all to no purpose, so far as I can make out. Where on earth do the slaves go to? A certain number come down to the coast as porters, and then go back. We utilise their labour. The fact that Stanley, who was sent to relieve Emin Pasha, employed many slaves in his expedition makes it difficult for the people of Africa to believe that we really wish to put a stop to the Slave Trade. If we did away with the slave markets in Turkey, Asia Minor, Arabia, and Egypt, there would be no profit left for those who took the slaves across the Bed Sea. It is impossible to prevent slaves from being transported across, seeing that it is not like a wide ocean which takes days or weeks to cross. We are ready to spend money for the suppression of the Slave Trade, but we want to spend it to the best advantage. It is impossible to prevent it by the measures we at present adopt, and we ought to consider whether there are not some practical means of laying out our money to better advantage than we do at present. The system we now have in practice, it seems to me, has proved, to all intents and purposes, almost entirely ineffectual for suppressing the trade in slaves across the Red Sea.
  MR. J. MACLEAN: I was glad to learn from the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that if we pass this Vote to-day we shall have another opportunity of discussing the enlarged expenditure that is to be granted for the Mail Service of the British Indian

  1127
  Company. My recollection is that this Service was first suggested by Sir Bartle Frere, when he went on a Mission to Zanzibar. He said it would be one of the most effectual means of substituting legitimate commerce for the illegitimate commerce known as the Slave Trade. The extension of this expenditure raises a serious question of policy, because it is pretty well-known that the leading men of the British Indian Company are also the principal directors of the East African Company that has obtained the Charter giving it such large powers in Eastern Africa. I think the House ought to know a good deal more about the working of these Chartered Companies, and the powers they possess, and the extent to which this House is prepared to back them up, than we have yet had an opportunity of learning. We know there is not only the East African Company, but the South African Company, who have obtained a Charter. Are these Companies formed merely for the purpose of putting down the Slave Trade, or to what extent do their powers go? The hon. Member for Preston has suggested that England should establish a chain of military posts from Zanzibar right up to the Nile, but I do not think that a country which a very few years ago abandoned Khartoum would be likely to approve a policy of that kind. But it seems to me that if these chartered companies are allowed to go on with their operations we may be committed to serious responsibilities in both East and South Africa before we realise fairly what we are doing. It is the tendency of this country to commit these large powers to these companies, in order to avoid fixing responsibility on the Government itself, and having to undergo the ordeal of criticism in this House. But we know from the history of our difficulties in the past how conflicts have arisen.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting astray very wide of the Vote.
  *MR. J. MACLEAN: I will stray no further, Sir, and was only led so far by remarks made in debate. I will only say that I think it is desirable we should clearly understand what powers these companies possess, and the position in which they may ultimately land this country.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: In a very few words I venture to express an earnest hope that the Government will not relax their efforts in the slightest degree for the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, notwithstanding what has been said by some hon. Members opposite. It may be true that those efforts have not yet been successful in accomplishing their end, but certainly they do operate as a check upon that most inhuman traffic. I admit that the facilities for transporting slaves from Africa to Arabia causes our operations to be evaded and eluded, but we ought to do what we can, even though our exertions do not meet with all the success for which we might hope. The hon. Member for Northampton was quite right when he said it was to the markets of the Slave Trade that we must look. The market in Egypt, I am glad to say, is rapidly closing, and I trust that that at Constantinople will soon be closed. But there is one very prominent market which, I am afraid, will be more difficult to deal with, namely, Jeddah, which is the seaport in the Red Sea for Mecca, and the point at which pilgrims from India debark when they go to Mecca. However, we have a Consul at Jeddah and therefore we have some means of supervision and of acquiring knowledge as to the progress of the Slave Trade in that market. I remember once taking part in the development of that Consulate. Still, I must remind the House that too much must not be expected from any supervision of that kind by us. For the jurisdiction there is not ours, but is nominally Turkish. If we had the authority there we might strike a blow at the Arabian. Still, we may exercise influence. If we make the most of our opportunities we may do something, at all events, to bring the moral influence of this country, of Europe, and of the world, to bear on this market, which really forms a basis for a part of this dreadful trade.
  MR. PICTON: The hon. Baronet has hardly done justice to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), who urged that the money spent on this object is to a great extent wasted, because it is not supplemented by efforts to prevent the Slave Trade on land. It is not possible to do this by a chain of forts across the country; but this I do say, that no

  1129
  procession of slaves, whether used as porters or otherwise, should be allowed without interference to pass any British post or through any district where we hold influence.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: May I ask whether the East Africa Company is not identical with the British India Company carrying mails to Zanzibar? Also I wish to know is not the Company in the habit of using forced labour for the carriage of goods into the interior from the coast? I believe it is intended that the East Africa Company shall make a railway into the interior, and that is all very well; but we have it on record that Mr. Stanley's expedition was supported by slave porters, and I should like to know whether this Company to whom we are voting this sum follows that practice—hiring slave labour?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The point to which the hon. Baronet referred is a very important one. In a place where all, or nearly all, servants are in the position of slaves, and slave labour is the only labour to be got, it is a very difficult point to deal with, but I believe that everything is done to see that those employed do get fair wages for their work, and strict regulations have been laid down by which that object was secured. But the East Africa Company has done a very great deal to establish free labour in their sphere of influence, and have made great sacrifices in obtaining the freedom of large numbers of slaves who have taken refuge in their stations, or in mission stations; they have always relieved them from the necessity of returning to their masters. More than that, they have enabled many slaves engaged in the labour to obtain their freedom, and it has been their main object to establish free labour in their sphere of influence to a great extent, and thus gradually to substitute it for the services of slaves. With regard to what has been said as to the identity of the British India Company and the East Africa Company, it is quite a mistake to suppose that they are the same; though they have the same Chairman, the Board of Directors and shareholders are different.
  MR. DILLON: From whom are these slaves purchased? I have
  1130
  always understood that the British Government refuse any recognition to slavery, but if this East Africa Company has been in the habit of giving a price for the purchase of a slave's freedom, that is an evil practice that should cease at once, for it really is an encouragement to Slave Trade.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I stated the reverse of what the hon. Member for East Mayo has alleged. I did not say that the company purchased slaves, but only that a sum was advanced to them after their liberation. It must be remembered, moreover, that this is in foreign territory, and that it is impossible for the British Government to abolish slavery there by a stroke of the pen. These territories are under the dominion of the Sultan of Zanzibar, or of native chiefs, and we cannot abolish slavery which throughout nearly the whole Continent is habitual. What I said was that the Company used their utmost efforts to promote free labour, and took opportunity to obtain the freedom of slaves, allowing these last to work out a certain portion of the money paid by them in compensation.
  MR. DILLON: I did not mean to suggest that slaves were purchased for employment as slaves by the company, but I do consider it is highly objectionable that English money should, though indirectly, act as an encouragement to the Slave Trade. The motive may be a good one, but still the action of the company does to a degree encourage the Trade.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman I do not think we ought to allow the Vote to pass without an assurance that the charter of these companies shall be withdrawn unless they give an undertaking not to use forced labour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Chartered Companies do not come within this Vote at all.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I may say that we have no assurance that this East Africa Company does not employ slave labour or forced labour, and I do not think we ought to pass this Vote without such an assurance.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: We are told that the slaves have their freedom purchased, and that a bar-

  1131
  gain is made with them as to working out a part of the cost of that freedom; now I want to know, while that is being worked out, who is the owner of a slave in this position? The more we look into this subject the more unsatisfactory it appears. It is difficult to move a redaction of this Vote, because one is so liable to be misunderstood. I am sure we all agree in voting money for the suppression of the Slave Trade; but, as the hon. Member for Mayo has said, the system is so bad that I very much doubt if our action in the Red Sea does not cause more suffering than we prevent.
  MR. DE LISLE: I should like to have from the Under Secretary some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will really put pressure upon the Sublime Porte to put an end to that great scandal, the slave market at Jeddah. The Turkish Empire is tolerated in Europe only by the goodwill of the great Powers, and if they would bring their pressure to bear this scandal to civilisation might be put an end to. I am not sure that a bombardment of Jeddah every few years would not be more effectual than the maintenance of our cruisers in the Red Sea.
  MR. BRYCE: In former times a good deal of slave traffic went by way of the Persian Gulf. Has the right hon. Gentleman any information on that point? As to the point just referred to, I think the Porte has not much more than nominal authority at Jeddah.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: In reply to the hon. Member for Leicestershire, I may say the Porte two months since issued stringent orders to their officers to put down the Slave Trade by every means, and I hope these orders will be carried out successfully. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, I believe that the operations of the combined squadrons on the Coast of Africa have had the effect of almost entirely stopping the over-sea transit of slaves in the Persian Gulf, and that the Trade has been reduced to the smallest proportions.
  MR. STOREY: I think it my duty to move a reduction of the Vote, for it seems to me that our boasted efforts to abolish the Slave Trade are really a sham. For example, apparently, it is proposed to spend £26,000 a year on the work,
  1132
  but when we inquire into the matter it is found that £16,000 of this sum is given as a subsidy to a company to carry mails, and to open up a trade for its own benefit, and this company itself is in the possession of slaves who are not really working for their wages, but for their freedom. The company buy the slaves, and thereby encourage the slave-owners to produce the slaves, and then it keeps those slaves as free labourers until they have paid the purchase-money.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No; they first obtain their liberation; and then advance sums in compensation to their former owners which they, in a short time, work out.
  MR. STOREY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say they were paid for, and that they remained with the company until they worked out their price.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Under contract. They are free labourers.
  MR. STOREY: But they work out a portion of their price, therefore they are not only working for wages, but for freedom. In other words, the company buys the slaves, and thereby encourages slave-owners to produce slaves, and then the company use the slaves as what the right hon. Baronet calls free labourers until they have paid for the purchase-money. Many of us have been in districts where slaves are, and we know that for all practical purposes the position of a free labourer who has to pay for his freedom is no better than the position of a slave. I, therefore, propose to re-move the reduction of the Vote. But I was saying what a sham the whole business is after all. What sham philanthropists we are in the matter. If you subtract the £16,000, it appears we spend £10,000 ostensibly for the suppression of the Slave Trade, which extends over hundreds of miles of sea. [An hon. MEMBER: There are the men-of-war.] Yes, they are used, but the point of my observations is this: that to the £10,000 a year which we are supposed to spend for the suppression of the Slave Trade, we must add superannuation allowances which amount to nearly £2,000 a year, and which are given to those who have done nothing in the suppression of this abominable traffic. In this, and other matters, wo pretend to do great things, and we

  1133
  are really doing little. The Under Secretary of State said he has made representations to the Porte. What nonsense it is to make representations to the Porte such as he makes. The Porte knows we really mean nothing in the matter, and the Porte takes no notice except in language and writings of our representations. Is the Porte the only sinner? The Porte has next to no influence in Arabia. It has no influence in Egypt. But we have. What is the Government doing to prevent the Slave Trade there? Last year we fought the Arabs. We killed many of them, but a certain number of them were left, and these were brought down into Egypt. We do not call them slaves, but for all practical purposes they are slaves, since they do not know their own rights. But the worst case remains. If these African companies wish to carry on their business they must employ slave labour in one form or another. If you are to trade there you must in one form or another employ labour under the conditions of the country, and, therefore, a man who hates slave-owning will not touch the dirty business in order to make money; he will leave it to other less philanthropic souls. But we encourage slavery by our charters, and assist it by our forces, and, therefore, it is a sham to spend this paltry £10,000 or £20,000 a year in the suppression of the traffic. In order to express my great dissatisfaction with the explanation which the Under Secretary has given us, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £16,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B, £10,000, Aden and Zanzibar Steam Service Subsidy, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Storey.)
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I trust the Committee will not assent to the Vote without some further explanation on the subject of the so-called contract labour. My own impression is that what the Chartered Company did was quite justifiable. I understood that a large number of slaves took refuge with our people, their owners demanded their restitution, but the Chartered Company compromised the matter by paying a considerable sum for the liberation of the slaves. On the whole, I think that a wise proceeding.
  1134
  But the right hon. Gentleman has just made a most awkward and regrettable admission, namely, that the slaves are now working out the price of their freedom. The Government contributed £800 towards the liberation of these slaves, and, therefore, I hope we shall receive some further explanation.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up two different cases. The statement I made with reference to certain fugitive slaves having their freedom granted, and making free contracts with the company on somewhat lower wages, so that in a short time the price of their freedom is supposed to be worked out, did not refer to the slaves who were found at the Mission Stations, and freed partly by the Missions, partly by the company, and partly by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. DILLON: I think the Committee are entitled to know what is the nature of these contracts. We are informed that a British Company, chartered by the Crown, is in the habit of purchasing slaves, and allowing them to enter into free contracts at reduced wages. What is the meaning of that? It is a most extraordinary term, and I think the members of the Committee will like to know, before the Vote is passed, what is the nature of these contracts, and how the men are compelled to observe the contracts, because if the contracts are free, the men are free to go away any time they like and get higher wages. If they are not at liberty to do this, I maintain that they are slaves. I am not entirely unacquainted with the doctrine of free contracts. We have all heard something about the sugar plantations. We were told there was no slavery at all. I know quite well that great reforms have been introduced by the Queensland Government, and that, in consequence of the exertions of public men in that country, the abuses of the system have been largely done away with. But when public attention was first directed to the matter men were engaged in the most nefarious system of slavery ever practised in the world. I have no doubt that that system was more cruel than that which now exists in Arabia, yet we were told it was a system of contract. The men were under contract to work for three years, at £6 a year, and if they did not do any work they were compelled to

  1135
  do it, and not allowed to go away—not allowed to enter into the service of any one else, and get higher wages. I say that if a man is not at liberty to go where he likes, and receive higher wages, or live without working, if he can, you have not free contract, but slavery. My experience has led me to believe that where you have a great commercial company carrying on this system of contract labour, the greatest possible abuse will arise. [Cries of "Divide."] I will not divide. Hon. Members opposite who cry "divide" belong to the same class of men who tried to shout down every discussion in reference to the atrocities committed on the sugar plantations. They talk about their British philanthropy, and yet want to rush this Vote, this preposterous and delusive Vote for the suppression of the Slave Trade, through the House without adequate discussion! I do not believe this Vote will prevent the suffering of a single negro in Africa. We are entitled to know whether a British Company is so conducting itself as to throw disgrace upon the name of this country. We have heard that there is a system of contract in force which is condemned by the public opinion of this country. We are entitled to know what are the rules and regulations of the system; but I go further, and say, that even if the system of contract labour is carried out satisfactorily, I protest against the buying of slaves for any purpose whatever.
  MR. JACKSON: I sympathise very much with the object the hon. Gentleman has in view, but let me point out that there is nothing whatever in this Vote dealing with contract labour. [Mr. DILLON: I did not say there was.] Two questions are mixed up. One question is that of the British Indian Steam Navigation Company, which is a mail company, and the other is the question of the East African Company. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have no reference to any item of the Vote.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I have had considerable experience of the interior of South Africa, and I can inform the Committee that there is not the slightest trouble or difficulty in getting any amount of free labour there. That is proved every day by the thousands of natives who come to work at the diamond fields. Yet the Government tell us they cannot get labour in East Africa with-
  1136
  out they employ forced labour, or men who are working out their freedom under compulsory contracts. Before this Vote is passed we ought to have some assurance from the Government that they will not continue their support to this East African Company as long as the company employ forced labour.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Let me point out that there is nothing in the Vote connected with the East African Company.
  DR. TANNER: There are two points to which I wish to call attention. When these Estimates were framed we were told we should have them in a better form than previously. The Secretary to the Treasury must be aware of the fact that in the Committee upstairs——
  It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Copy ordered—
"Of the Report made in 1888 by Mr. Baker on the condition of the Menai Bridge."— (Captain Verney.)

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) [EXPENSES BILL].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums towards defraying the costs of the execution of any Act of the present Session for conferring further powers under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1886, with respect to pleuro-pneumonia (Queen's Recommendation signified), upon Thursday.

EXCHEQUER BONDS (CAPE RAILWAY) (1890–91).
Copy ordered—
"Of account of Exchequer Bonds payable in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1891 unprovided for."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 141].
The House suspending its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  LABOUR AND CAPITAL.
  MR. BARTLEY: It is not necessary to apologise for bringing forward the great subject of the relation of capital and labour, because we know that it is of enormous importance, and one which, at this time, especially deserves the attention of the House of Commons. We have gone through considerable agitation on the question, and it is desirable that it should be discussed less from a Party point of view than with common concern for the welfare of the country. The future of this country depends upon its trade. We are a nation of traders, and on trade we must depend for prosperity, and even for the continuance of the Empire. But trade cannot prosper in the face of foreign competition unless there is harmonious co-operation between capital and labour; and in many directions the effort of each to obtain all that it can for itself is leading to strikes and difficulties. The only way in which we can retain the position we now hold is by capital, labour, and enterprise working together in the most completely harmonious manner, and it is not pretended that our trade and commerce can extend unless these functions work in unison. At present, in many cases, they are not so working; on the contrary, they appear as enemies and opposed to one another. This may have been brought about, to a certain extent, by the changes which have been going on during the past 50 years. We have, in this country, been doing our best, by education and other means, to improve all classes; we have done our best to level up —if I may say so—from the lowest stratum of society. That is a state of things at which we must all rejoice, and we may hope that this levelling up of all classes of the community, and this placing of all classes more on a par as regards their habits and their ideas, will continue. But the natural corollary of this is that all classes, from the highest to the lowest, desire to get as much as they can for their labour. All classes now have better food, better clothing, and batter housing; they all look for more comforts and luxuries, which are indeed now almost necessaries of life, and the only
  1138
  way in which the nation can secure a larger amount of these things is by more of them being produced. However much we may increase the wages, unless we also increase those things which wages buy, we do not improve the well-being of the people. Again, a greater production implies greater industry or greater economy in production, or, in other words, greater enterprise, a better use of capital, and the more harmonious working of capital and labour. The best results can only be obtained by capital, labour, and enterprise working in complete harmony. The question to be asked is, do labour, capital, and enterprise each receive a fair share of the earnings of the country? The claims of enterprise are often overlooked; but it is an essential part of our social progress, and it will be an evil day for this country if by any possibility a system is adopted of remunerating capital and labour and ignoring the claims of enterprise. A man who simply invests £20,000 in Consols or Colonial Bonds is not doing as much for the country as the man who embarks in commerce, and he who embarks in commerce—with all its risks—naturally expects a larger return than he who simply invests in securities. It is, therefore, essential that enterprise shall receive its fair reward. Again, I ask, does each of the three branches receive a fair share? That is a difficult and complicated question. There is one thing quite certain, and that is, that there has, during the last 40 or 50 years, been a great change in the distribution of the results of industry. Statisticians divide the community into three classes—rich, middle, and working class. From 1840 to 1877 the number of rich families is estimated to have increased from 86,000 to 222,000; the aggregate amount they hold has increased from £2,507,000,000 to £5,728,000,000, but the amount held per family has decreased from £28,800 to £25,800. The number of middle class families has increased from 780,000 to 1,824,000 families, but their holdings per family have decreased from £1,400 to £1,000. The working class have only increased from 4,300,000 families to 4,630,000 families, but their holdings have risen from £44 per family in 1840 to £86 per family in 1877. So that while the holdings of the

  1139
  rich and middle classes have decreased in amount, those of the working classes proper have largely increased. No doubt if the figures for the past year were available they would show a proportionate movement in the same direction. These figures are obtained from the Returns of the Legacy and Succession Duty. Again, the same fact is shown by the number who pay Income Tax on the lowest incomes, which has risen from 39,000 in 1843 to 130,000 in 1879. According to Mr. Giffen, during the same 40 years the income from capital has increased a little over 100 per cent., from £190,000,000 to £400,000,000, and the working income paying Income Tax by about 100 per cent., from £90,000,000 to £180,000,000, while the income of the working classes has increased from £235,000,000 to £620,000,000, an increase of 163 per cent. These figures show that 30 or 40 years ago capital received too large a share of the results of industry, and the tendency has been to considerably reduce the amount which capital receives, and to place the sum so deducted to the credit of labour. I now come to the question, what does capital receive at the present time? Mr. Giffen estimates the income of the country at £1,200,000,000, and the proportion received by capital at £400,000,000, or one-third. At 4 per cent. this represents an earning income of £10,000,000,000. But this is too large an amount to be considered as earning income. Mr. Giffen puts it at £8,500,000,000, yielding an income of about £550,000,000, thus producing a return to 6¼. per cent. The capital of the country is, however, probably producing a still larger amount, which, though I do not go into this large question at the present time, may be taken as something like 7 per cent. I think we must agree that capital at the present time still continues to receive too large a share of the results of industry. I say this not from the view of one side or the other, but as a matter of purely abstract reasoning. Some hon. Members dissent from that view Well, I have not much capital myself—I wish I had—but I should be extremely satisfied if what little I am likely to possess returned me a good deal less than 7 per cent. This calculation is entirely apart from the remuneration for labour and enterprise, which between
  1140
  them receive about £800,000,000 per annum. During the last 50 years labour, no doubt, has obtained great advances in wages, and what is of more importance, the same amount of money produces a larger quantity of the comforts of life; but have the advances been sufficient, considering the enormous increase in the country's capital? If it is true that capital docs receive too large a share; if it is true that capital does receive nearly 7 percent., then I think we may fairly say that 3 per cent. of that is an excessive amount; that 4 per cent. would be a fairer amount for it to receive, and if labour were to receive this 3 per cent. it would make a difference to its earnings of £150,000,000 a year, or 8s. a week per head—a very considerable addition to its present earnings. There is also no doubt that capital has an advantage in the amount it pays to taxation. While capital receives one-third of the national income it only pays about one-seventh or one-eighth of the national taxation, and the remainder has to be paid by two-thirds of the national income, the proportion so paid in excess being about 1s. per week per family throughout the country. And now I come to the question of the share of enterprise. Let me make this as clear as I can. We have a national income of £1,200,000,000; one-third of that is the result of capital; and £800,000,000 is the payment for labour and enterprise. Taking various statistics, it may be said that 300,000 persons—or 1 in 20—are entitled to remuneration for enterprise, and allowing each £10 a week—a very liberal estimate—this would give £150,000.000 between the 300,000 families, leaving £650,000,000 to be divided among the 6,200,000 working families proper. Working this out would leave an annual remuneration of £100 per head for simple labour alone, and that, as we know, is a much larger sum than labour actually receives. It is, therefore, clear that labour does not at the present time receive the amount it is entitled to. Taxation, we must all acknowledge, pinches most the lowest stratum of society, and unless a man be a most remarkable character—almost a John the Baptist living on locusts and wild honey—he pays a larger amount per £1 of income than a man who receives a larger wage.

  1141
  It may, however, be said that labour is increasing largely in wealth by the amount of its accumulated savings. There is no phase of our social existence more satisfactory than this accumulation of savings by the working classes; but, after all, the total savings only amount to 400,000,000, and that total is insignificant as compared with the wages that labour is entitled to receive. Four per cent. on the total savings of the masses would only produce £16,000,000 a year, or 2 per cent. of the wage bill of the country; and, therefore, it cannot, because of those savings, be said that labour gets its proper share of the national income, nor can these savings be made a set-off against unfairness of division of the results of industry. I think, therefore, we must agree that there is something to be said for the contention that labour, as compared with capital, does not get all it is entitled to. Of course, we know that with so many persons interested in the working classes, with so many pandering to those classes with the object of getting votes, these things are becoming widely known, and are often exaggerated for class and party purposes. But what we want to get is an absolutely correct and just estimate of the relative position of labour and capital. Whether I am right or wrong in the conclusion I have drawn, that labour does not receive a fair amount, we all know that it thinks it does not receive its fair share. When trade revives there is a continual agitation for increase of wages; and I believe that the depression which often follows good years is due to the fact that trade expansion is retarded by the agitation of labour for more wages. The movements of markets are quickly made known now by means of the Press. Fifty years ago that was not so. Nowadays, if profits are seen by the condition of the markets to increase, labour at once demands a share of the increase, and threatens to strike if it does not get it. The result is an agitation, and after a certain amount of finessing between employers and employed, a strike. It is exactly similar to the positon of the governors of a steam engine. When the steam gets a little stronger the balls fly up and the steam is shut off. So, also, when trade prospers labour demands a larger and a larger
  1142
  share of the profits, and the agitation and uncertainty thus produced tends to shut off the steam of prosperity. We have had no end of strikes in recent times, and we find from the Returns of the Budget that a reaction has already set in that certainly these strikes have affected the country in many ways. Surely it is a most barbarous system which recognises that there is a doubt as to whether the labourer gets his full share of profit, and to allow things to go on in such a way as to bring about strikes in order to produce the results I have indicated. We know that increased prosperity leads to increased demand, and yet we take no means to secure an automatic system by which a better state of things may be introduced. I desire to press on the House this second point, that labour does really get a share of the profit, but that that share is but too often only obtained by strikes, which are a costly and suicidal policy, and which maims, if it does not kill, the goose that lays the golden eggs. I will here say a few words about strikes, but will not enter fully into the subject at this late hour. No one can doubt for a moment that strikes have increased wages in many cases, but there are enormous difficulties in getting at all the facts Mr. Bevan, whom I knew very well, took the trouble to ascertain the statistics of strikes between 1870 and 1879, and he found that during those 10 years there had been 2,352 strikes in connection with what I may practically term every conceivable trade in the United Kingdom. From the figures he obtained as the cost of those strikes, he found that 110 strikes had lasted together 577 weeks, and cost the men no less than £4,500,000. If the 2,352 strikes had cost the same rate all round the loss that would have ensued would been something enormous, not much less than £100,000,000. The statistics as to the strikes from 1880 to 1890 I have not got, but during the last two or three years strikes have been numerous. In 1888 there were 509, in three quarters of them the men gained, while in one quarter they lost. L think, if we take the strikes for the last 20 years, it will not be too much to say that the loss to the men has amounted to not less than

  1143
  £200,000,000. Of course, the loss to the employers from those strikes must have been also very large indeed. I would point out that even had all those strikes been successful in raising; wages, the fact remains that they could not have increased the real earnings of the people. They may have increased the money payments, but not the commodities which the people consume and which are really the wages they need. Suppose, for instance, there were a strike in the boot trade, although it might double or treble the wages, the number of boots made and used must be less, and the shoeing of the people would not be so good. The same remark applies to the agricultural labourers, if a great strike were carried out among that class, as no doubt many persons would desire, it would not increase the amount of corn grown. On the contrary, the quantity would be decreased. This being so, I ask who is it that suffers most by the loss; for although the employer must lose enormously, the greatest amount of suffering and privation must be borne by the people themselves? These being the result of strikes, namely, so large a capital loss, and so serious a reduction in the articles of comfort for the people surely almost anything which can be devised to put a stop to them ought to be tried. Many of the Trades Unionists are determined that strikes should be done away with; and when we see that they come intermittently with every advance in the progress and development of trade, surely we ought to arrange some system by which we may divide the profits of the labourer and employer in some way that would operate less disastrously to the men themselves. I therefore submit to the House my next point as to how we may bring about some better mode. Supposing it to be true that capital only gets its fair share and that labour gets a fair share also, surely it would pay the capitalists so to remunerate labour that it should become a partner in the work done and not a rival. I think it would pay to make the interests of the capitalists and the labourer identical, so that the two might work together as friends rather than as enemies. This leads me to the great question of profit-sharing. Profit-sharing is an arrangement by
  1144
  which, after a fixed profit is paid on capital, the balance of the profit should be divided on some arranged system in certain proportions to the wages earned. This should apply to all labour and not to that of the artizan only. If labour now gets its full share of profit, it would, under this profit-sharing system, get nothing more; but if it does not get its full share, this is a system by which the existing irregularity and unfairness would be done away with, and an automatic method substituted in its place. It is like the case of the mercury in the thermometer. If you put the mercury in the tube and allow it full expansion the column will ascend, but if you shut it in the column the result will be that before long the tube will burst. That is what happens in the case we are discussing. No doubt sliding scales in respect of wages are a step in the right direction, while arbitration has already done something; but arbitration is an unsatisfactory and clumsy arrangement, leading to dissatisfaction on both sides. I feel convinced that where we can make the motive power of strikes, which is self-interest, available for preventing strikes, strikes may be prevented, by the very fact that the labourer will, as a matter of course, receive a fair share of the profit. The danger of strikes will be done away with, and the power now employed in a false direction would be utilised in ensuring the greater prosperity of the trade of the country, and, consequently, of the working classes. But it is said that profit-sharing is the idea of enthusiasts and Utopians. It is said to have been tried and failed. I acknowledge that any alterations of the system of wages is not an easy subject. I know that in many cases these attempts have failed and have led to disappointment; but I shall also be able to show that profit-sharing has been, and is at the present time, successfully worked. Let me take the recent case of the Gas Company. Some may say that the gas strike of last winter was a clear indication that the profit-sharing system must fail. ["Hear, hear!"] I hear hon. Members cheer that observation, but I believe that 10 year's hence the gas strike will be looked back upon as a grand new departure for labour gener-

  1145
  ally, their their system will be better liked, and that under it labour will, to a large extent, be regulated. The gas proposal was that the labourers should receive for every penny by which they could reduce the price of gas 1 per cent. in their wages; and owing to that arrangement, gas having been reduced from 2s. 8d. to 2s. 3d., the men are to receive at once 5 per cent. on their earnings. That is, I say, a system that must ultimately tend to the great benefit of the workmen; and the fact remains that in spite of the pressure put on the Gas Company, that company were successful, being supported by an overwhelming number of their men, who are now-deriving the benefit of the new system. Take another case, that of Messrs. Peto, which is a more disappointing case. They undertook to build a large asylum at a cost of some hundreds of thousands of pounds; and they said to their workpeople we will pay you the ordinary full rate of wages, but at the end of the job, whatever the profit may have been, those men who have been with us all the time and have had no strike shall receive a quarter of the whole profit. That, I say, was a most liberal proposal, and although, unfortunately, owing to the ignorance of those by whom the men were guided it led to difficulty and trouble, it is nevertheless a system by which the men, as well as the employers, would have been largely benefited, and which I think will ultimately prove to be successful. It is true Trades Unions have opposed profit-sharing, but I cannot think that this is a fatal objection to the proposal. Some people bestow unlimited praise on Trades Unions, and I do not say that Trades Unionism has not done a great deal for the men; it has taught them to combine and has helped to raise them in the position they hold, and has contributed to their general well-being. It has taught them to give up a monetary gratification in anticipation of future benefits, and has induced among them a spirit which tends to make men better and nobler. But, on the other hand, on many great questions there can be no doubt that Trades Unionisms have often proved to be seriously wrong. Trades Unions opposed the introduction of machinery in every
  1146
  possible way. ["No, no."] An hon. Member says "No, no," but he cannot have read the history of this country for the last 70 or 80 years without having recognised the fact that the Trades Unions did pursue that course. Trades Unions have also done their best to put men all upon one level, and I may say of Trades Unionists that they are the extreme Tories of the working people—the absolute Tories of trade and labour. The raison d'être of Trades Unions is no doubt the improvement of the condition of the working people; but when they see that the sharing of profits, although it may tend to that improvement, will have the effect of reducing their influence, it is not perhaps unreasonable that they should be found opposing what is likely to lessen their influence. But the opposition of the Trades Unions in no way affects my case or proves that profit-sharing is wrong. Indeed, it seems to me to show that profit-sharing is right, and here I will ask permission to give the House a few cases pertinent to this point. The system was begun, I believe, in France by the house of Le Claire, but I will not go into that part of the subject. I prefer to give you cases now in operation in this country. Messrs. Good all and Suddick, stationers, of Leeds, employing 300 hands, have had profit-sharing since 1868. They pay 5 per cent. on capital, and of the balance, 18 per cent. goes to the men in proportion to their wages. They say the result is
  "Recouped by our having no trouble with our employés, and by our having very few changes."
  Their men work 52½ hours, as against 54 and 55 in Leeds generally Messrs. Fiddler, seed stores, Reading, employ 70 persons; had profit-sharing for seven years. After fixed amount on capital a percentage paid according to wages. They say—
  "Found it attended with the most satisfactory results, both in a pecuniary sense and as regards the better development of the different branches of the business."
  Blundell, Spence & Co., Hull, employ 300 hands; colour and varnish works; profit-sharing since 1884; pay 5 per cent. on preferred shares and 6 per cent. on ordinary shares;

  1147
  and of the remainder, 10 per cent. is divided among men. Thomson and Son, Huddersfield, Woollen Cloth, employ 150 hands; after 5 per cent. on capital, 10 per cent. goes to reserve; 5–10ths goes to workers according to wages; and 4–10ths for promoting business, paying anyone for any improvements in manufacture. The plans tried two years—the first year a small profit, but the second year a loss of £800, £200 of which was made up by workmen, by 8d. in the £1 on wages. The company say—
  "Improved tone of workers, showing not wages only, but feeling of justice."
  Co-operative Builders, Limited. The profits are added to the capital, and go to the credit of each man, according to wages, to provide for old age. The first year's wages £83 5s. 8d., and profit, 1s. 6d. in the £1 on wages, after writing off plant, and providing for reserve fund. Coventry Gas Fitting Company, Limited. A small company with but 27 hands, but have had profit-sharing for two years. After 15 per cent is paid on capital, half the balance to men, partly in cash, and partly to the Provident Fund. First year three week's wages added, and this year will be more. Darien Press, Limited, Edinburgh; employ 70 hands, had profit-sharing for four years; after 10 per cent. on capital, half to labour and half to capital. The firm write, dated April 8, 1890—
  "We did not anticipate that its adoption would effect any sudden change in the attitude of the employés towards the firm; nor did it. But as time went on, and they saw their money interest in the business increasing, the output perceptibly improved. The saving thus effected, together with other economies, is now sufficient to meet the expenditure, so that, practically, the firm has lost nothing by the scheme, while it has gained largely from the improvement which has taken place in the whole tone and spirit of the workpeople. In proof of the self-supporting character of the scheme, I may mention that whereas before its adoption our dividend was at the rate of 16 per cent., it is now 14 per cent. The sum allocated half yearly represents an addition of 1s. 4d. per £1 on wages."
  These seem to me thoroughly bonâ fide cases, which it is difficult to get over, and they prove, I think, that profit-sharing is a possible system. There is some difficulty in citing as illustrations private firms, which do not usually publish balance-sheets. But there are the cases of Messrs. Bushill & Sons, Messrs. Robinson
  1148
  and Brothers, of West Bromwich, and Messrs. Arrow smith, of Bristol, and others whose profits are certified by a chartered accountant, and the employés accept his statement of the figures and receive their profit share of the balance. There is another experiment going on, namely, that of the New Welsh Slate Company, who employ 300 people. It is in their Articles of Association that a tenth of the amount which annually goes for dividend shall be paid to the workmen. That shows that the idea is growing, and the fact that it is growing is a substantial indication of the success of the system. Of course, there is a great number of firms who are only beginning this system in a tentative sort of way. A great number of them give a share in the profit as a bonus, or on condition that it is paid to some Friendly Society or Benevolent Fund. The motive is good; but I prefer that the workman should have the spending of his own cash, and that he should pay it into a Friendly Society if he chooses, rather than that any indirect pressure should be put upon him. Let me give one or two other instances of how this system would work where it has not yet been adopted. The Great Western Railway has a capital of £81,000,000. Of that £60,000,000 is money borrowed at a low rate of interest and bearing a fixed dividend. I propose to leave that alone. But if you take the remaining £21,000,000, upon which the success of the institution influences directly the dividend, the interest at 5 per cent. on that sum would amount to £1,050,000. The profits divided among the holders of the £21,000,000 last year was £1,742,000. The salaries and wages amounted to £2,088,000. If you adopted the system of giving a share of the profits, after paying 5 per cent., if 2 per cent. was added to them for every ½ per cent. extra demand on capital over 5 per cent. labour, wages would have 10 per cent. added to them, and the dividend on capital would be reduced from 8 to7½ per cent. The Great Western employs between 20,000 and 30,000 people, and if each employé saved the company 2d. a day, or worked 2d. per day better during the year, that would mean a saving sufficient to pay half the extra amount under the profit-sharing system. It is not un-

  1149
  reasonable to say that each man might easily save his employers 2d. per day, if he really had his heart and soul in his work. The late Mr. Tyrrell, Manager of the Great Western, told me that the company had saved enough in waste at the various stations to pay the first dividend. If such an economy could be effected in the saving of waste, is it not reasonable to suppose that 20,000 or 30,000 men interested in the success of the institution would be able to effect savings which would add not only to their employers', but to their own, profit? With the Great Northern the system would have a similar, though not so large, a result, and so with the Royal Mail Steam Ship Company, with Tramway Companies, and the London General Omnibus Company. The latter company pays nearly 10 per cent. We have heard a great deal about the condition of their employés. Now, if they gave their men 1 per cent. above every 5 per cent. they receive as dividend, it would be an arrangement satisfactory to all concerned. The capitalist would get 8 per cent., and 3 per cent. would be added to the wages, and that could be met by 1d. per journey extra being earned by each omnibus, an amount, I should think, it is not unreasonable to suppose, with such a stimulus, be obtained by extra energy and attention on the part of the attendants of the omnibus. Of course, under such a system, the best businesses would get the pick of the workpeople, but the unsuccessful businesses do not now have their choice of the best hands. I may fairly say that the result of this system of profit-sharing would be to induce the workman to throw life and energy into his work. I explained to a friend who was engaged in getting up a Union to advocate more wages the result of this profit-sharing system. What did he say? "Why, if that was adopted in our shop, we should then work with all our might." I venture to say if you could get that spirit to pervade working men under such a system of profit sharing, it would lead to great results, and the loss paid as extra wages would be made up ten-fold. The result of profit-sharing is one which must benefit the workmen, because it makes them more interested in the
  1150
  business of their employers. What I ask for this evening is an inquiry into this system which has been adopted by a large number of firms in England and other parts of Europe. I hope the House will not think it possible that I for a moment suggest that legislation can bring this about. I strongly object to any interference by legislation. The fact remains that all schemes for putting an end to strikes have failed. We see them taking place in all directions. The proposal I make does seem to suggest some possible palliation for the existing evils, if not an actual remedy. Then, let us have the facts before us—let us have them gone into by a Committee and tabulated. The State is a large employer of labour. We have agitations for a Union, and for other purposes, amongst the servants of the Post Office and the workmen in the Royal Arsenals, and in all directions we see these things growing. Surely, under these circumstances, it is reasonable that we should look into the matter and see if something cannot be done. Local Bodies are large employers of labour as well as the State; and if we can induce them to adopt this system and get it put in force in connection with some of our Government Departments, some good result may be brought about. The present position of capital and labour seems like trying to make water flow uphill; it is like trying to mix two things which will not mix, or to melt flint into glass without flux. The flux I would suggest in the case of capital and labour is the self-interest that profit-sharing would seem to supply; and if we could establish a system by which the capitalist and the labourer would have the same interest, we should secure co-operation. In our great industries, whenever we find a mechanical obstruction or difficulty in our way, we invent some improved machine to get over it; and it does seem to me that in the matter of capital and labour when we have to acknowledge that the latter has some cause to complain, we should look around in the same way for some improved method of getting over the difficulty. Labour does not get a fair share in the operations of trade. It gets a share, no doubt, but only by strife and strikes; and it seems to me

  1151
  that we should endeavour to establish a system whereby, through the operation of natural laws, labour should derive an increasing share of the profits which capital and labour combine to create. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Committee he appointed to inquire into and report on the various plans at present in operation by which labour, in addition to wages earned, shares in the profit of the enterprises in which it is engaged.—(Mr. Bartley.)
  SIR J. COLOMB&c.): In seconding this Resolution, I desire to say that, though I am in entire sympathy with it and heartily sympathise with the main proposition of my hon. Friend, I cannot endorse all his arguments. I do not agree with him, for instance, in thinking that there are any possible means of establishing an automatic system which will regulate in all cases the differences arising between capital and labour. I do think, however, that it is very desirable, when the minds of both employers and employed are turning towards co-operation as a possible solution of these difficulties, that some means should be taken to obtain authentic information with regard to schemes of the kind that have been practically tried or are actually in operation. That, I understand, is the chief aim of the Mover of the Resolution, and I certainly think he has acted wisely, in the interests of capital and labour alike, by suggesting that such an inquiry should be made by a Committee and the result reported to the House. But I should have preferred the Resolution if it had read "by which labour, in addition to wages earned, shares directly in the profit," &c. It is a small point, but I cordially agree with the dictum of my hon. Friend when he said that the most successful firms command the best labour—which is the result of an indirect and not a direct cause. I submit that the reason the most successful firms command the best labour, is the certainty of continuous employment. I certainly think a Committee of this House a most powerful
  1152
  engine for collecting authentic facts. I do not in the least understand—or I would not second the Motion—my hon. Friend to do more than suggest that the House should appoint a Committee to gather information and statistics—not to go into speculative theories on this subject. There are doubtless many cases throughout the country in which the scheme of profit-sharing is being carried on quietly and unobserved, and it is of great importance that trustworthy information should be obtained and made known as to the results of the operation of the system. I may mention that, in my own constituency, there is a very interesting experiment going on at the present time. I do not mean to say that it has been long enough in existence to fall into the category of those schemes which should be examined; but I think it would be useful to other firms, who are tending in that direction, to have authentic information as to the results of schemes which have been tried with various different systems up and down the country. I do not agree with my hon. Friend—if I understood him aright—that capital is getting more than the average of profit at 7 per cent. at the present moment. I doubt if capital, plus brains and enterprise, can make cock-sure of even 5 per cent. profit. But I express that doubt with very great diffidence, and it really does not concern the argument for or against the Motion. But what I firmly believe is that labour very often fails to recognise the sacrifices that enterprise, which has built up the commercial reputation of the country, has to make, and the risks it has to run. In order that enterprise may secure the results at which it aims it must be backed by capital, and capital in turn relies upon friendly, secure, and co-operative relations with labour. I mention that, because the problem is so complex that it is not merely a question of capital and labour, but a question of the brains that lead capital and the brains that lead labour. The more information the working classes of the country can have with regard to actual practical matters concerning the operations of capital and labour the better it will be for them and capitalists also. When differences arise between them it is often because the

  1153
  working classes, in whose common-sense I have full confidence, have not the whole of the facts before them. When, on a rise of prices, strikes take place for an immediate increase of wages, the fact is often overlooked that perhaps bad times have gone before, and that capital has had to work on at a loss simply to keep the business going. I believe, however, that if the whole matter can be approached from a business point of view by the leaders of the working classes on the one side and the capitalists on the other, with full and authentic information before them, it may be possible to arrive at a solution which will obviate many of the difficulties that now exist. There is one thing I strongly condemn in these matters—the action of the amateur conciliator, who often steps in to meddle with things he does not understand, in order to reap political capital or personal popularity. There are Labour Representatives in this House and men throughout the country who well know the difficulties of the question, and who desire to arrive at satisfactory solutions of them if possible. It is with the view, therefore, of securing information in the best and most practical way on the experiments that have been tried in co-operation between labour and capital that I second the Motion.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I think the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to the hon Member for North Islington for having brought this matter before the House, because it is seldom enough that we discuss Resolutions dealing with such social questions as the relations of capital and labour. We discuss many things, such as the governors and the governed in other countries, and the cultivation of asparagus in New Zealand; but discussions such as the present do not occupy much of our time. In 'most of the interesting matters which the hon. Member has laid before the House I concur most heartily, though with the conclusion drawn I am somewhat at variance. I cannot quite agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the remedy he would wish us to adopt. Indeed, I consider it as efficacious as would be the remedy of him who would place a piece of sticking-plaster upon a cancer. The Seconder of the Resolution spoke
  1154
  of those amateur conciliators who often mislead working classes and stir up strife when they seek to bring conciliation. Well, although I have often intervened in these disputes between capital and labour, I thank God that I have never intervened as a conciliator. I believe it is impossible to do anything of a conciliatory nature between capital and labour as we now see them; and I confess I am somewhat disappointed at the small scope of the matter which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House. The hon. Member might, on this Resolution, have said something about the great misery which undoubtedly exists in almost every portion of the country and in almost every trade. He might, especially as he represents a London constituency, have pointed out that so satisfactory are the relations between capital and labour in this city that only last week we had a case of death from starvation in it—a case to which I drew attention at the time by means of a question. I must dissent from much that the hon. Gentleman said when he drew a picture of the progress which he seemed to think has taken place among the working classes during the last 40 or 50 years. I do not say that no progress has taken place; but I maintain that the condition of the far greater portion of the unskilled labourers in this country is becoming more precarious and more desperate every day, as is proved by the existence of the strikes which have been referred to; and the remedy of profit-sharing would have but an infinitesimal effect on the great labour troubles which we see on every side. I would like to deal briefly with the three elements of production touched on by the hon. Member—enterprise, capital, and labour. The power that capital gives to men of enterprise to enter into commercial speculations is not called into existence, as I read political economy, by the effort of enterprise alone. It is simply the power conferred on these men by accumulated labour, which places certain funds in their hands and enables them, for their own purposes, to embark in commercial speculations. The hon. Member deplored the fact that the relations between capital and labour were getting more strained every day. I deny now, as I have denied 50 times in this

  1155
  House, and I am sure many hundreds of times outside this House, that the interests of capital and labour, as society is now constituted, can ever be identical. I am not prepared to say that capital and labour, rightly considered and apprehended, would of themselves be antagonistic. Capital is now, however, in so few hands as to create a capitalistic class, which class, from the very nature of its being, is bound to find itself in conflict with labour upon every occasion on which there is either a fall in prices or on which labour demands greater remuneration for its services. It seems to me a very commonsense and commonplace observation that if the capitalist wishes to increase his profits he has only one fund on which he can draw, and that fund is the wages of labour. It is only possible for a capitalist to make a fortune by refusing to give to labour the full share of that which labour itself produces. If he did so, he must for ever remain in the same position as when he started. On the other hand, when the great bulk of our working classes are practically deprived of property, when they have no right in the soil of their native land and when they are obliged to sell their labour, as the only thing in the wide world they have to dispose of, how can their interests be possibly identical with those of the capitalists to whom they sell their labour? It would be as reasonable to suppose that oil and vinegar would mix. It is, I believe, perfectly possible that the interests of capital and labour can be made identical, but not by means of the remedy which the hon. Member has laid before the House. The hon. Member hopes by the introduction of profit-sharing to be able to get rid of the necessity for strikes—a consummation which I, for one, am very anxious to see brought about—and he deplored the fact that Trade Unionism in its inception opposed the introduction of machinery. It is true that the Trade Unionists of 40 or 50 years ago did oppose the introduction of machinery, but they did so because they foresaw that large bodies of men would be thrown out of work, and that the benefit would go, not to the producer, but to the capitalist. Then the hon. Member drew the somewhat remarkable conclusion that it would benefit the working classes if, in these
  1156
  profit-sharing concerns which he sketched briefly, after a certain percentage of profit had been arrived at, further dividends were divided between the employers or shareholders and the labourers themselves. How is that percentage to be arrived at? Is a line to be drawn after the labourer, by his labour, has piled up a certain amount of profit for the employer, and are subsequent profits to be divided between the labourers and the manufacturers? Surely, Sir, there is no difference between the first 5 per cent., and the subsequent 10 or 15 per cent. If employers are willing, after 5 or 10 per cent. has been reached, to divide all the surplus, surely that is a tacit confession that the whole wage system as we know it at present is one to be condemned. I may be wrong, but I cannot think myself that 5 per cent. is a law of God. It seems to me that it would be as reasonable of the employers to commence from the beginning to divide all their profits as to begin after a certain limit has been reached. If the Committee asked for is merely to inquire into the relations between capital and labour, and into the working of the various schemes, and is not to recommend anything to the House all I have to ask is why, in the name of fortune, he has wasted the time of the House by this discussion? With society constituted as it is at present, it is impossible for the labouring classes to hold their own against the capitalists by any co-operative or profit-sharing schemes, or any similar quack expedients. But I believe the working classes are now finding out for themselves the remedy for the evils from which they suffer. I trust them, and I think they will solve this question. Perhaps they will solve it in its beginning without the help of the House of Commons; but that they should have the help of the House of Commons is a proposition I have always laid before them in the House. The method they are adopting in every country in the world is that of obtaining a reduction of the hours of labour. They have agreed to hold demonstrations in every country in the world on the 1st of May. Though I, for one, should be glad to welcome anything

  1157
  that would place the relations of capital and labour on a more satisfactory footing, and ease the misery, the horrors, and the starvation to which the working classes are subjected whenever there is a strike, I rather rely on the practical common-sense of the working classes, and the determination they have expressed to attack this question by the reduction of the hours of labour rather than by means of any scheme given to them from above on a subject which, as far as I can see, does not occupy their attention in the smallest degree.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I cannot help regretting that this discussion has taken the form of a general discussion of the various schemes supposed to be beneficial to the working man, and have not been directed with greater particularity to the Motion before the House. That Motion has hardly been alluded to by the mover himself, and has not been referred to at all by the Seconder or by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The Motion states that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into certain matters; but it does not seem to have occurred to those who have spoken that as far back as 1886 it was resolved that means should be taken for conducting such an inquiry as is now suggested, and the result was the organisation under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division, of the Labour Statistical Department. Lord Stanley, of Preston, and the present President of the Board of Trade have assisted in extending that Department from small beginnings, but, unfortunately, the House has not placed at the disposal of that Department the funds required for making full inquiries. In fact, less money is voted for that Department than is granted in a State like Massachusetts for a similar office. Many of the difficulties that arise between employers and employed could be prevented if accurate means of information were given to both classes, and therefore I regret that the Department has not
  1158
  been able to extend its inquiries, and to issue fuller and more frequent Reports. I would suggest that it is not necessary to appoint any Committee to deal with this subject. All that is necessary is to give Mr. Giffen and Mr. Burnett, and those who act with them, the means of collecting all the information that is required. I do not believe it to be the case that the relations between capital and labour in this country are more strained to-day than they were 50 years ago. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolution spoke of the fair share of profit, capital, and labour ought to have respectively, and the last speaker spoke of the full share labour ought to have, but not one of them has explained what those shares ought to be or how they are to be fixed. I know that those who attempt to define in this matter will at once find themselves in considerable difficulties: but if hon. Members are afraid of difficulties they ought not to raise these questions or they may lay themselves open to the charge of pandering to the working classes without endeavouring really to help them. I do not know what view the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Graham) takes of the full share of labour; but if he meant anything—and I will do him the justice of saying I do not think he did—his words meant the full value added to raw material by labour.
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: That was exactly what I meant.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Quite so; and, therefore, there is no reason for interrupting me. Well, that is a phrase which can only be uttered by men who are utterly ignorant of the whole conditions of the working classes and utterly hopeless as teachers of the people. If labour takes all, who will risk skill and capital in manufacture? I never heard any more regettable phrase than that used by the hon. Member when he said that in the many cases of disputes between workers and employers in which he has interfered he has never once interfered as a conciliator. My life has been longer than that of the hon. Member, and I suppose, to my shame, I must say that I have never mixed in

  1159
  labour strifes except in the character of conciliator, and I have known more than one class of men in this country who have been, trying to organise and some who, misled by phrases such as the hon. Member has used to-night, suffered by not following the advice of those Trades Union Loaders to whom they formerly looked for guidance. I speak on this independently. I have never attended a Congress of Trade Unions, and I doubt whether they would accept my counsel. But men who act with the hon. Member himself have interfered in labour disputes they do not understand, in industries with which they have no connection, and have led poor and hungry men to hope for redemption where redemption cannot come, and to waste the money of Trades Unions saved for good and useful purposes in maintaining a hopeless struggle. [Cheers.]
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I rise to a point of order. I have no wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think I am bound on account of the cheer which came from the opposite Benches to vindicate John Burns and Tom Mann, the two men against whom I consider the accusations of the hon. Gentleman are levelled.
  *MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I am well aware of that, Sir.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I am afraid points of order like questions of labour are beyond the immediate comprehension of the hon. Member. I did not refer to any particular men, except as being associated with the hon. Member himself. All I can say is, I am sorry when I find men addressing labourers in great meetings and telling them they can rely on violence for the redress of their wrongs. It is because I believe that the condition of the working classes in this country is enormously improved, because I believe it to be susceptible of greater improvement, because I believe in the efforts of Trades Unions, and because I believe that co-operative production and schemes of profit-sharing understood by the working men and practised by them voluntarily, may help them even
  1160
  in their worse misery, that I regret that we should be told that any scheme which will in any sort of fashion bring food where food is not is like putting sticking plaster on a cancer. When you irritate, when you agitate in the sense of hostility and not of conciliation, you put caustic to the cancer and make the sore intolerable. I said I would put before the House what I conceive to be the share of labour. I say that, first of all, labour must be paid a wage, because it has not the means of existing otherwise. Labour is entitled to get, first of all, for the wage earner life, and in life I include shortest hours possible with profitable enterprise, leisure, opportunities for thrift, means of providing for old age, and a fair average standard of comfort. That standard of comfort varies considerably. You cannot compare the condition of the Belgian or the Austrian coal miner; you cannot compare the condition of the textile workers in the countries of Europe where textile workers prevail with the condition of our labourers without taking into account the general surroundings. I agree that labour which labours for itself, in addition to labouring for another, is better labour, that is, more productive labour, and that it would be wise if there could be encouragement in every field of labour for some addition to the mere subsistence of life—wage—which I claim labour is first of all entitled to. I believe the more labour shares in this the better for labour, I think that schemes for co-operative production, as well as co-operative distribution, might be put before the labouring classes of this country as enterprises in which they might well engage. The hon. Member cites the cases of the big Cities of London and Liverpool, where there are very many unskilled labourers with casual employment: and he puts the condition of things there as if it were a fair example of the condition of things affecting the working classes in the country generally. It is nothing of the kind. The hon. Member reproached the Government and the Liberal Members, and the Irish Nationalist Members, because he says they have not done anything to prevent the starvation of the men whose cause he is supposed to espouse. What has the hon. Member done? Made men

  1161
  strike in industries by which they formerly lived.
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I did not say that at all.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I shall speak even if I am suspended for it.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: Made strikes amongst men who live by casual employment—a shocking kind of employment at the best—because the certainty of wage-coming, if the wage be low, is better than an uncertain wage. Men who, not belonging to the particular industry, go amongst it fomenting strikes are the men who are responsible for the condition of starvation that ensues upon the strikes, and they have no right to reproach us in this House, who disagree with their action. As far as I understand Trades Unions, they have never in any case pretended to teach that strikes are what they desire. Strikes in trade are as war between nations. I am one of those who hope for peace by-and-bye—it is a long way off—and peace amongst peoples will never come when men without acquaintance with the working classes strive in moments of some political agitation—with good motives I hope, with honest hearts I believe, but with wild heads—to scatter flame instead of comfort. Strikes are bad. Why are they bad? Because the labour which is lost through them can never be recovered. If there is some gain in point of wage, the gainers by the strike, like the surviving soldiers after a battle, are called upon to "witness the maimed and wounded, the empty cupboards, the great misery, and the famished homes" as part of the consequences. I am not speaking against strikes as far as the right of the men to cancel his labour contract is concerned, but a better way for men to secure their ends, whenever it is possible, would be to apply in industry
  1162
  their capital which exists in savings banks, and other forms, which is thus likely to increase year by year. At present they cannot do this, because it is seldom they have one man they can trust to go in and conduct the enterprise for them more than for himself. I have great confidence, looking to the short time Trades Unions have been legal in this country, as to what they can do. I do not believe that Trades Unions are any more perfect than this House; but they are about as perfect in relation to the class they have to represent. This House is not as bad as the hon. Member calls it when he is away from it. It is not as good as it should be, but it may be made better if hon. Gentlemen will help to prevent the irritation of the sore. Now, I am not against this Committee. The more men inquire the better; but if the Committee is not to report in favour of something, there is not much use in its sitting. The machinery is already in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman is given a little more money he can make better and more exhaustive inquiries than a Committee can. It is extremely difficult to inquire into working men's organisations, before such a Committee as is proposed by the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley), but it may be well done by Mr. Burnett, who represents the majority of the organised artisans of this country. All his Reports are Reports which employers, as well as employed, may look at with gratification. The only fault I have to find with them is that they are not full enough, or sufficiently frequent. But there are other gentlemen in the Department at the disposal of the President of the Board of Trade, and from all the sources at his command the right hon. Gentleman could get all the information that is wanted. You cannot get it by means of a Select Committee alone. A considerable amount of money might be well spent in putting that information before the public. But I fear that when the hon. Member talked of "establishing" these things he meant more than mere reporting.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I do not think I used the word "established." If I did so it was through inadvertence.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I quite accept it as a slip, though it certainly occurred in the hon. Member's speech three times. I think the President of the Board of Trade has in his hands the machinery for making' such an inquiry, and a Select Committee cannot make a Continental inquiry, as the Department can, through Consular agents. I am glad that labour questions are raised for discussion in this House; but it would be a bad thing if the impression were to go forth to the country, as it has gone forth in some parts of the world, that it is possible for any rapid change in the relations between capital and labour to take place—for any improvement which could be measured by days, weeks, or months to be effected in the condition of any one class. The improvement in this country has been marvellous. The dwellings of the great mass of workers, the education and the general tone of the people, are, as compared with the time when I was a lad, something of which every inhabitant of this Kingdom may be proud. Except in regard to the agricultural population, "we are in advance of every country in Europe in respect of the standard of comfort for the workmen and the conditions of work. Trade Unions have done much; but it has only been within the last 15 or 20 years that they have had the opportunity of acting with legal means. I was astounded—or I should have been but for the speaker—to hear the doctrine enunciated that machinery has injured the workmen of this country. It has done nothing of the sort.
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I said that machinery, through the action of the capitalist class, had been made rather a wage-saving appliance than a labour-saving appliance.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: That is precisely what is not true. It is incapable of proof. The hon. Member should read a Report emanating from the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade in relation to the textile industries, and see the hours worked and the wages earned now as compared with the statistics of
  1164
  50 years ago. The hon. Member will see that in the industries where machinery has multiplied more than in any others the number of workers has increased, the standard of comfort has increased, and the condition of misery and squalor in which the workers lived 50 years ago has quite changed. The hon. Member does not know of yesterday; but he bus no right to speak as if to-day is worse without that knowledge. Without machinery the bulk of the savings to which the hon. Member for North Islington has referred would not have existed for the working classes.
  *MR. C. GRAHAMinterposed a remark.
  *MR. BRADLAUGH: I am opposed to constant interruptions. I regret that it is not possible to discuss a question of this kind with each speaker relying merely on the solidity of his argument. If it is only possible to meet here what I hope has some claim to argument by constant interruption, what is to be said of the gatherings outside Parliament for dealing with questions between employer and employed? It is the duty of those who obtain influence with the people to err, if they err at all, on the side of keeping the people peaceful instead of making them mischievous. The people hold the vote to elect Representatives, and there are men near me who represent labour, and who, against the most powerful capitalists in the world, have won what they think labour is entitled to. I agree that labour wins too little and bears too much, and the House might do much in redressing the incidence of taxation pressing now upon labour. But that is not the subject before the House; and I would submit that while there is no reason against the appointment of a Committee, there is a better and more impartial means of getting the same information now at the disposition of the Government if the House would only vote a few hundred pounds—a sum probably less than the cost of witnesses before a Committee.
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I ask leave to make a personal explanation; it is the first time I have done so. I will not follow the hon. Member for Northampton in his personal remarks. I was discussing principles, but the hon.

  1165
  Member has turned aside to discuss persons. It is, however, rather a serious allegation against a Member of the House of Commons to accuse him of having incited to violence. I have spoken at many meetings where considerable excitement has been exhibited; but I have never incited to violence, because I knew that violence would recoil on the heads of the working classes, against whom all society, as I conceive it, is a vast organised conspiracy. I have never incited to violence.
  An hon. MEMBER: Trafalgar Square?
  *MR. C. GRAHAM: I have never incited to violence, because I believe that it would do the working classes no good. But the very moment that the power was in their hands and can be effectively used without injury to themselves, I should then incite to violence.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I do not think the hon. Member has improved his position by his explanation. I am not going into the general question—I rise only with a view to respond to the appeal which has been addressed to me as President of the Board of Trade by the hon. Member for Northampton. I confess I am not as sanguine with regard to the advantages to be derived from profit-sharing as my hon. Friend. I think the system is open to a great many objections. Profit sharing is all very well from a philanthropic point of view; but I fail to see why, if it be attempted to be practised from a business point of view, the employed should not share the losses as well as the profits; and I do not believe that workmen generally either could or would share the loss of a bad year. If an average, including profits and losses, is to be taken over a number of years, I fear the profits to be divided would be very much less than my hon. Friend supposes. I quite admit, however, that anyone who places before us an idea from
  1166
  which he may hope to bring about confidence rather than distrust among employers and employed must command our sympathies. The profit-sharing of this country is not at all confined to the profit-sharing borrowed from France. There is another kind, namely, that due to co-operative production; and when the hon. Member for Northampton says that the Board of Trade might have done more in this matter, I would venture to refer him to two excellent Reports by Mr. Burnett of the proceedings of the Co-operative Congress of 1888 and 1889, where hon. Members will find a Resolution, passed after considerable debate by that Congress, affirming their great desire for the extension of the system of profit-sharing on the basis of co-operative production. What I would suggest with reference to the actual Motion before us is this—I will endeavour, with the machinery at my disposal at the Board of Trade, to collect all the information that can be collected with regard to this system of profit-sharing by co-operative production or otherwise in France and England, and to have that information embodied in a readable Report to be then laid before Parliament. I submit that that would be the first and most necessary step in the direction which my hon. Friend contemplates, for I do not suppose that he looks to enforcing the profit-sharing system by means of legislation. What he wants is to have the facts laid before the country; and when the facts are before the country it would be open to him or any other Member to propose that they should be considered by a Committee of this House. I do not suggest that the Board of Trade should sift these facts and state opinions upon them. What I would do is, as I have said, to collect the information in a readable shape; and I hope with that understanding my hon. Friend will not press the Motion to a Division.
  MR. BROADHURST: If the hon. Member for Islington goes to a Division I shall certainly not vote against the Motion, but I do not know that it would be

  1167
  worth while to vote for it. There is no doubt that all the information the hon. Member asks for he might have had in the ordinary way, by moving for a Return; but then the House would have been under the great disadvantage that it would not have heard the hon. Member's speech. I am informed that there is in France a Department for collecting information of this kind from all parts of the world, so that a communication from the Foreign Office might at once place the Board of Trade in possession of an enormous amount of information on the subject of profit-sharing. If the system is to exist at all it must rest upon a basis of sound business principles, not on principles of philanthropy. I regret that up to the present we have not heard on this question the voice of any of my Colleagues in the House who are supposed specially to re-present the great industries of the country. I could not gather from the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington whether he has any definite plan in his mind with regard to profit-sharing. The most definite part of the hon. Member's speech was his severe condemnation of trade unions. As to some of the other speeches, I might say, with my hon. Friend near me, "Thank God the average British working man is wiser than some of the would-be friends who advocate his cause." The hon. Member for North Islington gave us some extraordinary figures, supplied by Mr. Bevan, as to the cost of strikes, and the impossibility of the game adequately repaying the outlay consequent upon strikes.
  *MR. BARTLEY: I merely stated what that Authority had laid down as the cost to the labourer—the amount of loss in wages—and I then went on to say that that loss was absolutely gone.
  MR. BROADHURST: The hon. Gentleman should not descend to any particulars as to the basis on which Mr. Bevan framed his calculation. I have seen many calculations going to prove that strikes were altogether a mistake—a costly, a useless, and a profitless proceeding on the part of the labourer, but most of the calculations
  1168
  have been based upon false foundations, and, so far as we are in possession of information to the contrary, the calculations of Mr. Bevan's are of that nature. The Trades Unions have conducted great strikes, and in the past they found enemies and opponents in every class of society. The Press and the Pulpit denounced them, Parliament opposed and denounced them, and Trades Unions had no means of enforcing attention to their claims except by the extreme process of striking, or by conduct which led to lock out. I contend that the progress of peoples from the condition of slavery to that of freedom cannot be counted by pounds, shillings, and pence. What we have to bear in mind is that 50 years ago labour was comparatively degraded in character and powerless as regards its action. What is it that has secured for labour its present position? It has been the action of the Trades Unions and the exercise of the right to strike for better wages and for shorter hours. The exercise of that right has resulted in one great and everlasting gain, and in a great moral and educational and physical gain to the nation at large. Through the means of Trades Unions £8,250,000 has been spent in benevolent purposes. What does that mean? It means that by the aid of Trades Unions the working classes of the country have created an institution of self reliance unexampled in their time in any other nation in Europe. The hon. Member for North Islington said that Trades Unions opposed the introduction of machinery. Yes; the working classes who belonged to Trades Unions 70 years ago were more ignorant than the Trades Unionists of to-day are, but who were responsible for that ignorance? Was it not Parliament and the Cabinet, that were supposed to watch over the spiritual and intellectual welfare of the people? If the hon. Member will only continue his studies on the labour question, he will grow much wiser than he is tonight. He has made a great attack upon Trades Unions, about which he knows little or nothing. It is not true to say that Trades Unions opposed machinery. Here and there, in different centres and

  1169
  branches of industry, they may have done so. But, Sir, the House of Lords opposed machinery. The labourers of the country, therefore, were not more ignorant than the House of Lords, and there were men in the House of Commons, at that time, who did not look with favour on the great development of steam power and steam means of locomotion. It is altogether uncalled for, and unworthy, to go back 70 years ago for an illustration of this kind. We have progressed as rapidly in intelligence, I hope, as any other institution—as Parliament, the Church, the Law, or any other great collection of intellectual people in this country. The hon. Member did not give us a single instance of opposition on the part of Trades Unions to machinery, or of opposition on their part to profit-sharing.
  An hon. MEMBER:Gas strikes.
  MR. BROADHURST: I submit that the gas strikes had nothing at all to do with this matter; and it is not fair thus to cite the case of the gas stokers as against the general opinion of the Trades Unions of this country. The hon. Gentleman referred to the scheme put forward by Messrs. Peto; and commented on the wickedness of the Trades Unions in opposing it, but my recollection of that scheme was that it 'was ill-considered and almost unworkable, and one that no experienced Trade Unionist could, without many reservations and amendments, recommend his fellows to adopt. It is altogether unfair, then, for the hon. Member to attack Trades Unions on the ground of opposition to these schemes without giving the grounds of opposition. I think the debate can not do much harm, but neither will it do much good. The offer made by the President of the Board of Trade embodies a far more practicable scheme for obtaining sound information than could be obtained by the institution of a Select Committee, such as is proposed by the hon. Member for North Islington.
  MR. BURT: I do not rise with the intention of prolonging the Debate, because I believe that a great many Members are anxious to proceed with the discussion of another
  1170
  subject. I think, however, that this has been a valuable discussion. I, for one, have felt for long that there will be no solution to the labour problem except through some system of profit-sharing between capital and labour. I make no complaint of the references of the hon. Member to Trade Unions, except that his remarks are themselves open to some criticism; but with regard to Trade Unions generally, they have never been hostile to profit-sharing. Throughout the country they are entirely in sympathy with the principle of co-operation, and I believe that Trade Unions will heartily welcome any practical scheme of co-partnership or division of profits. I think, however, the object the hon. Member has in view would be gained by the generous manner in which the President of the Board of Trade has met the proposal, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  MR. BARTLEY: I most candidly accept the offer made by the President of the Board of Trade. All I wish to have is information; and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when we get that information we shall be in a much better position than we are at present. Under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LOCAL VETO) (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 14.)
  (RESOLUTION OF 26TH MARCH.)
  MR. LEA: I think the House pretty well understands the object of the Resolution which I am about to move. When this Bill was under discussion on March 26 a misapprehension arose. The Closure was moved at half-past 5, after this came the Division on the Bill, and while everyone was going out an Amendment which had scarcely been spoken to at all was passed by the House. It has been thought that this might apply to other Bills besides the one under discussion, and to make the ground quite clear and to avoid doubt

  1171
  I think it would be better to pass this Resolution. I believe it will meet with the unanimous assent of the House.
  MR. PIERCE MAHONY: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland having informed the House that the Local Government Bill for Ireland to be introduced this Session, as intimated in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, will he upon similar lines to the Acts passed for England and Scotland, and will not contain any provisions giving Local Authorities powers to control the times during which exciseable liquors are sold in Ireland, or any such regulations, this House is of opinion that there is nothing to prevent it from proceeding further with legislation in relation to the control and regulation of the trade of excisable liquors in Ireland, any previous Resolution of the House to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Lea.)
  MR. BAUMANN: I object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite on two grounds, In the first place, I believe the adoption of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman would be an act of self-stultification; and, in the second place, I believe it would be an unfair departure from the ordinary practice of the House. It appears to me that the contingency which the hon. Member for Tipperary had in view when he carried his Amendment is now before us. It is true that the Government are not going to bring in a Local Government Bill for Ireland? but the First Lord of the Treasury has stated that the new Licensing Bill will apply to Ireland. If that is not exactly the contingency contemplated by the hon. Member for Tipperary, it is very like it. The point of the Amendment which I am about to move is that the House should not deal with the question of the liquor traffic in Ireland, because the Government are going to introduce some measure during the Session relating to the question. If this Resolution is carried, it appears to me that the House will be stultifying itself. To allow the Motion to be carried would be a most unfair departure from the
  1172
  ordinary practice of the House. The hon. Member for South Derry was fairly cut out by the operation of the Resolution of March 26, and it is most unfair to deprive me of the opportunity which the fortune of war has placed at my disposal. One thing that makes it more unfair is that Irish business has already absorbed three out of four of the Wednesdays which private Members have had at their disposal during the Session. If Her Majesty's Government will state that it is necessary to pass this Resolution, in view of the Budget Resolutions, I have no more to say. But it appears to me that there is nothing in the Bill of the hon. Member for South Derry which would justify the course the Government have taken in this matter. I hope the House will reject the Motion of the hon. Member. I think I have some cause for complaint in this matter. I know that I am only a Conservative Member; that I am only one of that great number of Conservative Members whom the Metropolis sends to this House in such large numbers. No doubt, if I had been an Ulster Member or a Liberal Unionist, the Government would have done its utmost to strain the forms of the House to give me precedence on this occasion. I have only one question to ask, and that is, do the Government get most votes in Ulster or in London? I hope the House will not stultify itself by departing in the most unfair manner from the ordinary course of business.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: In seconding the Amendment, I desire, in the first place, to thank the hon. Member opposite for the manly protest which he has made against the unfair treatment to which I and my Amendment have been subjected by the Government. In the whole course of my political experience I have never received such shabby treatment before. The hon. Member for South Derry has said that my Amendment was carried without a word spoken; but the hon. Member himself moved the Closure, and so prevented the matter from being discussed.
  MR. LEA: The word I used was "scarcely."
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: What will satisfy the hon. Member? He himself Closured the Debate. If the phrase "political chicanery" were permissible in this House, I would use it with regard to the action of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. They have departed from the usual course of practice in consequence of the pressure which has been brought to bear upon them by certain hon. Members opposite. If the Government had obtained an advantage by means of the ballot over their political opponents they would not have strained the Rules of the House in order to reinstate their opponents in the position which they had lost. I, therefore, protest against this Motion having been allowed to be placed upon the Paper. The Motion has not been placed there for any great political purpose not for any purpose of general utility, not even for the purpose of the Government themselves. It is absurd to say that my Amendment was carried through a misapprehension. The Government have stated that, in the Bill which they intend to introduce, it is not their intention to place in the hands of the Local Authorities the power to grant licences or otherwise to deal with the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland. That statement does not affect my Amendment at all.
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,): What I said was—
  "That of course the Government adhered to the intention expressed in the Queen's Speech. It was not usual to state the provisions of any Bill before it has been read a first time; but there will be no inconvenience in my stating that the Irish Bill will not differ from the Bills already passed for England and Scotland in respect of containing provisions to give power to Local Authorities to control the hours during which excisable liquors are sold."
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: That bears out my contention. Until we know what powers the Bill proposes to confer I think that no discussion of this question should take place; otherwise you will, in the language of the hon. Member for
  1174
  Peckham, be stultifying yourselves for the mean and miserable purpose of gratifying a few Members who sit on the opposite side of the House. Great pressure has been brought to bear on Her Majesty's Government, and in obedience to that pressure they have allowed matters to take this unprecedented course. The character of this House and that of the Government are at stake on this question. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh at this statement, for it is true; and when this Debate is read to-morrow, the people will form their own conclusions on the matter. I say that, in the face of the terms of my Resolution, until the House shall have ascertained the scope and powers of the Local Authority, and the intentions of the Government are declared with regard to Ireland, it shall not be competent to them to legislate on this question, and that any facilities afforded for the discussion of the Bill put down for to-morrow will be a stultification of the principle hitherto followed. I maintain that that Resolution cannot be set aside except by the carrying of some Resolution by which it would be rescinded after full and formal discussion in this House in a regular manner, and not in the way proposed. The hon. Member opposite has spoken of a straining of the Rules of the House. I say that this proposal is not merely a straining of the Rules, but an outrage of the Rules of the House, and of the rights and privileges of Members. I believe I shall have the sympathy of hon. Members on both sides, even among those who differ from mo on the main question, in protesting against what I must call a piece of political dishonesty, and I hope that if we come to a vote to-night it will be seen that the House has not lost all sense of honour or propriety with regard to the privileges and rights of its Members.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—In view of the proposal by Government to introduce during the present Session a Licensing Bill, which is to apply to Ireland, this House declines to annul the Resolution of the 26th of March,"— (Mr. Baumann,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member who has just sat down, and my hon. Friend behind me, have discussed this subject with a considerable amount of unnecessary heat. The terms applied by them to the course which the Government favoured were "dishonest" "underhand," "chicanery," "straining of Rules, "and" general unfairness. "These are words considerably stronger than the case warrants. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Baumann) referring to the position which he obtained for his Bill relating to the sweating system on Wednesday's Paper, has spoken of politics as a game. Surely we ought not to speak of politics as we may of card-playing or pitch-and-toss. What are the facts of the case which we have to consider? A Local Veto Bill for Ireland was brought in on March 26th, and an Amendment was moved in opposition to it by the hon. Member (Mr. John O'Connor). Those who voted for the Amendment on that occasion had not in their minds at the time the effect which that Amendment might have upon other Bills not then under discussion. Now, it appears to me that if the Ballot is a game, and the fortune of battle a mere chance, we ought to recognise the fact that my hon. Friend opposite, who had charge of the Local Veto Bill, was the victim of an unfortunate mischance, and it ought to be our business to correct the effect of that mischance. But says my hon. Friend behind me, "What reason can you allege in respect of this particular Bill for attempting to remedy the mischance'?" I will tell you. The Bill which my hon. Friend wants to bring forward is a measure dealing with the sweating system, and is brought forward before the result of the Sweating Committee's investigations is known. I do not say that as a hostile comment on my hon. Friend's Bill. But this Bill is brought forward for the second or third
  1176
  year, after the matter has been carefully thrashed out by a Select Committee, and the various provisions of the measure have received the unanimous approval of the Select Committee. If on that ground only the Bill is in a different position from the Bill of my hon. Friend behind me, as far as the action of the Government is concerned, it is, I think, justified by stronger claims. The leader of the House, last year, gave a pledge to offer facilities for the consideration of this measure. The course of public business rendered it absolutely impossible for him to carry out that pledge.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The Report of the Select Committee was not unanimously agreed to.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was agreed to by a large majority of the Committee, including my right hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The whole of the Report was not agreed to by the Attorney General for Ireland.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General agreed to the main provisions of the Report.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The Report introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General, who was Chairman of the Committee, was directly opposed to the main provisions of the Report of the majority.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon and learned Friend differed only as to one part of the Report. In order to make the argument clear with regard to the position of this Bill, I will state what occurred. The Government, last year, promised to give it facilities, but were unable to do so. This Session the fortune of the Ballot gave the hon. Gentleman first place upon Wednesday (to-morrow). The Parliamentsary accident, to use the word adopted by my hon. Friend behind me, which deprived him of his chance, occurred on Wednesday, March 26th. Are we, or are we not, more than justified, by perfectly legitimate Parliamentary means, in trying to remedy what was purely accidental? It is not a straining of the Rules of the House. The Rules of the House are well fitted to remedy an error which the House fell

  1177
  into unintentionally; and if the object of the Rules of the House of Commons be to give full expression to the will of the House of Commons we are acting in the spirit of those Rules in accepting the Resolution of my hon. Friend.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I am very sorry to differ from ray right hon. Friend on this occasion, more especially as I am willing to follow him on ordinary occasions. Like the hero of antiquity, he is invulnerable, except in one weak point, and he has shown what that is to-night. I never, in all my experience of this House, remember a case less fully discussed than that raised by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. I myself wished to address the House at short length, when the hon. Member rose in his place and closured me. I was about to explain to the House what my reasons were for supporting the Amendment, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone would not allow reasonable debate. If he had allowed that debate I would have convinced the Government that we were perfectly right in the course we took. The right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House is not in his place, I regret to see; perhaps it is not convenient for him to appear on this occasion. Is it right for my right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) to say that the Government were not informed, when they themselves voted for the Closure '? The hon. Member for Tipperary will bear me out, because we were tellers on that occasion. That combination alone shows the righteousness of the cause. I had the honour of telling, with the hon. Member, for the Closure, and when the Question was put from the Chair, the Government changed their opinions and filed through the Lobby in opposition to the hon. Member for South Tyrone's Bill. I venture to think that the Government have not placed themselves in a position which is very creditable to them. If they had intended to follow the course which they are now about to pursue they ought to have done so on the occasion of the Second Reading of the hon. Member's Bill. But I am afraid there is something underneath. If I may be allowed to use a phrase not altogether Parliamentary, they have been "got at"
  1178
  by gentlemen on this side, who wear blue ribbons in their button holes, and who have behind them a large amount of what is called Sabbatarian support, and they have been exercising their influence upon Her Majesty's Government, and this most unusual course has been adopted on this occasion, not as the result of free will, but of pressure, undue pressure, the very improper pressure, which has been brought to bear upon the Government. For that reason, I shall move the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend on this side and seconded by the hon. Member on the other.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I cannot refrain from saying that this question was treated in altogether an incompetent manner by the hon. Member for West Tyrone, who had the conduct of the Local Veto Bill for Ireland. So badly did the hon. Member understand the interests of the cause which he undertook to champion that he moved the closure, without considering that the effect of his action would be to prevent this House from considering any measures relating to temperance in Ireland for the remainder of the Session. I am quite in favour of hearing this question adequately and fairly discussed in the House, but I must say that if the hon. Member for West Tyrone will constitute himself the champion of the temperance cause in Ireland, he, at least, might take the trouble not to get us into such difficulties as we find ourselves at present. The hon. Member for Peckham has moved an Amendment to the Resolution which is upon the Paper. I must say the action of the hon. Member for Peckham illustrates in the strongest and strangest possible manner how English Members regard Irish matters. The hon. Member for Peckham is anxious that this Bill, which is regarded with a considerable amount of interest in Ireland, shall not be discussed, because he desires, as I understand, to have a measure of his own discussed. I do not think that an Amendment moved from a motive of that kind will commend itself to the House as a reason why the Resolution should not be carried, and this Bill should not be discussed to-morrow. With regard to the Member for Whitehaven, I am bound to say that his action

  1179
  on such discussions as the present always fills me with extreme wonder. He is not, by any means, a constant attendant in this House. Sometimes, unhappily for everybody, he is not here for considerable periods; but, whenever any proposal is made with regard to temperance legislation in Ireland, the right hon. Member for Whitehaven, whose connection with Ireland I have yet to learn, always appears like a Jack-in-the-Box. I must say, if I was not in favour of having these measures discussed, I should be inclined to favour them after I found the persistent manner in which the hon. Member for Whitehaven comes down to this House upon occasions of this kind and insists upon poking his nose into matters which do not concern him. I do think that the House will be very much interested to know the reasons why the hon. Member insists upon coming here and opposing legislation of this kind. All I can say is that I think he might allow these matters to be discussed as much as possible between Irish Members who hold different opinions on the matter. I can assure him that his interference will only have the effect of stimulating the action of those Irish Members who do not wish to see matters of this kind interfered with by Members like the right hon. Member for Whitehaven, whom we do not regard as at all competent to advise us in these matters. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to this Bill, which, if this Resolution be passed, will be discussed to-morrow. What I want to know is this, why do those Gentlemen who are opposed to the Bill object to having it discussed if, as they believe, they have a great many arguments of the strongest kind to urge against it. I do not think that is exactly the proper way to propagate their opinion in this matter. If I were opposed to a Bill of this kind, on which there is a difference of opinion, I certainly should endeavour to have that opinion expressed in debate, and I would not attempt to have the measure put off in this sort of manner. I, therefore, urge upon the House to pass the Resolution on the Paper, which will merely have the effect of enabling the House to consider this proposal to-morrow,
  1180
  and when we come to consider the proposal we can then judge it upon its merits. I felt tempted to make these few observations for the purpose of impressing upon hon. Gentlemen who feel themselves to be advocates of the temperance cause, that for the future they will, at least, take common pains to see that they do not injure a cause which they seek to benefit.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 22.—(Div. List, No. 53.)
  (12.40.) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 24.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
  (12.50.) MR. LEA claimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Main Question put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 19.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
  Resolved, That the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland having informed the House that the Local Government Bill for Ireland to be introduced this Session, as intimated in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, will be upon similar lines to the Acts passed for England and Scotland, and will not contain any provisions giving Local Authorities powers to control the times during which exciseable liquors are sold in Ireland, or any such regulations, this House is of opinion that there is nothing to prevent it from proceeding further with legislation in relation to the control and regulation of the trade of excisable liquors in Ireland, any previous Resolution of the House to the contrary notwithstanding.
  It being after one of the clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock.