INDIAN TARIFF ACT, 1899.

HC Deb 15 June 1899 vol 72 cc1199-315

*SIR H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

I rise to move "That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to disallow the Indian Tariff Act, 1899." That Act provides that the Governor-General in Council may impose upon any article which receives any bounty or grant on its exportation from the country in which it is manufactured an additional duty on its importation into India equal in amount to such bounty or grant. In pursuance of that statute the Governor-General has imposed upon all sugar imported into India from the Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Holland, and Russia countervailing duties, varying from 10 rupees to 180 rupees per ton, or, taking the rupee at 1s. 4d., from 13s. 4d. per ton to £12 per ton. In respect of the two countries with which India is mainly concerned and from which practically all the European sugar comes to India—namely, Germany and Austria—this duty varies from £1 4s. per ton to £1 15s. 6d. per ton. I may say in passing, in order that there may be no misconception on the point, that though the noble Lord the Secretary for India has been asked questions in regard to it, these duties are in addition to the existing duty of 5 per cent. on all sugar imported into India, which varies from 14s. to 15s. per ton on refined sugar and from 3s. Gd. to 4s. per ton on raw sugar. Before I proceed to discuss the policy of this measure I must notice the objection which has been taken to any interference on the part of this House with the action of what has been called the local authority, and to any dealing differently with the financial policy of India from the manner in which we deal with the financial policy of our self-governing colonies. That objection proceeds on an entire misconception of the constitution of India and of the legislation and practice which defines the relationship between that Government and the Imperial Parliament. When the Government of India was transferred to the Crown all the powers vested in the Board of Directors of the East India Company and in the Board of Control which represented the Imperial authority were vested in the Secretary for India, and three years after that transfer took place the India Council Act was passed, which practically regulates the Government of India at the present time. That Council consists of the Viceroy and six other members, and that Council is technically and literally the Government of India. Every member of the Council is appointed by the Crown; but the Act passed in 1863, and subsequently modified, said that when the Council was assembled for the purpose of making laws, and regulations there should be added to it a certain number of additional members. Those additional members must not be less than ten and they must not be more than sixteen; but in the selection of those members there is no trace of what we call popular representation. Six of the members are officials of the Government of India appointed by the Viceroy, and the remaining ten are non-official members. Of these ten four are nominated by the Provincial Legislature, and one by the Chamber of Commerce of Bengal, but these nominations are again subject to the veto of the Viceroy, and the remaining five are nominated by the Viceroy in such a manner as appears most suitable with reference to the legislative requirements and adequate representation of the different classes of the community. This body has a very limited jurisdiction. No measures affecting finance, taxation, debt, and sortie other matters with which I need not trouble the House, can be introduced without the Viceroy's consent. Now, I am not in any way criticising this. mode of governing India—I believe it has worked wisely and worked well; but it does not possess either the characteristics or the independent authority of the elected legislatures of our self-governing, colonies. It may be said, Be that as it may, it is a legislative body, and, as such, so long as it is a legislative body, may it not be entrusted with the sole control of matters which exclusively apply to. India? That question has been raised more than once, and it has been disposed of by two great Secretaries of State, the Duke of Argyll and the present. Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury. The Duke of Argyll dealt with that question of general legislation on general policy; Lord Salisbury dealt with it on financial matters, and at a time and under conditions which form an almost exactly opposite precedent to the objection to the present situation. Lord Salisbury was called upon to deal with the contention that the Viceroy and his Council should be as independent with respect to the finances of India as the elected legislatures and the responsible Governments of Australia and Canada were. Now, I am not going to trouble the House with any quotations upon the general question, hut, as I do think this point may be cleared up at once and finally, I must quote two or three sentences front that very able despatch of Lord Salisbury. He says: It is not open to question that Her Majesty's Government are as much responsible to Parliament for the government of India as they are for any of the Crown colonies of the Empire. … Nor has any exception been made, either legally or in constitutional practice, in favour of questions of finance, which your predecessor proposes specially to withdraw from tire action of the home Government. On the contrary, the vigilance of Parliament is more active and the weight of Parliamentary responsibility more strongly felt in respect, to finance than in respect to any other department of Indian government. … It necessarily follows that the control exercised by Her Majesty's Government over financial policy must be effective also. … In scrutinising the control exercised over the Government of India by Her Majesty's Government, and the grounds for maintaining that control, it must be borne in mind that the super-in ending authority of Parliament is the reason anal the measure of the authority exercised by the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and that if the one power is limited the other must be limited at the same time. It is impossible, therefore, that measures affecting Customs and finance can be dealt with on the responsibility of the Government of India,' as your 'predecessor in Council has suggested. So far as Parliament is concerned, no such responsibility exists. The only responsibility to Parliament is that of Ministers of the Crown. … Measures affecting the tariff touch subjects which are not exclusively of Indian concern. They influence the prosperity of trade and industry outside the confines of India, and they relate to matters on which Her Majesty's Government is in constant negotiation with foreign Powers. Much considerations may furnish important elements in considering the expediency of financial proposals, but they are necessarily less fully within the cognisance of the Indian than of the Imperial Government.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,) Midlesex, 1202 Ealing

What is the date of the despatch?

*SIR H. H. FOWLER

It is the despatch of March 17, 1876. It is the despatch which regulates the relations of the Indian and Imperial Governments. That, Sir, is my justification for asking the House now to review this great change in the tariff of India, and for pointing to what the Finance Minster of India describes as a new chapter in the fiscal history of that country. When the Statute, which is now limited to sugar—although, as the House will notice, it is not confined to sugar, but covers other foreign imports—when the Bill was introduced, the following official statement was made on behalf of the Government of India: The present Bill has been prepared with the object of enabling the Government of India to impose countervailing dirties, and thus to preserve the sugar cultivation and industries of India. The first point, therefore, which I shall deal with is the sugar cultivation and the industries of India. Statistics as to the area of land in India which is under sugar cultivation are not complete, but I think the statement that is made in the Blue Book may be taken as practically accurate. The Government of India, in a despatch which I shall have to deal with later on in my speech, stated that the area under sugar-carte in India is about two and a half million acres, but the figures which are given later in the appendix to the Blue Book show that the average land under sugar cultivation for the five years ended 1896 was 2,900,000 acres. That figure went down to 2,651,000 in 1896–97, and to 2,675,000 in 1897–98. There is no record of what the figure is at the present time. But I think the figures are under estimated, and that the number of acres may be safely taken as something like 3,000,000; but the House must remember that in this, as in all other Indian matters, things are on a colossal scale. Two million acres in India. are a very different thing from 2,000,000 acres in most other countries. The entire area of India is something like 224,000,000 acres, and therefore, however important the sugar crop may be—and I should be the last man to undervalue it—it is well for the House to remember that the land under sugar cultivation is only 1½ per cent. of the whole area under cultivation at the present time. The crop from this acreage is taken by the Government of India—and I do not dispute the figures, though some authorities give it as much larger—at one ton per acre, so that the sugar crop from 3,000,000 acres is 3,000,000 tons of raw sugar. Now, Sir, it is a difficult question, to say the least, as to what proportion of that product of Indian sugar is consumed in the raw state and how much of it is refined. But in the report in this Blue Book of one of the largest districts where sugar is cultivated—the North-West Provinces and Oudh—the official says: The best estimate I can give is that one-fifth of the raw sugar produced is refined, and four-fifths consumed in the natural state. I believe—I am told, and there are gentlemen in the House who will correct me if I am wrong—I believe that a very large quantity of sugar is consumed as cane both as an article of food and enjoyment. The principal method of refining which prevails in India is crushing and boiling down the raw product, and that is the beginning and ending of the refining of a large portion of the sugar in India. The refining, as the word has been used in this controversy, is on a very small scale. The machinery is inadequate, the processes are defective, and when I tell the House that in the return on the moral and material progress of India of, I think, 1896 and 1897, the Government there state that the entire number of what we call sugar factories or refineries, as we understand them in this country, was only thirteen in the whole of India, an increase of two since 1889, they will see that the sugar industry of India was on a very limited scale. India gets its sugar from two sources—European, which is bounty-fed; non-European, which is not bounty-fed, and the bulk of the latter comes from Mauritius. In 1891 the import into India was 147,000 tons—and I mention the year 1891 because it was not until that year that there was any import into India of German or Austrian bounty-fed sugar. That represented the normal conditions of trade. In 1896 it had fallen to 137,000 tons. In 1897 it was 143,000 tons. In 1898, the year on which so many of these controversies turned, and the year after the famine, it rose to 230,000 tons, and for the year ended March 31, 1899, it had fallen to 203,000 tons. Of the imports in 1898 109,000 tons were bounty-fed, and in 1899 74 000 tons were bounty-bed. I want the House to understand the true meaning of these figures. We are dealing with a native trade which on a most moderate estimate represents 3,000,000 tons. We are dealing with a trade which is threatened with the importation of 200,000 tons, and you are asked to take special precautions, to pass special legislation in order to penalise 74,000 tons. Where does this sugar come from? In 1896 Austria and Germany sent 36,000 tons; in 1897 they sent 43,000 tons; in 1898, 107,000 tons; and in 1899 it had fallen to 74,000 tons. The Mauritius plays no small part in the supply of sugar to India and in the initiation of this legislation. In 1896 the Mauritius sent 78,000; in 1897, 83,000 in 1898 and in the year which has closed 105,000 tons. Now these are the facts as to this threatened industry, and I hope the House will not forget that in face of these increased imports the population of India during the period over which these figures run has been increasing at the rate of at least two millions per annum, and therefore there must necessarily be an increased supply and increased consumption. These, as I say, being the facts, I must ask the House to go with me through the history of the legislation which I am asking for an Address to the Crown to disallow; and I think, so far as Parliamentary history and Ministerial diplomacy are concerned, this is one of the most interesting and instructive Blue Books which has ever been placed on the table of this House. There is nothing in this Blue Book, no document, prior to May 5th, 1898. We do not know what passed between the Government at home and the Government of of India; but in May, 1898, the Government of India sent home a despatch containing three enclosures. They did not refer to any previous communication from home, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether this was a reply to any communication from the home authorities. At present it looks like a bolt from the blue so far as India is concerned. The Government of India had been approached by the Chamber of Commerce of Bengal as to India being represented at the Brussels Conference on the Sugar Question. They sent a long letter from three great firms in Calcutta, describing the effect of the unrestricted importation of bounty-fed sugar, and asking the Government to take steps to deal with it. The only other official document accompanying this despatch was a letter from the Governor of the North-West Provinces, who appears also to have been approached by the Chamber of Commerce in his district. He said in it that he had no reason to believe that the sugar industry had yet been seriously threatened by the importation of bounty-fed sugar, but the extension of the great industry in this province, was a matter which appeared to be of much importance, and that it should receive the attention of the Government, and kept under observation at the Conference. That is the information on which the Government of India proceeded. Now, I must read what that Government says on the subject. First they say that they approve of the suggestion of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce that India should be represented at the Conference. Then they say: An examination of the statements in the note on the effect on the sugar-cane industry of India of the unrestricted importation of bounty-fed sugar, which forms one of the enclosures of this despatch, leads us to the conclusion that while the competition of imported sugar (of which three-fifths are cane-sugar) may have reduced the profits of the relining industry, it does not appear to have materially affected tire producer. He relies mainly on the demand for unrefined sugar, which constitutes seven-eighths of the trade, and it, respect of these seven-eighths there seems to he no reason to apprehend that the producer's profits have been lowered by the increased importation of beet sugar. While, therefore, we adhere to the position stated in the financial despatches of February 14, 1888, and May 14. 1889, and are prepared to press for the abolition of the sugar bounties, and to join in an international convention for that purpose, we are not prepared to levy countervailing duties on sugar imported into India. There is one point that we have to take into consideration in dealing with this question. The consumption of sugar in India is put at 281b. per head. That is a large proportion, showing how important a necessary of life sugar is in India. What is the consumption of sugar in European countries? Let us contrast it with that of India, bearing in mind also the position of the people of India. Weil, in Europe we are the highest consumers of sugar; we are the highest consumers in the world—it is 861b. per head. In America it is 661b., in Denmark it is 441b., in France it is only 291b., in Germany 281b., in Holland 261b., but in India it is at least 281b. per head. Therefore any interference with the general consumption of sugar in that country would be a very serious matter. I asked the noble Lord a few nights ago whether there was any dissent from the despatch to which I have referred. As the House knows, every member of the Council has a right to dissent and to send his dissent to the Secretary of State. But in this case there was no dissent sent home. It was signed unanimously, and it was so signed by the Council of India. So on May 5, 1898, it was recorded as the decision of Lord Elgin and his colleagues that they would not levy any counter, Vailing duties on sugar. Their opinion was that the sugar grower in India as against foreign sugar, whether bounty-fed or not, had nothing to fear. Well, the next step is the Brussels Conference, but I need not trouble the House with that. On August 25 the noble Lord replied to this despatch of the Government of India, and he refers to a letter from the Colonial Office, dated July 23, 1898. The noble Lord said: I forward for the information of your Government the papers noted in the margin. The letters from the Mauritius urge that India. should take steps to protect her own sugar and Mauritius cane-sugar from the competition of bounty-fed sugar. At paragraph 4 of your letter of the 5th of May, 1898, it was stated that you were not prepared to levy countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar imported into India. I should be glad to receive more fully your views on this proposal, as Her Majesty's Government, now that they are in, possession of the views of foreign Governments, must consider during the next few months the course they will pursue. Following the story in consecutive order the Government of India on October 31 sent a despatch back in reply to the noble Lord, and this despatch the House will bear in mind. On that date a circular was sent out, in which these words occur: The Government of India have no clear evidence before them that the increasing sugar imports have had, or are tending to, such serious consequences. The area under sugarcane in the different provinces has not declined of late years, nor in recent revenue or settlement reports have any observations regarding the unprotitableness of the industry been noticed. The extent to which the refined sugars from abroad compete in the Indian markets with the coarse sugars ordinarily manufactured by native processes and tend to supplant the latter is uncertain. There is probably an increasing demand for sugar in India for domestic consumption and for spirit distilling and sweetmeat making, and, as the sugar-cane area has not expanded of late years, it may be that the increasing imports have not been in excess of the necessary demand, and that the price of Indian sugars has, notwithstanding these imports, been maintained. Lastly, the question whether sugar prices in India have fallen in recent years is one on which it is difficult on existing materials to pronounce, owing to the many varieties of sugar sold in Indian markets, and the failure of the published price returns to clearly distinguish between them. While this was going on there was a correspondence proceeding between Mauritius and Whitehall and between the Colonial Office and the India Office, and in November, 1898, the Governor of Mauritius addressed the Colonial Secretary with reference to the position of the Mauritius trade, sending enclosures. The Governor of Mauritius asked that they should be exempted from the payment of the 5 per cent. duty, but this was a request which neither the Government of India nor the Home Government could accede to. Therefore he raised this question again in his correspondence with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He also accompanied that with a petition from the banker's and merchants of Mauritius, stating their case fairly enough, and, from their point of view, putting the strongest arguments they could in favour of receiving this protection. On January 3, 1899, the Secretary of State for the Colonies forwards this communication to the noble Lord at the head of the India Office, and says: Mr. Chamberlain concurs in the apprehension of the memorialists that the continued sale of bounty-fed sugar will drive Mauritian sugar out of the Indian market, and will result in ruin and distress to a colony the majority of whose population are natives of India or their descendants. He therefore trusts that this Petition may receive the favourable consideration of Lord George Hamilton, and of his Excellency the Governor-General of India in Council. The answer of the noble Lord to that communication is not in the Blue Book. But on 7th January the Secretary to the Colonies returns again to the subject. He says: There are two questions affecting the prosperity of the sugar-growing colonies, on which correspondence has already passed between this Office and the India Office, and which Mr. Chamberlain would ask Lord George Hamilton to bring to the special notice I of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, in order that they may receive his attention at the outset of his term of office. It seems not improbable that, however well supplied with East Indian labour the sugar planters may be, their industry may be destroyed if the bounty system continues unchecked, and, in the absence of countervailing duties or penal clauses, it is not easy to see from whence the check will come. On this subject Mr. Chamberlain can only express his own personal views, as he has already expressed them in the House of Commons. There is, in his opinion, no valid economic arguments against countervailing duties, and the question is purely one of policy and of expediency. He closes his despatch by saying: He does not presume to suggest to the Government of India what course should be taken in the matter, but he would ask that their most earnest attention should be given to it. He has more than once declined to allow colonial policy on commercial questions to be tied by the policy for the time being of the mother country, and if the Indian Government, in the interests of East Indians, were to see lit to penalise or to countervail bounty-fed sugar, or to give preference to the honestly grown cane sugar of the British colonies, he would welcome the step as likely to strengthen the opposition to bounties and to hasten the collapse of a mischievous and unsound device for ruining an important British industry. I do not see that the reply of the noble Lord is in the Blue Book, but on January 24 the noble Lord sent this telegram to the Viceroy: A despatch is being sent by next mail.… Should you now adopt views different from those of your letter of May, 1898, and propose countervailing duties, I shall lie ready to consider proposals fully. Recognising that circumstances of Great Britain and India differ, I shall ascribe great importance to views which people of India hold on this matter. I send for information circular showing how countervailing duties are levied in United States.' On January 26 the noble Lord sent that despatch. It is a very interesting despatch, but as it did not arrive until after the decision of the Indian Government had been taken I will not trouble the House with it. But on February 1 the Viceroy—the new Viceroy was now in power—sent this telegram— Your telegram of 24th January last. A despatch has been posted by last mail, in which, taking Indian standpoint and irrespectively of Imperial policy in relation to colonies, we arrive at conclusions on the whole favourable to recommendation of Colonial Office. We considered it expedient to send it unaltered. Despatch points out that since 1897–98 imports of beet sugar from Austria and Germany show marked increase, imports from Mauritius remaining stable. The present market price of imported sugars is unusually low. They compete with native sugar, both refined and coarse, and diminish profits of motive sugar refineries. That was a mistake, an unintentional mistake. The imports of Austria and Germany were rapidly decreasing at that moment, and the imports from Mauritius were as rapidly increasing. I ask the House to mark the next words in the telegram: We are inquiring how far these effects are likely to be permanent. On January 26 Lord Curzon sent his despatch, and it is a very interesting document. He says: Inquiries have been initiated in our Department of Revenue and Agriculture, and they will be supplemented by inquiries into the prices of both refined and coarse sugar which will be undertaken by the Director-General of Statistics. With these data before us we shall hereafter be in a position to express a final, or at any rate a more confident, opinion on the policy of imposing countervailing duties. That was the expression of opinion of the Viceroy on January 26th. On February 24th the Secretary of State telegraphs: Desire to know if you propose to pass an Act this session unloosing countervailing duties? At that moment the inquiry that had been directed in August, that had been promised in October 1898, was still proceeding, and at that time the Government of India had no information at all. They had sent a despatch, possibly two despatches, but on February 24th the noble Lord wants to know if there is going to be legislation this session. The Viceroy immediately replies— Propose to legislate at once on American model. Yes, on the model of the Dingley Tariff. On March 1st the noble Lord telegraphs: Suggested legislation approved by Her Majesty's Government. When will Indian Government's intentions be announced? On March 3rd the Viceroy replies: Bill for imposing duties on lines of American law will be brought forward on March 10th and published in newspapers on March 13th. There was some delay owing to pending contracts, but on March 20th the Bill received the Viceroy's assent. I should like to give the House a few dates as to these replies. The Viceroy said he was going to consider the matter and to get statistics about prices. There is not a line of statistics in the Blue Book about prices. The first reply was from the North-West Provinces and dated February 15th; that from Ajmere-Merwara, February 17th; Bombay, February 23rd; Berar, February 28th; and the Punjab, March 7th. I do not think I am speaking too strongly when I say that, practically, there was no regard to the special inquiry into this matter, and that the Viceroy had already formed his opinion when he sent home the telegram of January 24. I am not going to trouble the House with all these replies, but I am going to take the two great districts from which replies were given—one of them decidedly favourable to the legislation the noble Lord approved of, and the other unfavourable. If the House will allow me, I will deal first with the North-West Provinces, which are very largely interested in sugar cultivation. The memorandum is made by the Officiating Director of Land Records and Agriculture, and it contains some very important statements. I will only call attention to two or three of the salient points: The area sown in 1896–97 fell below the average by 56,131 acres, or 4.4 per cent. This fall could not be due to competition of foreign imports, because this competition had not begun in the spring of 1896, when this crop was sown. I call the attention of the House to this, because great stress has been laid on land going out of cultivation. There was no doubt a great decrease in one year owing to the famine. There was a decrease of the whole acreage of land in India under cultivation of upwards of 20 millions of acres owing to the famine. The fall in sugar cultivation was about an average of 10 per cent., but in a great many other instances, I think in wheat, it was 16 or 17 per cent. All through India there was a large diminution in sugar cultivation on account of the famine, and in no part of the country was the famine worse than in the North-West Provinces. The decrease is, in fact, just what the figures of past years would suggest; a fall was to be expected after the large rise in the previous year, and if the fall is greater by a few thousand acres than might have been foreseen, the reason is to be found in the local scarcity prevailing in Philibhit and elsewhere at the time (the spring of 1896) When this crop was sown. The crop sown in the spring of 1897 showed a further fall, and was 9.6 per cent. below the normal. This is not surprising, for at seed-time almost the whole province was suffering from acute famine, and cultivators naturally put a large proportion of their irrigable land under food crops. On the other hand, the increase in imports was not at that time so marked as to affect the cultivators' calculations. That is one point. He goes on to say: No matter how cheap refined sugar is, the great majority of the people will continue to use gur and will not substitute refined sugar for it. The imports of refined sugar do not, therefore, immediately threaten our whole home production, but only our home refining industry, leaving the demand for three-fourths or four-fifths of our production unaffected. That is the report from the North-West Provinces. It gives rather interesting figures about the profits of the sugar-refining industry. The Officiating Director shows how they vary from 30 rupees per acre in one district to seven rupees in another, and he adds: I know of no crop which, grown on the same scale, would yield such profits. … On the whole, then, as far as prices show, the native refiner cannot say that his profits per cent. have vanished. Summing up the whole matter, this able and distinguished public servant who presides over that district is exceedingly cautious. He does not commit himself to any decided opinion. I now come to Bombay, which is a large trade centre. There are two reports submitted to the Bombay Government by two Very distinguished men—the Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Land Revenues. The effect of these reports is this: That the importations of European sugars during recent years were altogether abnormal, and that they neither lowered the price of Indian relined sugar consumed in the Bombay Presidency nor checked the cultivation of the cane, or the production of unrefined sugar to which practically the whole of the cane produced in the Presidency is devoted. On the other hand, the production of refined sugar in this Presidency is so far on too insignificant a scale to merit consideration. . The Chambers of Commerce, Bombay and Karachi, are clearly of opinion that in the interest of trade countervailing duties against European sugars are uncalled for. . On the whole, his Excellency the Governor in Council is of opinion that neither the commercial nor the agricultural interests of this Presidency are injuriously affected by the increasing imports of refined sugar, or call at present for the imposition of countervailing duties upon that part of the imported sugar the export of which to this country is aided by bounties. There is a very able report by Mr. Mallison, the Deputy-Director of Agriculture in the Bombay Presidency, in which he shows how the sugar is cultivated, and says: The increasing foreign imports of refined sugar in the Bombay Presidency more than meet the diminished local production of moist sugar and the diminished rail imports from other parts of India. The increasing foreign imports of relined sugar, owing to cheapness and perhaps also owing to a higher standard of living of an increased population, find extended use for household purposes and in the production of superior descriptions of sweetmeats. The habit of out-drinking has extended to villages in out-districts, and there is no doubt that villagers who used sugar on rare occasions formerly now use it much more freely and oftener. He draws the inference that foreign imports have yet had no effect on sugarcane cultivation in the Presidency, and he makes very valuable suggestions with reference to improvements in cultivation. The Governor of Bombay and his Council sum up their opinion as follows: On the whole the Governor in Council is of opinion that neither the commercial nor the agricultural interests of this Presidency are injuriously affected by the increasing imports of relined sugar, or call, at present, for the imposition of countervailing duties upon that part of the imported sugar the export of which to this country is aided by bounties. The information obtained up to that date, and the information which they received after that date, fully confirmed the policy of 1898, and the decision of the Government of that time was supported by all other considerations. You cannot contend, and they did not contend, that the cultivation of 3,000,000 acres was threatened by the importation of 200,000 tons. It was evident that the amount of sugar produced was increasing; though competition might decrease the profits of the refiner it did not materially affect the Indian producer. What that correspondence shows is that what the Indian. sugar industry needed was better and more scientific cultivation and more modern and effective machinery, and the true policy of the Indian Government would have been in that direction. I maintain that if any money was spent in promoting that industry it would have been wisely spent in that direction. Now, Sir, the right hon. Lord, when asked the other night whether the despatch had been signed by the same members, said that more accurate information very often resulted in change of opinion. What I want the House to do is to see whether the information received between May and February afforded any ground for that change of belief, and I go on that point to the speech of Sir James Westland when he introduced this legislation to the Legislative Council. He was bound to make out a case; he signed the recommendation in favour of refusing to levy countervailing duties, and he now proposed to reverse that decision. He was perfectly candid. He said he was proposing "to open an entirely new chapter in our fiscal history." In that speech he defined bounties, he explained the differences between England and India, and I am rather surprised that he said there was no chance of countervailing duties ever being made in England. I think he was not very with the state of the question in this country. But the whole of his case rests entirely upon the increase in the importation of foreign sugar into India in the last three or four years. That is his case from first to last. I will not go over the figures again; the House recollects them. The very highest import of sugar was only 230,000 tons, of which only 109,000 tons were bounty-fed, and that had been not increasing, but steadily decreasing, during the period which was to be the qualifying period for this reversal of policy. All the increase had taken place before May, 1898; and the decrease has taken place since May, 1898, and the importation of bounty-fed sugar has steadily decreased. The same remark would apply to the decrease of cultivated area. It is quite evident that, so far as that decrease goes, it is to a great extent in consequence of the famine. But, Sir, I must ask the attention of the House to two items in what I may call the further information which Sir James Westland had received. He dwelt upon Berar, and he dwelt upon the Punjaub. His case is that in Berar the importation of refined sugar had been 1,000 tons; in each year there had been a steady decline, till in 1897–8 it had decreased to 430 tons; while there had been an increased amount of foreign refined sugar in the district, it having risen to as much as 4,730 tons. The House will see that that is not sufficient grounds upon which to rest this legislation. But I was rather interested, when I saw this statement, to look into what was the Berar report, which was not quoted in full. After the Resident had given the information of this decrease in cultivation, he says: Since we have no sugar refining industry in Berar, the imported refined sugar does not come into competition with the local production. Our requirements are much in excess of our produce. We import unrefined sugar in large amount. Until the cultivation of the sugar-cane in Berar extends sufficiently to satisfy the local demand for unrefined sugar, the question of the competition of refined sugar does not come in. Then, Sir, as I pointed out, Sir James Westland also referred to the Punjaub. I turned to the Punjaub, where it says: Refined sugar has not found its way into the villages to any appreciable extent. There the people are more bound by custom and tradition than the inhabitants of towns, and use gur as an article of daily food. Gur is sweeter and more adapted to the necessities of the zemindar, and is very much cheaper than refined sugar. This is the native sugar. Prices vary from 4 or 5 rupees, while imported sugar sells at from 9 rupees to 10. And, he says: There is certainly no tendency towards a fall in price, so that it cannot be said either that the profits of cultivations are declining, or that refined sugar has yet entered into competition with gur. No apprehensions were felt as yet as to, the future of the sugar-cane cultivation. This, then, is the new information. But there is one district to which he has not alluded. There is no report from the Government of Bengal. There is a report from the Chamber of Commerce of Calcutta, which is a body of gentlemen who have very strong opinions upon these questions, but we have no evidence from the Government of Bengal. In his speech Sir James Westland introduces the case of Mauritius, and he maintains that there is a very strong case between the inhabitants of India and the inhabitants of Mauritius, which justifies, if possible, legislation being proceeded with. That is always the argument in favour of protective legislation. It is just as strong in the case of the agriculturists of this country. If you once admit that argument, I do not know where you are to stop. Then there was another speech made in that debate. I am bound to say that, although tempted very much to criticise that speech, not only my personal respect for the Viceroy, but also the respect which I feel for his high office, restrains my criticisms. Perhaps I should say something which I should hereafter wish I had not said if I said all I am inclined to say. I will only say this of it, that it was an eloquent exposition of inaccurate statistics and exploded economic fallacies. Comment has been made upon the unanimity with which the Council passed this measure, but nobody who is familiar with its constitution would charge the Legislative Council of India with being affected by Free Trade opinions. They are not apostles of Peel or Cobden, Gladstone or Northcote. They hold strong views on Free Trade and Protection, and on other questions besides sugar. I may remind the House of the controversy which took place with regard to the cotton legislation. The argument was that the duties were injuring the manufactures in Lancashire for the benefit of manufactures in India. Now, Sir, when I made my proposals the Legislative Council declined to accept the principle of an Excise duty, which, of course, is the one element to destroy the protective element. They then proposed that, whereas the import Customs duty was fixed at 5 per cent., the Excise duty should be only 3½ per cent. I think my Lancashire friends, who were very angry with me on that occasion, will do me the justice to say that the strain of the controversy from first to last was that the interests of Lancashire were being sacrified in order to protect the cotton industry of India. That was not correct. The Government, perhaps, have carried out that policy in a more satisfactory manner than I did myself, but they have never differentiated their policy from mine upon that question. No one spoke more strongly than the First Lord of the Treasury upon the absolute necessity of freeing this class of legislation from everything of a protective character. But those proposals did not meet with the approval of the Council, and when my Bill went to the Legislative Council it was only carried by two—the voting was 11 to 9. If the Bill had been thrown out it would have been upon the avowed ground that removing the element of protection would be a discouragement to the cultivator of cotton, that it was a menace to the cotton industry. Substitute the word "sugar" for the word "cotton," and you have the argument for these counter-vailing duties. The introduction of Free Trade legislation in India was by Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, exercising his absolute prerogative to override his Council The Legislative Council of India would not have Free Trade then, and Lord Lytton wisely exercised his prerogative, and practically repealed the protective legislation which led ultimately to the abolition of the whole of the import duties as well as those on cotton. I mention these facts to show that the House must not take it for granted that this question is looked at in the Legislative Council of India on precisely the same lines as we should look upon it here. Now, Sir, I will not keep the House much longer, but just a word or two upon the legislation which is now proposed. It draws a line between bounty-fed imports and non-bounty-fed imports. But all the imports of refined sugar to some extent affect the interests of the Indian refiner, and from that point of view the principle is the same. I am willing to concede that in certain districts bounty-fed sugar may be produced at less than cost price, but before it gets to the consumer it has to bear certain burdens. There is the carriage from Austria to India; the carriage from Bombay or Calcutta to Upper India; and, in addition, there is a 5 per cent. Customs duty. These three elements of protection the Indian producer possesses at present; and the protection afforded by the cost of carriage is one to which he is entitled. But the ultimate object of this measure is to compensate the Indian refiner if you like, and certainly the Mauritius refiner, by increasing the price of sugar. What else would be the advantage of a countervailing duty? Into whose pocket will the increaso go? It will be paid by the Indian consumer, and it will go to the refiner, whether at home or abroad. I submit that there is no case stated for this legislation, as far as the general facts are concerned. But I will not shrink from dealing with the statement that the protection is to be given, not against ordinary competition, but against competition which has attached to it an artificial advantage. The Viceroy says that the industry "should be relieved from external competition fortified by an arbitrary advantage." But he does not say what an arbitrary advantage is, and we have no definition of it. There are advantages of climate, soil, taxation, cost of labour and raw material, cost of transport, cost of land, Unproved processes, and of many kinds of Government assistance, direct and indirect. Who is to say which is arbitrary? What do the planters of Mauritius say with reference to Australia? They say that they have lost the markets of Australia because the planters of Queensland and New Zealand, with the assistance of the money and credit of their Governments and of protective import duties, are producing more sugar than the Australian consumption. No Government can equalise the conditions of production. But you may put the case in a more plausible way, and say that, if a foreign Government throws a disability on the producer of another country, the Government of that country is bound to compensate its own producer to the extent of that disability. But that would cover protective duties as well as bounties, for there is no real difference. Germany gives so much per ton for sugar exported to India, and thereby places the native producer at a disadvantage. The United States puts a duty on British iron imported, and thereby places the British producer at a disadvantage. The Viceroy talks about "the mutterings of the high priests at the Free Trade shrine." I will quote some of those mutterings of the high priests, and I will choose the high priests irrespective of party. I will first quote the Conservative Government of 1876, when Sir Stafford Northcote was at the Exchequer, and Mr. W. H. Smith at the Treasury. What did they say when this very proposal was made to them in 1896? The proposal of a countervailing duty rests upon a principle which the Government of this country could not admit without reversing its whole system of coin inertial policy. If the doctrine was still maintained that the Government should adopt fiscal measures for other than fiscal objects, and should attempt to make such measures an engine for assisting British manufacturers to compete on what may be considered equal terms with their foreign rivals, the present ease might undoubtedly be considered a very proper one for the application of such a principle. But it cannot be doubted that if the Government were to act on this doctrine in the present case, it would soon be called upon to do so in other cases also. Their Lordships are of opinion that the Government ought not to countenance such a step, unless it is proposed to review the whole code of commercial legislation in this country. The next high priest I will quote is Sir Louis Mallet. In the Report of the Sugar Bounty Committee he is reported as saying that "he was not able to see the difference between countervailing a bounty and giving a bounty against an import duty of a foreign country"; and with respect to countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar he said: I should very strongly deprecate any such policy. I contend that the objections to it in principle are of a most serious character. I think it would lead to a demand from other industries which it would be very difficult in justice to resist. I entertain the opinion that it would he found very difficult to apply it in practice, without imperilling the security of our treaty stipulations, and without involving us in very great difficulties in mix relations with foreign countries. The next high priest I will quote is Mr. Bright. In declining to attend a, public meeting at Birmingham on the sugar bounties question in 1881, Mr. Bright wrote: Whilst regretting that the bounty system exists, I am quite unable to act Wit you and your friends in favour of what are called countervailing duties, whether as regards sugar or shipping, or any other article of trade. There was another Member for Birmingham at that time who was invited to attend the meeting—the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who wrote: If you were unfortunately to succeed in imposing countervailing duties on foreign sugar, the effect would be that the consumers in this country, principally of the working classes, would, according to the figures supplied by the sugar refiners themselves, have to submit to a tax of something like £1,000,000 sterling per annum, in order to put this sum in the pockets of the West Indian planters and a few sugar retinas in the United kingdom. That was die opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in his private and personal capacity; and his official deliverance, as President of the Board Of Trade, was as follows: The general principle which governs the financial policy of this country is that Government shall not interfere with the course of trade either by giving bounties or by imposing duties. To this policy no exception has hitherto been made, whatever the conduct of foreign Governments may have been either in encouraging their own manufacturers or discouraging ours. There are many ways besides bounties in which Governments can and do encourage or discourage particular industries. None of these have hitherto been thought to call for retaliation by her Majesty's Government, yet they are open to the same kind of objection as sugar bounties. If duties are to be imposed to countervail foreign bounties, a fortiori ought they to be imposed to countervail protective duties. To impose countervailing duties in order to neutralise the indirect sugar bounties would therefore be to take the first step in reversing that Free Trade policy which was adopted on the clearest ground of argument, and has conferred immense advantages on the industrial classes of this country. The last high priest whom I shall quote is The Times. When the decision of the Board of Trade in regard to sugar bounties in 1880 was announced, The Times wrote: This is the language of common sense and common honesty. Whatever can be done, consistently with sound principles, to induce foreign Governments to abandon these foolish devices of bounties on the export of sugar, or on the manufacture of sugar, the Government are prepared to do. Beyond this they cannot stir. The truth is that there is not a single argument in favour of countervailing duties which was not advanced long since in favour of the sliding scale—of an 8s. fixed duty and of the navigation laws.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

What is the date of that article?

*SIR H. H. FOWLER

The 5th of November, 1880, when the sugar bounty question was under discussion in this country. One word as to the position of Germany. Austria, we know, buys from India precisely the same amount that she sells to India. But Germany buys from India 7½ millions of rupees worth of goods, and sells only 2½ millions worth of sugar. The question of bounties does not enter into the purchases from France and Germany. So far as the object of commerce is concerned, India has only to take care of her imports, the exports will take care of themselves. Therefore this trade is clearly to the advantage of the people of India, to encourage this import trade in every possible way, especially when imports of Germany are sold to India at less than the cost price, while the exports of India to Germany are sold at the full price. The other great bounty country is France. I think that the French bounty is more than double the bounty given either in Germany or Austria; but why do not the French have a monopoly of the market? In conlusion, I can only say that this policy is a violation of the principle of Free Trade, that it is the first step towards reversing a policy which has been of such advantage to us, and it can confer no benefit on India. If it succeeds it will stereotype antiquated processes of manufacture and machinery, and it will deprive India of that fair competition which is the best stimulus to increased production and manufacture. If it had no other meaning and no ulterior purpose the question would be a very trifling one, although it is not creditable for a Government to reverse the decision which they formed in 1880; but can you stop here? Can India stop here? The Viceroy has an absolute power to impose protective duties on everything he may consider desirable. Can we stop here? Because if this policy is good for India it is good for England. If it is right that the sugar planters of Mauritius should be protected in the Indian markets from competition by the sugars from Austria and Germany, it is right that the sugar planters in the West Indies should be protected in the markets of Great Britain from the same competition. I hear no cheers from the Treasury bench. Is that what you mean?

THE SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.)

We should not cheer you.

*SIR H. H. FOWLER

No, I dare say not, but no doubt you would sometimes cheer a principle though you despised the man who advocated that principle. If that is what you mean, I say to the Colonial Secretary, "Have the courage of your convictions and act accordingly." Let the First Lord of the Treasury make the announcement that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I think he would scatter to the winds the listless apathy which we are told prevails in the political world. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Finance Minister of Great Britain, say that he accepts the economic doctrines of the Viceroy of India and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. Let him say that, and he will be within measurable distance of that haven of rest and repose and freedom from official responsibility for which he so feelingly pleaded in his last utterance to his constituents. No, Sir, right hon. Gentlemen do not mean, and will not take, that fatal plunge. I will tell you why. Because they know—and no one knows better than the Colonial Secretary—that the constituencies would not tolerate it. They would not tolerate the legislative raising of the price of a great primary article of daily consumption among the people of this country for the advantage of the planters. I say that what we cannot and what we dare not do for Great Britain we have no right to do in India. The British nation is as reponsible for the fiscal policy, for the commercial freedom, for the material progress of India as it is for its civil and military administration. It is our legitimate pride that we have rescued India front anarchy, from internecine strife, from foreign aggression. We have stamped on its government, on its institutions, on its daily life, that marvellous combination of law and order, of individual freedom and inflexible justice, which are the characteristics and glory of British rule the wide world over. We have adopted that policy because we know by dear-bought and long experience that it was best for ourselves, and we believed it to be the best for that great empire which was entrusted to our charge. We have adopted the policy and We have persevered in it, although it has been misrepresented and misunderstood, and at times unpopular. We are bound to apply that principle all the way through, and the test of righteous trusteeship is that you deal with the interests of others on the same lines as you deal with your own interests in similar circumstances. For half a century this country has found it to be to its commercial advantage and to its material interests to have its trade unfettered, that our people should be at liberty, whenever and wherever they pleased, to trade in the best arid cheapest markets, and, above all, that we should levy no tax except for the purposes of revenue, and should not benefit one section of the community at the expense of the rest. Our commercial history, our national prosperity, the marvellous improvement in the condition of our people, are proofs of the wisdom of that policy. We know, the House knows, Members on the other side in their hearts know, that the nation would resist to the uttermost any attempt to weaken or reverse that policy; and I ask the House to-night to deal with these retrograde, illusory, mischievous proposals of the Indian Government as they would deal with the same proposals if they were made to the people of Great Britain.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN (Cardiff)

I cannot hope to reach the flights of eloquence which have distinguished the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat. But there is not a word in that speech from which I dissent, and I felt myself bound in honour to second this motion to-night. I have been told that this is a motion of censure, and that it is wrong for anyone on the Government benches to second a vote of censure on the Government. But the motion has only taken the form of a vote of censure because the Government has resolutely persisted in denying hon. Members an opportunity of raising a debate on the question on its merits during the last three months. Perhaps I have wearied the House with my pertinacity in this matter, but my knowledge of India enables me to appreciate the far-reaching consequences of legislation of this kind. I have persisted in putting questions to the Government day after day, and the Leader of the House, instead of giving me an opportunity to raise the question at a time when perhaps the passing of this legislation might have been stopped altogether—certainly at a time when further inquiry might have been granted by the Government of India—answered me in language of scarcely veiled mockery that he was exceedingly anxious to bring on this Debate, but that really the Government could not find the time for it. What Not find time to discuss a subject involving the commercial policy of the British Empire, when hon. Members are dragged to the I louse day after day and week after week to waste their time on puerilities of legislation which arc hardly worth the attention of a serious assembly A few weeks ago I sent a message to the Leader of the House through the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary, offering, if the Government desired, to show a way in which the Government could get out of what I looked upon as a grave departmental blunder without casting any discredit on the Viceroy, or involving hint in any conflict with this House, or weakening the authority of the Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman did not take the slightest notice of that communication. I mention this fact in order to show that I am justified in the action now taken. I have not taken this step without consulting those who, after all, are our masters. I refer to my constituents. I have been twice in Cardiff, and I have fully explained my views on the subject. I have addressed the Chamber of Commerce, and from that day to this not a whisper of remonstrance has reached me from any person in Cardiff against the action I am now taking. I am therefore entitled to say that the whole of that constituency, whether Conservative or Liberal, is united as one man in giving me a free hand on this question. I wonder, however, whether that is the case with the hon. Members representing other important constituencies. I wonder what the Leader of the House has to say to the resolution passed within the last day or two by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce includes a large number of the right hon. Gentleman's political friends, and the resolution said: It is the opinion of the Board that the policy adopted bv the Government of India, with the approval of the Government, at home, in levying countervailing duties on sugar imported from bounty-giving countries is opposed to the interests of the people of India, constitutes a dangerous precedent calculated to lead to the adoption of a similar policy in the United Kingdom and to demands which cannot be consistently resisted for the establishment of countervailing duties in several other directions, and without a departure from the principle of Free Trade. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle that matter with the constituency which he represents.

THE FIRST LORD of THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. RALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I have heard nothing from my constituency.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN

I am reading a resolution passed by a large public body. I do not believe there is a single Minister—not even the Colonial Secretary, with all his courage for rash enterprises—who, having seen the effect this agitation has had in familiarising the people of England with the trite consequences of this policy, would rise in his place and propose countervailing duties in this country. That, at least, is one good thing that the present agitation has done, for countervail- ing duties in England are henceforth as dead as bimetallism. Now it was impossible for me to believe—and for a long time I did not believe, until the publication of the Blue Book—that the Government as a collective body were in favour of the policy inaugurated by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. How could I think it possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to a measure of this sort? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was assailed for his lapse from virtue—economical. virtue I mean—in tampering with the Sinking Fund, but I remember that not, long ago he made an almost impassioned protest against preferential duties of any kind. India has hitherto been the greatest market of the world which has supported the principle of Free Trade, and has been worth more to us in this respect than all the. self-governing colonies put together. India, has given us the open door which we profess to desire all over the world, and now we are going, by a shabby and discreditable device, to shut that door in India when we are afraid to do it in this country. But as soon as the Blue Book appeared it became perfectly obvious to all the world why this law had been instituted and passed with so much indecent haste by the Council of the Viceroy of India. There is not the slightest doubt that the influence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies supplied the India Office with the motive power which was necessary to pass this legislation. I do not question the noble Lord's sincerity for a moment in this matter, but I do say that the energy with which he pursued this policy only dates from the moment of the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

LORD G. HAMILTON

I may state at once that that statement is absolutely untrue.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has any right to say that, for I am simply going on what is in this Blue Book. I find that the first occasion on which the Secretary for the Colonies interfered was on July 23rd last year. Immediately afterwards—within a month—on August 25th, the Secretary of State for India wrote to Lord Elgin, who had refused to introduce these countervailing duties, to say what he thought ought to be done. Then, of course, we come to the opinion of Lord Elgin but what was written to him did not make any impression upon his fixed mind upon this subject. Then there was a change of Viceroys in India, and once more the Secretary of State for the Colonies comes to the front, and writes immediately to the noble Lord to say what he thinks ought to be done in India. I really cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should think it necessary to interfere in Indian affairs. Is he pining for new worlds to conquer? Has he not sufficient spheres of influence already? Surely Africa itself is large enough to fill the ambition of anyone, however overweening that ambition may be. At all events, One would have thought before the right hon. Gentleman interfered with India he would have settled his little differences with President Kruger, and then he might have rejoiced, but his policy is apparently not so successful at the present moment as he desires. I will now take the despatch written by the right hon. Gentleman and dated the 7th January, and point out the power he wielded at the India Office. In the first paragraph Mr. Chamberlain asked Lord George Hamilton to bring to the special notice of Lord Curzon, who had only just been appointed Viceroy, two important questions affecting the Island of Mauritius. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that the industry of the sugar planters in Mauritius may be destroyed. In another part of the despatch he actually speaks of their ruin being probable if some change is not immediately made in the sugar tariff of India. There is absolutely no foundation for a statement of that kind. Statistics show that the sugar industry of Mauritius has never been in the slightest danger since they found an excellent market in India. I am not at all sure that the sugar planters in Mauritius do not themselves get a bounty of some kind from the State. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has said, bounties are of all kinds. I pointed this out the other day to the Governor-General of Queensland, when he told me that if Queensland had fair play it would be able to supply sufficient sugar for the whole of the British Empire. I said to him, "Don't you consider that you had a remarkably big bounty given you when the Imperial Government presented you with immense tracts of fertile country extending over three times the area of the United Kingdom?" Surely that was a very considerable bounty to give to Queensland, and they ought to be able to produce sugar there as well as the planters in other countries. Even in the West Indies I should say that considerable bounties have been given already, for at the time of the emancipation of the slaves we practically made a present to them of the whole of the properties belonging to individual citizens in this country. Many Members of this House are, perhaps, at the present moment suffering—either themselves or their families are suffering—from the great act of vicarious virtue which England performed when she emancipated the slaves. We then presented the land in fee simple to the emancipated slaves, and all they did was to turn Jamaica, which was once the garden of the world, into a howling wilderness. It is exceedingly difficult to determine when an industry is bounty fed or not. I looked through the Mauritius Administrative Report, and I came across this passage: Parcelling out land amongst Indians proceeds on a large scale. In the majority of cases no money passes for the first year or two, except the value of the canes, if there be any ripe enough to cut in the first year. This great settlement of labouring Indians upon the land will undoubtedly lead to a great increase in the production of sugar canes, raise the value of the land, and must ultimately lead to the establishment of central factories and the division of labour. It seems that land is being parcelled out rent free for a year or two amongst Indian planters in Mauritius so that they may grow sugar at a cost which would enable them to compete with native sugar in India. That is the kind of Protection which we are asked to encourage to-day. The Secretary of State for the Colonies speaks of his own personal views. We have nothing, of course, to do with the right hon. Gentleman's personal views so long as they are not embodied in acts of legislation or administrative proceedings which are likely to bring damage to the Empire, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to keep them to himself. I am not quite sure what the personal views of the right hon. Gentleman are on many subjects, but I am inclined to think he takes his foreign policy from the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) and his political economy from the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Sir Howard Vincent). Those are views which are not likely to commend themselves either to the House of Commons or to the British people. They may be taught in the new University of Birmingham to the sons of new Liberal Unionist Peers, but I do not think we need concern ourselves about them in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State for the Colonies absolutely forgets that India is not self-governed at all. It is a dependency of the Crown, and as was so well pointed out in that splendid despatch of Lord Salisbury's, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has quoted: India is bound more closely and intimately to the House of Commons in matters of commercial policy than any other part of the Empire. It is here that the commercial policy of India has to be decided, and if we are to act in the interests of India, we in this House ought to watch closely and constantly over the application of the principles which we lay down. Having received that dispatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the noble Lord again at once took action, and a good deal has been said about the conduct of the Viceroy in this matter. It appears to me that the Viceroy is very much to be pitied in the position in which he has been placed. He has only just received one of the highest posts in the gift of the Crown, when a new law is pressed upon him, in a series of telegrams repeated almost day after day, saying: When are you going to introduce this? Send us news the moment it is passed. Will telegraph acceptance. Bring it into operation. Lord Curzon asked at first that he might be given more time to consider the matter, but no time was allowed him; and then he took up in a loyal spirit the instructions he had received from the Government which had just made him Viceroy, and he proceeded with a great deal of impetuosity to carry out what, he conceived to be their wishes, in fact, he gave the Government of India no rest until he had passed this law. It was introduced on the 10th February, passed on the 28th February, before there had been even time—for it was not published in the Gazette until the following Tuesday—to send the Bill to the different provinces of India and to receive any reply by ordinary post as to the impression it had made on the public. I never heard of such indecent haste to carry a measure which was not at all urgent since Richard III. said he could not go to his breakfast until he had the head of Lord Hastings placed on the table before him. The Viceroy said he could not go to Simla until this Bill had passed, and the Indian Legislature immediately obeyed Ins orders. We hear a great deal about the Legislative Council of India, and people might imagine that it was a great free assembly, something after the model of the House of Commons. But, of course, it is nothing of the kind. The Viceroy is there surrounded by courtiers, and he, like Cato, "Gives his little Senate laws, And sits attentive to his own applause." Most of the Members there are really courtiers of the stamp of those gentlemen who first of all denounced counter vailing duties with Lord Elgin or myself, and then approved of countervailing duties with Lord Curzon. Human nature is pretty much the same in all ages. These gentlemen act as the immortal Vicar of Bray did, who, no matter whichsoever king might reign, would still be Vicar of Bray. No doubt the noticeable change which has taken place in what was once the proud independence of the Indian Civil servants is due to the extremely lavish distribution, of honours and decorations conferred upon them. It seems to me that modern governments have found that these honours—as they are called—are a more potent instrument of political corruption and social degradation than Walpole ever dreamed of. That is the type of men who for the most part form the Council of the Viceroy. There are, I admit, some independent members. There is one distinguished barrister who pleaded with the Government not to press the Bill. He said: "Do give us a little time to consider this measure; refer it to a Select Committee; let it take its usual course." But the Government would not listen to a word of remonstrance of that kind, and insisted that it should be passed immediately and at all hazards, and they thought of having the public opinion of India behind them. The noble Lord boasted in the House of Commons the other day that the whole public opinion of India was demanding this Bill, and extraordinary telegrams were sent from Calcutta pointing out that I stood alone in opposing this law, and that the whole of India was on the side of the Viceroy. I ascertained by telegraph that that statement was absolutely incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has shown that even most of the provincial Governments—who are largely under the control of the Supreme Government—were opposed to the introduction of this law. Mention has been made of Sir Anthony Macdonell. I would most willingly pay attention to anything advised by that distinguished servant of the Crown, but the views he expressed were purely hypothetical. He said if the introduction of bounty-fed sugar were to cause the cultivation of sugar-cane to fall off then the price might be affected. But he has since stated that the cultivation of sugar-cane has not been affected in the slightest degree in India. And anyone who knows anything of the matter knows that the people of India will always consume nine-tenths of the sugar produced in the country. The production of sugar is perfectly enormous in India. In fact, India can grow sugar to supply the world, and would grow it more easily under the stimulus of competition than under protection. I notice that the Viceroy in his speeches and numerous addresses thinks that he has a sort of Divine mission to encourage native industries in India. I can assure him that nothing of the kind is wanted. The Bombay Government took up a strong position on this matter. The Bombay newspapers were good enough to rebuke me for having criticised the noble Lord, and said that I knew nothing of the public opinion of India. But it turns out that the editors of the Bombay newspapers were the only people who knew absolutely nothing of the state of public opinion in India. In Western India not only all the distinguished servants of the Crown, at Poonah, Kurrachee, Berar, etc., and the whole mercantile community, native and European, but the Government itself were entirely opposed to the introduction of these countervailing duties. I call the attention of the noble Lord to a statement which Lord Curzon made on 20th March, in which he assured the Legislative Council that this Bill had been backed up with a weight of Opinion which for quality and homogeneousness had never been equalled. I am sure that Lord Curzon is not a man to make a statement of that kind without believing it to be correct. I won't repeat the offensive phrase used by the noble Lord to me just now when he stated that what I had said was untrue; but I will say that what Lord Curzon stated was absolutely unfounded. There was no homogeneous feeling in India. I assume that Lord Curzon made that statement in Council, not with the intention of deceiving, but because he had never read or seen that despatch of the Bombay Government in which they protested against the introduction of the law. He could not have seen it. He introduced this law before he could possibly receive the despatch of the Bombay Government, which was only written on the 23rd of February, and could not have reached Calcutta before the end of that month. The decision of the Government of India was taken on the 25th of February, long before it could have received the statement of the views of the important Government of Bombay on the subject. This is a sample of the noble Lord's allegation that the public opinion of India was with the Viceroy in this matter. So much for the provincial Governments and the Council. But I would ask what is the real opinion of the Indian Press on this question, because much has been made of the apparent unanimity of the Indian Press in support of the Government. It was my duty to read the articles which have appeared supporting the policy of the Government. They were mostly what are called inspired articles, and inspired articles are generally like the Address to the Throne, which is usually an echo of Her Majesty's speech. These inspired articles are usually an echo of the statements made by Ministers in Council. All the Indian papers which have carefully examined the question have declared against countervailing duties. I could quote the Indian Daily News, which has completely gone over to the side of the opponents of the law, and the whole of the native Press is now on the same side. I will quote an extract from a well-known newspaper, the Times of India, which arrived here by last mail, and which is well known to be still favourable to the Government of India. The Times of India says: There has been a wonderful change in the native Press of India. The Government have passed a law at the behest of Mr. Chamberlain for the benefit of the sugar planters of Mauritius, and they must be prepared for a fine avalanche of denunciation by those who have taken all the moralities under their eharge. The storm of reproach is already blowing in that direction, and we know what is coming. That shows what is the present opinion of the majority of the native Press in regard to the law passed by the Government of India. Who were the real authors of this legislation in India? If we look at the Blue Book we find a memorial from a number of sugar refiners in the North-West Provinces. You would naturally look for the names of native merchants, but you find all the gentlemen who signed the petition hail from north of the Tweed. They nearly all belong to the same class of gentlemen who have lately come down from Glasgow and Greenock, and have assured us that we should pass similar legislation for the United Kingdom. A deputation of them waited the other day on the President of the Board of Trade, and then they were good enough to seek an interview with me and discuss the matter with me. They came to me, and said that the President of the Board of Trade had been most sympathetic with them. I asked them if the President of the Board of Trade had promised to do anything for them; and they said "No, but he advised them that they ought to convert public opinion"; and they were good enough to add "We are beginning with you." I advised them to begin with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which they replied that "if they could convert me they would have an easy task with the Chancellor of the Exchequer." These gentlemen seemed to me to be exceedingly prosperous, although they complained of being ruined. But it struck me that all they were pushing for was their own interests, and that they cared nothing for the interests of the great consumers of the country. It was much the same sort of gentlemen who sent a petition to the Government of Bengal, and asked that they should be given a monopoly of refined sugar. It would be much easier, by the employment of skilled labour and improved machinery, to turn out a better article than at present and so command the market. But they will never do such a thing until stimulated by foreign competition. We have forced, as I have said, Free Trade on India, but Free Trade has conferred immense benefits on that country as well as on this country. It is not the fact that there is any want of money or enterprise in India, or that when the necessity of finding new markets is forced upon the people they are incapable of rising to the opportunity. Just look at what they have clone with their cotton, always under the stimulus of very forced and unrestricted foreign competition. Manchester goods practically killed the hand loom industry of India, famous in all previous ages; but the natives have not been behind in adapting to their own use the machinery and methods of Manchester, and there are no more successful cotton mills in the world than are to be found in Bombay and a number of other places at the present moment. With the goods they have turned out from short staple cotton they have successfully beaten Manchester out of the market. All that was done with Free Trade. Look at the great tea industry of India. It has beaten China out of the English market. Has that trade been built up by Government protection? No, but by the enterprise of free Englishmen knowing what was wanted, and how td apply successfully capital to the production of the article required. Take coal. When I first went to India I remember coal was only used within a few miles of the pits in Bengal from which it was obtained. At the beginning of this year I find that coal is used on all the twenty odd thousand miles of the Indian railway system. It has beaten English coal almost entirely out of the market. It is used on all the steamers running from Bombay to Suez, and but for the heavy duties in the Suez Canal Indian coal would pass into the Mediterranean and compete with English coal there. All this has been done without Government protection, by capital, industry, and enterprise working together with freedom against foreign competition. Then there is the success of Indian beer against the competition of both English and German beer, and there are innumerable other cases in which India has shown itself quite alive to the necessities of modern industries. The most remarkable illustration I could give the House of the really good working of Free Trade is this. In the old days every town in India was lighted with little lamps containing cocoanut oil, and a very disagreeable light it often was. Paraffin oil was introduced by America and sent out in tins and speedily took possession of the market, and it was taken into consumption all over India. Finally, Russia succeeded in beating America out of the market with the help of English capital. Russia invented a system of sending petroleum in tank steamers to Bombay, where it was sold by measure to the people, and the expense of the tins and the long voyage from America was saved. Russia now has nearly the whole trade of lighting India. Would not this have been a magnificent opportunity for a Viceroy who thought he had a mission to save the industries of India to say, "We will not have the immemorial cocoanut-oil lamps extinguished. We must protect our industries, and we will not give this vast trade to our natural enemies the Russians." What has been the result of the introduction of this trade in India? The native growers of oil seeds, being forced to find another market for their products, have discovered that these vegetable oils are the best that can possibly be used in all the great machine works in Europe, and now these oil seeds are in greater demand than ever, and fetch a higher price than before. That is a splendid example of the natural working of Free Trade and the advantage that freedom of trade gives to the people. I thought it right to say this because it seems to me that people adopt a too apologetic tone for forcing Free Trade on India. Free Trade would never have been adopted there by the natives, but if you ask all the more intelligent natives now you will find that they are satisfied that the present system of commerce is the best thing that England could have possibly given them. I shall, I am afraid, weary the House, but I have had this matter much in my mind and I have never been allowed to speak on it in the House before, I should like to say al word upon the constitutional point touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India seems to have formed a radically false conception of his powers and his responsibilities to this House. When I put a question to him on this subject he retorted in tones of some asperity—an asperity which might have kindled resentment in my bosom if we, who are below the gangway, were not used by this time to The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes. The noble Lord practically told me that I had better mind my own business.

LORD G. HAMILTON

dissented.

*Mr. J. M. MACLEAN

I am not giving the noble Lord's exact words, but he said he had told me more than once that he declined to interfere with the expression of opinion and the determination of the Government of India upon a question of this kind.

LORD G. HAMILTON

The hon. Gentleman put a question to me to this effect: Would I lay this Bill on the Table of the House, for the purpose, of course, of founding questions and motions upon it, and as it was under discussion in the Indian Legislature I replied, as every Secretary of State would, that I declined to interfere with the functions of the Indian Government.

*MR. J. M. MACLEAN

That is where the noble Lord makes what I conceive to be a very great mistake. The Indian Legislature has no independent position. It has only delegated powers from this Parliament. What is the position of the noble Lord towards the Indian Government? It is very clearly defined in the despatch written by Lord Salisbury, when Secretary of State for India, in 1875. Lord Hartington had taken off the cotton duties in order to put Manchester and India on an equal footing, and the Indian Government, at the time strongly Protectionist, claimed that they had a right as an independent Legislature to pass any tariff laws they chose. Lord Salisbury absolutely declined to give them this power. One excellent reason he gave was, that unless complete unanimity was assured beforehand between the House of Commons, represented by the Secretary of State, and the Indian Government, there was no security for the maintenance of the Viceroy's authority in India, which would receive rude shocks by the decisions of the Government of India being frequently challenged in this House. It was impossible, said Lord Salisbury, for the House of Commons to part with its control over Indian finance, and therefore the power was specially reserved to the Secretary of State for India by Lord Salisbury to re- present the House of Commons in tariff matters, and never to let any change in Indian tariff laws be introduced without his assent. It seems to me that that power which was placed in the hands of the Secretary of State imposes upon him a very heavy responsibility, and he ought to take especial care, as is ins constitutional duty, that no sudden or rash change in the settled commercial policy of this Empire is introduced into the Legislative Council of India, unless be is assured of the support of the House of Commons whose servant he is. It may be said that the House, if it does not approve of the conduct of a Secretary of State, has the right to remove him, but that is not enough. We know that if we remove him we shall only have another noble lord in his place. I deny that it is any advantage to us, after the Secretary of State has had the opportunity of throwing India into confusion for six months, and of giving a rude shock to the authority of the new Viceroy front which it will never recover, that we should have the privilege of removing him. It was the wisdom of Lord Salisbury that provided that this agreement should be come to beforehand, and what I condemn the noble Lord for is that he never consulted the House of Commons or took any pains to ascertain whether an Act of this kind would be supported in this country. On the contrary, nearly every Minister on the front bench has said that he is quite convinced that pub lie opinion in this country has not been converted on the question of countervailing duties, and that therefore he would not attempt to meddle with them. Is it not a shabby device, then, when they dare not do it in England, to force it on the people of India and impair the authority of the Viceroy? We know that things cannot rest where they are. We know that if this Act is passed for India it will be passed with the deliberate design to introduce preferential duties into every part of the Empire. Is that a policy which commends itself? I would ask my Conservative friends whether they are willing to go to the country two years hence with "Protection" emblazoned on their banners. Some of them may, but not very many. What will be the result of this policy? Was it not a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer—Sir Stafford Northeote—who abolished the sugar duties twenty-five years ago? He took off the remaining sugar duties because he said that next to cheap corn no greater boon could be given to the people of this country than cheap sugar. He was perfectly right. His policy has been justified by results, and the people of England, knowing what immense industries are now bound up with the existence of cheap sugar, will never suffer that great boon to be taken away from them. I for one unhesitatingly support the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, because it is conceived, I believe, in a spirit of fair play for India and Free Trade for the British Empire.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to disallow the Indian Tariff Act, 1899."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)

*LORD G. HAMILTON

I rise for the purpose of asking the House to give a direct negative to the motion that has just been made. Since that motion has been on the Table of the House various Amendments to it have been proposed by Members in different parts of the House. I hope those hon. Gentlemen will not move any one of these Amendments. The two speeches which we have heard tonight, as well as the matter to which they refer, give ample material to time House of Commons for a full night's discussion, and if any Amendments such as those that appear on the paper are introduced unquestionably extraneous issues will creep into the discussion. The issue that is raised is a clear issue; let us meet it clearly, and let our Debate to-night be concentrated on the subject of sugar so far as it affects India. The right hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate and the hon. Gentleman who followed him have made two speeches, the summary of which is nothing more or less than a defence of the bounty system as applied to sugar. From beginning to end there was not a solitary allusion to the detrimental effects of the bounty system, and in the name of Free Trade those two hon. Gentlemen get up and publicly support the blackest system of Protection known. The position of Her Majesty's Government is clearly defined. We gave instructions to our delegates at the Congress at Brussels—and, so far as I know, no political Party has challenged the justice of those in- structions—to try and secure the suppression of all bounties on sugar, which they considered to be prejudicial to the general interests of the British Empire. Is anyone prepared in this House to contradict that proposition? If nobody is prepared to contradict that proposition in the abstract, then every vote, given by hon. Gentlemen in this House for the motion moved to-night will tend to bolster up and infuse new life and strength into this system of bounties on sugar. Either the system is a good one or it is a bad one. If it is a bad system, we are justified in having recourse to strong measures to get rid of it; but if it is a good system, let us have the courage to say so openly. I am compelled, in consequence of the nature of the speeches that have been made, to indulge in a few elementary but, I think, necessary propositions. I have been a Free Trader all my life. (Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but I think I am the only person now in this House who has introduced legislation in India which went in the direction of Free Trade. There is at the present moment only one protective Act on the Statute-book of India, and that is an Act—I dare say a necessary Act—which was passed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. It puts a 5 per cent. duty on all imports even where the article imported competes with the native production. I do not blame right hon. Gentlemen for doing that, hut it is rather curious that the right hon. Gentleman who invites me not to depart from the principles of Free Trade represents a Government which has put on the Statute-book of India the only law which is essentially protective. I believe it to be to the interest of this country and the duty of the Government of this country to promote Free Trade wherever they can, and by Free Trade I mean the principles that were taught us by Mr. Cobden and by Sir Louis Mallet. Free Trade means the freeing of trade from artificial restraint and artificial fostering, from anything that tends to raise the price of an article artificially. An hon. Gentleman laughs, but anything which tends to raise the price of an article artificially by a hostile tariff is contary to the principles of Free Trade. But the converse is equally true. Anything which tends to lower the price of an article below the cost of production, by bounties or by Government aid, is contrary to the principles of Free Trade. The two preceding speakers did not seem to thoroughly grasp and analyse the difference between Free Trade and Protection. The essential difference between the two is this, that the object of Free Trade is to try and establish, so far as fiscal arrangements are concerned, equality of conditions, equality of treatment, and equality of opportunity for all producers, in whatever part of the world they may live, and thus, by encouraging production and increasing competition, to benefit the consumer, who gets the advantage of lower prices in consequence of the increased production. The object of Protection is the reverse—it is to establish inequality, so that the home producer always may have a certain advantage to enable him to compete with others. Free Trade and Protection, therefore, are antagonistic; they are irreconcilable. These two fiscal systems are in operation all over the world, fighting one another, and the most aggressive form which Protection can assume is the bounty system as associated with the production of sugar. What does the bounty system do? In the first place, the foundation of the bounty system is the drawing of an impenetrable barrier round the country in which the bounty is given, so that no sugar from outside can come in and compete with the home production. The open door is permanently and hermetically sealed against imports. But then the door is opened in order that the bounty-fed sugar exporter may go forth and with the resources of a great system of national taxation behind him snake war on indigenous industries and on the enterprise of Free Trade nations engaged in the production of sugar. It is nothing more or less than a deliberate act of economic aggression against the principles of Free Trade and free industry. That is admitted. For twenty years past we in this country, I admit, have adopted a policy of inaction in dealing tins system of bounties on sugar. We were misled by those who undertook to lead us. Almost every prediction that they made has been falsified. I have heard to-night all the old arguments—which experience has shown us to be absolutely false—trotted out for our acceptance in the belief shat we have forgotten our experiences of the last 20 years. The first argument was—" After all, the disturbance to the Indian industry is very slight, and it is not worth while taking notice of it." That was an argument used 20 years ago about sugar in this country. The next argument was—" After all, it only affects refined sugar." That also was an argument used 20 years ago, but the bounty-fed sugar now affects the price of raw sugar as well as of refined sugar. All the arguments that were used in the past to induce us to assent to the bounty on sugar under the idea that it was merely a phase of Protection and would pass away are revived, and it is expected that, with all our experience of the past 20 years, and the knowledge of these falsified predictions, we should accept them as true, and on that ground censure the Indian Government. The tactics that this country has followed in connection with the bounty on sugar, whether they were right or wrong, have immensely extended and developed that system, and it has assumed enormous proportions. The hon. Member for Cardiff said that the Indian sugar industry would not prosper except under the stimulus of competition. Where has cane sugar prospered under the stimulus of competition with bounty-fed beet sugar? It is proved, I think, beyond dispute that cane sugar can be produced as cheaply as beet sugar. Experts assure me that is so, and the assertion has been put forward and not contradicted. Twenty years ago the sugar duties were abolished in this country, and that change came into full operation in 1877. The amount of sugar imported into this country in that year was 20,000,000cwt., and of that amount about 6,000,000cwt. came from bounty-giving countries and 14,000,000cwt. came from non-bounty giving countries. Twenty years later, owing to the increase of population and various other causes, the amount of sugar imported into Great Britain was considerably greater, and it attained the dimensions of upwards of 29,000,000cwt. The sugar from bounty-giving countries had then risen to 24,000,000 cwt. and the sugar from non-bounty-giving countries had fallen to 5,000,000 cwt. This is the bounty-fed sugar which is to go to India and is to give a stimulus to cane sugar and largely increase its production. That displacement of cane sugar is unnatural and artificial. I think all persons who watch these economic questions will admit that the displacement of an industry from its natural locality and the diversion of trade and commerce from its legitimate channels is a great evil to the trade and commerce of the world, because the forces that we are dealing with are what are known as dynamic forces—they are forces constantly on the move, competing with one another—and the displacement and dislocation of a trade or industry often acts and reacts all round the whole trade and commerce of the world, reducing production and limiting the exchange of commodities. The result is that we, who are the great international traders of the world, lose by this unnatural displacement. [Opposition cries of dissent.] Hon. Gentlemen have not followed my argument. I am putting on one side any benefit bounty-fed sugar may confer. I say the displacement of trade and of production from its legitimate channels and its natural locality detrimentally affects the whole trade and commerce of the world. That is a proposition which I think nobody will dispute. The material displacement of cane sugar by this bounty-fed sugar detrimentally affects the production of cane sugar. No one with capital would put his money into a business which was subjected to competition not to a fixed bounty, but with a bounty that at any moment might be doubled. Germany doubled their bounty in 1896, France responded, Austria did the same; and our representatives at Brussels pointed out that in all probability, unless some satisfactory solution of the bounty question could be arrived at, the bounties would be still further raised. I venture to say I have shown that the system of bounties is as contrary to the first principle of Free Trade as any system could possibly be. That system absolutely dominates the production and consumption of sugar in Europe. It turned its attention to America, and exported enormous quantites of beet sugar into the United States; and the United States retaliated by countervailing duties. We were warned by our representatives at Brussels that the stoppage of the import of German sugar in America would result in great masses of German sugar being sent to India; and that the one great indigenous industry of India would be threatened. Of the 300 million people who live in India, 80 per cent. depend for the means of subsistence on agriculture; and in the North of India, where the population is more densely packed than in any other part of the world, the sugar industry is the principal industry. Again, a large proportion of the income of the Indian Government is derived from land revenue. The direct amount paid by cane sugar to the revenue is about £1,600,000, but the indirect amount is much greater. The only question the House has to consider is this—Warned as we were of the danger to India, should the Indian Government, ignoring the effect of twenty years' experience, have aggravated the very evil which we wanted to arrest, by the tactics of inaction adopted here? Or should they have recourse to the simpler policy of attempting to frustrate the object for which the bounties are given, and thus lead to the abolition of the bounty system itself? So gigantic is the production of cane sugar in India that it is far more than the production of the rest of the world, excluding China; it employs several millions of people; and the annual crop is estimated to be worth little short of 20 millions sterling. All that is wanted is the application of capital and enterprise to the sugar industry in India. What person would give one or the other if the bounty system is allowed to enter the field? We had to deal with a danger which unquestionably was imminent, and we had to consider very carefully what course we should adopt. A somewhat farcical account has been given by the hon. Member for Cardiff of the relations between myself and my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary, and of the communications which he assumed passed between the Colonial Office and the India Office. At the beginning of last year Lord Elgin was asked to nominate a delegate to represent India at the Sugar Conference at Brussels. This was the first occasion upon which India had a special delegate of her own. In the despatch in which the Indian Government sanctioned the appointment of the delegate they forwarded certain proposals made by some gentlemen in Bengal amounting to the proposal of countervailing duties; but the Indian Government said they were not prepared to sanction that proposal. The Conference met and separated without arriving at any settlement. Mr. Ozanne, the delegate specially selected by Lord Elgin to represent India at the Conference, was asked if he would write a report by the Revenue Secretary of the India Office, acting on my behalf. He replied:— I shall, of course, be glad to write a report if you think it is expected of me, or that it would do any good. But, after all, the only point I could press on the Indian Government is the danger which India runs through an immense increase in the volume of imports of beetroot sugar. If this goes on, and it must go on if India does nothing, it seems to me clear that the sugar cultivation of India and the Mauritius will be most, seriously and unjustly handicapped. If sugar-cane profits are reduced the whole agriculture of India must be upset. Recollect that agriculture is not one of many industries in India. It affects the whole industrial system of the country, and therefore, if any blow were struck at what is really the only staple occupation in India, we would be face to face with a tremendous economic difficulty, the satisfactory solution of which would be almost impossible. As soon as the Brussels Conference broke up without having come to any conclusion I addressed a letter to the Government of India enclosing the correspondence in reference to the Conference, and intimating in the clearest way that I was not satisfied with their declaration of opinion against the imposition of countervailing duties, asking them to more fully consider the matter and in the meantime to collect further information. Simultaneously with the receipt of my letter in India the Indian public received the report that the Brussels Conference had broken up without having come to any decision, and simultaneously all over India an agitation sprang up requesting the Government to impose countervailing duties. The Chambers of Commerce petitioned the Government in favour of this policy, and the Indian as well as the European Press of the country assisted in the agitation. Lord Curzon, as you know, was appointed Viceroy towards the close of last session. In the autumn he spent a considerable part of his time in the India Office consulting with various Members of the Indian Council and myself. We discussed the course to be pursued in regard to the sugar bounties. The House is perhaps not aware, though the mover of this Motion is, that the Council of India have exceptional authority in matters relating to finance and expenditure. I placed myself in communication with the Revenue Committee of that Council, and was glad to find that their views agreed with mine that we should not close the door against countervailing duties if no other remedy could be found to arrest the adverse influence of bounty-fed sugar on agriculture in India. Lord Curzon came to the same view, but, knowing that further information was being collected, he declined to express any opinion on the subject until he had the opportunity of investigating that further information, and also of personally communicating with the members of the Government of India who had signed the despatch objecting to countervailing duties, in order to ascertain whether that opposition was based upon conviction and a thorough knowledge and investigation of the subject in India. In the meantime we got information from the Foreign Office, from which it seemed perfectly clear the Conference would not meet again, and that therefore there was no likelihood of action being taken for the purpose of suppressing or stopping the bounty system in Europe. We had, at the same time, information that there were immense cargoes of German sugar at Hamburg, and that the probability was that this great stock of sugar would be sent out to the Indian market. Therefore on 12th December I sent a note to the Revenue Committee of the Council of India to the effect that, having considered the question from the Indian point of view, I saw no objection to imposing countervailing duties, and that I should be glad to hear their opinion. They replied that they had considered the matter, and that they entirely endorsed my view that the time had arrived for such duties. Accordingly a despatch was ordered to be prepared. Before it was sent to India my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary forwarded me two letters from Mauritius, referring to the same subject, and as I thought it it was most desirable that the Indian Government should know that the Colonial Office was of the same mind, I had the letter addressed to India altered and enlarged, so as to include the two letters from Mauritius. That, from the beginning to the end, was all the pressure that the Colonial Secretary exercised on me in the matter; and therefore when the hon. Member for Cardiff gave his farcical description of the affair I said there was not a word of truth in it. In consequence of the delay which was caused by this despatch having been kept back Lord Curzon was not likely to have been able to proceed till the beginning of March. Everyone was agreed that, if it became necessary to legislate, legislation should be proceeded with at once. Three weeks after Lord Curzon received my despatch I telegraphed to him asking if he would be able to legislate this session, because the Legislative Council at Calcutta broke up towards the end of March, and it was desirable, if he thought legislation necessary, that the Bill should be passed before the close of their session. He replied that he and his Council were ready to proceed, the Bill was introduced, and passed rapidly through the Legislative Council, and it has received a greater amount of support in India than any legislation or any act the Government has done for many years past. It is quite true that there was only an interval of three days between the receipt of the announcement of Lord Curzon's intention to legislate and the reply of Her Majesty's Government. But the Council of India had been consulted by me, and is it likely that we should have arrived at what I admit to have been a momentous decision had we not carefully considered in advance I he whole question? The reason why we were able to take such prompt action was that the subject had been for months previous before the. Government. This, from beginning to end, is the simple history of the procedure in connection with this Bill, and I venture to say that throughout we have been actuated by one motive only—how best to serve the interests of India. The right hon. Gentleman undertook smite little time ago the charge of a Committee which was formed to consider matters connected with the finances of India. It required some courage on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to undertake so laborious a part, with the certain knowledge that whatever way the Committee reports he is sure to be abused. Now, my strong impression is that that Committee will establish a stable rate of exchange between England and India which will enable India to take full advantage of her own resources and the great financial resources of England. There is an enormous amount of English capital which can be properly, and legitimately, invested in India, and therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman were to succeed in carrying his motion to-night, and bounty-fed sugar thus allowed to exercise its detrimental effects in India, he would counteract one of the most important results of the Report which I hope he will shortly produce. There is a vast and ever-growing population in India. It is calculated that something like 70,000,000 people have been added to the population during the last 20 years, and the only hope in any way to satisfactorily deal with this enormous population is to do everything possible to induce English capitalists to invest their money in India, and thus extend and multiply industries. Unless we can do so the economic problem is incapable of solution. What is the objection to the legislation which we propose? If the bounty system as applied to sugar be sound in itself, and if, as the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cardiff seem to wish, the House expresses its approval of bounties as applied to sugar, they will effectually prevent anybody from taking measures to suppress the system. The staple support of agriculture in India is the sugar industry; it stands in much the same position as the steel and iron industry does in tins country. Suppose for a moment that foreign Governments were to apply the bounty system to the manufacture of steel and iron, and, with the long hours which they work and the lower wages, foreign manufacturers were to make a determined attempt upon the mainspring of our industrial supremacy, in Europe, and if they were to devote the sums of money they devote at present to sugar bounties, it is perfectly certain that they could make a great inroad on our steel and iron industry. In that case would the right hon. Gentleman like to go down and address his constituents at Wolverhampton, one of the headquarters of the industry, and use the language he has used in connection with bounty-fed sugar? What popular constituency would tolerate the idea that they were to be deprived of their employment, not by fair competition, but by Government subsidies, and to be told that, after all, it was the consumer who had to be consulted, and that there was no remedy whatsoever? If any such condition of things prevailed, I believe that the whole producing population of this country would combine, and insist upon the Government sweeping away the bounties. If, then, you would be forced to take some strong measures to arrest the pernicious' development of the bounty system when applied to a staple industry at home, why not act towards India as you would towards yourselves? But then I am told that countervailing duties are a violation of the principle of Free Trade. I think the two preceding speakers have argued that they are contrary to our fiscal system, which during the past fifty years has brought such extraordinary prosperity to these islands. They seem to forget that countervailing duties have for 50 years past been part and parcel of our fiscal system, and that they have been applied to that particular commodity from which we derive the largest amount of income—namely, spirits and beer. All foreign spirits which are imported into this country pay a duty of 5d. per gallon more than the home product, and there is also a differential duty I upon beer. What is the origin of these duties? Who are the black protectionists responsible for them? They bear the names of Cobden, Sir Louis Mallet, and Gladstone. When Cobden negotiated the Treaty with the French in 1860, one of the inducements which was offered the French Government to reduce the duties upon English goods exported to France was the expectation that French spirits should be allowed to come into this country on exactly the same duty as was paid by home-made spirits to the Excise. In the discussion which took place upon the Treaty it transpired that the Excise system in this country was much more rigorous than the French system, and accordingly the French Government, to compensate the British distiller, agreed to an additional duty of 2d. being imposed upon all spirits imported from France. The matter affected a large and important industry, and when the terms of the Treaty became known the British distillers got up an agitation and sent a deputation to Mr. Gladstone to point out that an extra duty of 2d. was not sufficient, and to demand that it should be raised to 5d. After some negotiations the extra duty of 5d. was agreed to. The section of the Treaty in which the surtax of 2d. is struck out and fresh terms negotiated is in the following terms: Since the ratification of the said Treaty the Government of Her Britannic Majesty have ascertained that the surtax of 2d. a gallon is not sufficient to countervail the charges with which, in consequence of the operation of the laws of Customs and Excise, home-made British spirits have now to contend; and that a surtax limited to the rate of 2d. a gallon would still leave home-made British spirits subject to a differential duty in favour of foreign brandies and spirits. Consequently the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, having represented these circumstances to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of the French, and His Imperial Majesty having consented that the amount of the said surtax shall be increased, the two high contracting parties to the said treaty of commerce do, by the present additional article, agree that the amount of such surtax shall be 5d. a gallon; and Her Britannic Majesty engages to recommend to Parliament the admission into the United Kingdom of brandies and spirits imported from France at a duty exactly equal to the Excise duty levied upon home-made spirits, with the addition of a surtax of 5d. a gallon. Therefore you will see our distillers bad the advantage of a countervailing duty. I admit there is a little difference between the two cases, but what hon. Gentlemen have to show is that there is such a vital difference be-between a duty which is imposed to countervail the advantage to the foreigner given by our Excise system, arid a duty imposed to countervail the advantage to the foreigner given him by his own fiscal system, as to justify them in still calling Gladstone and Cobden Free Traders and Lord Curzon and myself Protectionists. In an eloquent passage at the conclusion of his speech the right hon. Gentleman alluded to the enormous benefits which Free Trade has conferred upon this country, and he referred to the open port or the open door. I quite agree that the object of the open port or open door is to encourage competition and production all over the world by letting traders know that when once they are inside that door they will meet other producers on terms of equality. What is the object of a bounty? It is that a foreigner may proclaim to the whole world that, although the door is wide open, when you get inside, as regards a particular commodity to which the bounty applies, you shall not meet on terms of equality. Therefore to advocate keeping the door open and at the same time to advocate a system of bounties is to set two contrary influences at work which counteract one another. Since this subject has been under discussion I have been the recipient of a very large amount of literature. My hon. friend the Member for Cardiff is quite confident that I have totally misrepresented public opinion in India.

I do not know what authority he will accept as an adequate one upon that subject, but many years ago he made a just reputation as the able and active editor of the Bombay Gazette. I do not know whether he will now accept that paper as an accurate representation of Indian opinion?

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

Oh, dear, no; I have nothing whatever to do with it now.

*LORD G. HAMILTON

Now, let us see what the Bombay Gazette says. On the 27th of April it says that Mr. J. Maclean, M.P., ought certainly to seek redress by an action at law against whoever is contending that opinion in Bombay is absolutely opposed to countervailing duties; that never was a shrewd public man more grievously mistaken; that the European and native community of Bombay was in line on this point with the rest of India, and that the unanimity left nothing to be desired. When I turn to English public opinion I do not think there is a single large representative body in this country which has discussed this question, with the single exception of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which has not supported the Government in the action they have taken. The Chambers of Commerce of London, Liverpool, Edinburgh, and Glasgow, representing the great commercial interests, have strongly supported us. Manchester is against us. I say frankly that I think Manchester and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce ought to be ashamed of themselves. Three years ago the Chamber of Commerce bombarded me night and day in order that I might give to them as against the Indian cotton spinners equality of treatment. I was not so much influenced by this clamour as I was by my conviction that the request was a just one. I looked with great alarm on the spirit of antagonism which was growing up between two great industrial communities engaged in producing the same commodities—one in Bombay and one in Manchester. I was desirous in the interests of the Empire of establishing conditions under which they could compete on equal terms for the benefit of the consumer. Well, I succeeded in establishing that equality, and met with much obloquy in doing so; and now the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, having got that which three years ago they demanded as an inherent right, ask me to refuse to the sugar producers of India the very benefit that they asked for themselves. From whatever point of view you look at this question, whether yon look at it from the economic, or the Imperial or the Indian point of view, prudence, expediency, and justice all combine to support the proposals we have made. There are also considerations which may be suggested in connection with Indian public opinion which I think are well worthy of the attention of this House. We are proud of our rule in India and of the splendid work done by our countrymen. But we must recollect that the extraordinary disproportion between the governing classes and the governed constitutes a risk and danger which ever surrounds our authority in India. Though the risk and danger may from time to time assume, as conditions change, a different form, it is always there. We have passed recently through a very troublesome epoch, and it is during these times that the authorities can best gauge and anticipate the nature of the dangers ahead. The weapons which now assail our Empire in India are not those of material force and violence; subtler and more insidious influences are at work. I am afraid that, whatever we do, our government never will he popular in India. I am speaking my own conviction, and I have spent a great part of my official life in the India Office, and I state my deliberate opinion that, do what you like, our government never can be popular in India, but its strength consists in the confidence the people repose in our integrity and our ability to maintain peace, and on the foundation of that peace to promote their moral and material prosperity. But to attack our honesty and impugn our motives is now the object of a certain agitation in India. I speak what I know. The House may not agree with me, but I am speaking with the full sense of responsibility. I say that to impugn our motives is the object of a certain class of agitators in India. Our policy is impugned, and every effort is made to try and associate the action and the policy of the Government with a disregard of Indian public opinion and a selfish regard for our own interests. Sir, I quite admit that at times it is necessary to overrule local opinion in the interests of India and of our Empire. We are compelled—every Secretary of State is at times compelled—to have something done in India which local opinion would not have done or to stop something which local opinion would have done, but the occasions on which this supreme power should be exercised are rare, and are only justified by most exceptional circumstances. I had practically to overrule Indian public opinion in order to secure equality of treatment between Bombay and Manchester. After all, that proposal only affected a limited number of parsons, but you are now dealing with a question which comes home to the daily life of an enormous population. The sugar industry practically covers the whole of the North of India. I have had many communications with the Viceroy on the subject. The last I received was a telegram, dated May 27, as follows: Superintending Engineer North-Western Provinces reports that since our Bill the area under sugar crop is rising considerably; that every petty farmer and labourer in the provinces was aware of sugar tax within few days of passing of Bill; that next to famine relief works it is the one measure of Government for years past which has been understood and appreciated by the people, and that it was received everywhere with content. The House is asked to cancel that legislation—and by cancelling it to destroy all the hopes and expectations that have been founded upon it. What for? Why, to give expression to certain economic theories as to the exact definition of which no two persons agree, and in order not to do violence to certain principles which we are supposed to have violated by a measure the principle of which I have shown to be part and parcel of the fiscal system of this country for fifty years past. The House is asked to take this step in the teeth of the advice and opinion of every authority which constitutes the governing power in India. The Executive Council of the Governor-General is unanimous in its support, the Legislative Council is unanimous, and it is supported by a consensus of Indian public opinion such as I have never known in my experience, mid older men tell me they have never known in theirs such unanimity. The House would be undertaking the very gravest responsibility if they venture on such flimsy grounds as have been advanced to interfere in so vital a matter. Therefore I commend this legislation to the House. I commend it because the Indian Government by the action they have taken have not only struck a legitimate blow in defence of their own interests, but because their action will, I think, stimulate other Governments to take counsel together in order that they may put an end to one of the most vicious forms of subsidised production against which free enterprise and legitimate trade and industry have ever had to contend.

*MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

After the speech which we have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton and the speech of the seconder of the Motion, I think it is desirable that some of us from the seclusion of the back benches should say in a few words—the fewer the better—what they think about the great principle which is now being introduced in the proposed legislation which the Government have carried in India. I would like to proceed at once to that, lint after the remarkable speech to which we have listened it is impossible for me to do so without saying one or two words on what has fallen from the Indian Secretary. The right lion. Gentleman has made the most grievous confession of failure that I have ever heard fall from the lips of a Minister in this House. He has said that he, the Indian Secretary, does not believe that it will ever he possible to popularise the ride of England in India.

LORD G. HAMILTON

I said that, do what we like, our Government never will be popular in India.

*MR. LOUGH

That is the same thing. He confessed that he believes it would never be possible to make it popular. I go the length of saying, with all deference, that when the Minister for India makes such a confession about his ideas of the work of the India Office, the time has almost conic when he should relinquish the high trust which he holds in regard to that country. Is not our rule everywhere based on popular support? And if the Government have come to the conclusion that it can never be based on popular support in India, surely we have arrived at a grave crisis which this House ought to consider. But this is not the only point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which should be examined. I am sorry to say that I must charge him with being a little uncandid in his main argument. He stated that there was no new principle introduced in this legislation. He endeavoured to justify this by references to Mr. Gladstone's Treaty with France in 1860. I will not follow all the niggling arguments which were adduced on that point. I venture to say they did not carry conviction to a single mind. The Government ought to lie more candid. The Government ought to take the responsibility of its action, and admit that it is introducing a grave and novel departure in the legislation, at any rate, of India, and probably of this country also. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to justify the action of the Government by reference to the 5 per cent. import duty which was imposed some years ago in India. He stated that that was really a protective duty. When the right hon. Gentleman reflects on his words, I believe he will see that that is an unfair description. It can only be protective where it applies to the importation of articles which are produced in India. But this duty applies to all imports. It is a fiscal duty, and not a protective duty. All that Free Trade demands is that duties should be imposed for revenue purposes and not for the purpose of protecting trade. The hon. Member for Cardiff complained, and I think very justly, that all this action of the Government was stimulated by the Colonial Office. That appeared to irritate the Secretary of State for India very much. But anyone who reads the Blue Book must admit that the statement is perfectly justified. I would recall the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what he said on that point. He stated that he was impressed by the proceedings of the Brussels Conference, and that immediately he saw the result of that Conference He entered into negotiations with India. When did the Conference take place? In June, 1898, and these dilatory proceedings were stretched out and nothing occurred till January. Yet the right hon. Gentleman wants us to believe that the stimulus for the action of the Government arose in Brussels in June. I will ask permission to refer to one or two of these desptaches. He stated that he was writing on January 6th about this Brussels Conference, when he chanced to get a communication from the Colonial Office which he em- bodied in the letter he was sending. Then he used this strong statement: This is the first and all the communications from the Colonial Office upon this point. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to refer to page 30—

LORD G. HAMILTON

That preceded it.

*MR. LOUGH

I am not referring to one which preceded it The right hon. Gentleman said that by chance he received a communication from the Colonial Office on the 6th January, and included it in the letter. I want him to refer to page 30 of the Blue Book, where it appears he sent a long telegram on the 24th January, in which these words occur: "Secretary of State for the Colonies" is "forwarding a petition in favour of countervailing duties." He is of opinion that Mauritius "is likely to be ruined, and requests that the memorial may be favourably considered." This was the second communication from the Colonial Office—one on the 6th January—

LORD G. HAMILTON

It is the same.

*MR. LOUGH

I beg your pardon. Of course it is the same, the Colonial Secretary always says the same thing until it is carried out. That is the feature of him. That is where he differs from everybody else in the Ministry. My point is that what the Colonial Secretary said on the 6th January was, "Carry out these duties." What the Indian Secretary said was, "We never received any compulsion—no hints, no inducements—from the Colonial Office except on the 6th January." I produce this telegram on the 24th January, which shows that as late as that date the Colonial Secretary says, "What about my countervailing duties? Have you got them on yet?

*LORD G. HAMILTON

The hont Gentleman must really read the Blue Book intelligently. That telegram is a Summary of the despatch sent by me.

*MR. LOUGH

Quite so; that is my point. If it was a mere hint from the Colonial Secretary, a chance communication put in with another letter, there would be no more about it, the Indian Secretary would leave his chance communication to arrive. He states that the telegram is a repetition of the whole despatch. Nothing of the kind. The telegram is bristling with the Colonial Office. On the 24th January the Colonial Secretary returned to the charge, and said, "How about these duties; have you tried to put them through?" That is not all. On the 24th February we have another telegram. (These telegrams are worth the attention of the House; they are really most interesting.) It says: "My telegram of the 24th January; desire to know if you propose to pass an Act this session imposing countervailing duties." Cannot the House trace the hand of the Colonial Secretary in this? He gives the order on the 6th January; he repeats it by telegram on the 24th January; he says on the 24th February, "I want your answer. Are you going to pass these countervailing duties?" That wakes up the Government of India. There are no dilatory proceedings now. They see the hand of the Colonial Secretary in it. On the 25th February they reply, "Your telegram of the 24th February. Sugar bounties. We propose to legislate at once on American model." Then there is another telegram from the Secretary for India: "Sugar duties. Suggested legislation approved by Her Majesty's Government." That is on the 1st March. I say that a great step in the legislation of a country was never taken more hurriedly than that. I think I have made good the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff that the whole proceedings emanated from the Colonial Office. Now, I desire, for my own part, to express in a few words my opinion about these transactions. I consider this to be one of the most extraordinary Blue Books ever issued by a Government Department. We have no reliable statistics, no information. The first six or eight pages are filled with a letter front the firm of Begg, Dunlop, and Co., which is a mere Protectionist argument, such as we constantly receive from firms, not only in India, but in this country. But why on earth this communication should be set out in a Blue Book, on which important legislation of this kind is based, I cannot for a moment imagine. The Blue Book contains no argument whatever in favour of the strong step taken by the Government, the motive of which I believe is the sturdy action of the Colonial Secretary to which I have referred. The Secretary for India stated that the agricultural prosperity of India mainly depended on sugar. That is a most extraordinary statement. There are about 250,000,000 acres in British India, only 2,500,000 of which are under sugar cultivation, some of which is a very low class of cultivation. Therefore I say that sugar is to a very slight extent indeed a staple product of India. The right hon. Gentleman might as well have said that cotton, tea, tobacco, or a dozen other articles were staples. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to find arguments, and his whole speech is full of efforts to find arguments to justify the policy which was inaugurated by the Colonial Secretary. I would like to consider for a moment the inspiration that is at the back of the Colonial Secretary in this matter. He is thinking of what he calls the Colonies. What colonies? The West Indies and Mauritius. These are hardly colonies at all; they are riot places in which a European population can live healthily. They are really the most unimportant colonies the Empire has, and the prosperity of these colonies may be sought at too great an expense to the rest of the Empire. He has told us that the staple trade of the West Indies has suffered greatly, and that Mauritius is likely to be ruined. I do not understand that statement. We have no statistics from the Indian Secretary to prove that Mauritius has suffered in any respect. The exports from Mauritius in 1898 were larger than in any other year, with perhaps one exception. Therefore up to the present the sugar trade of Mauritius has suffered in no way whatever. But suppose it did suffer. The Colonial Secretary appears to think that we can enjoy the advantages of a Free Trade policy without having any disadvantages This is the flaw in the position which he takes up in this matter. We have to take the good and the bad both of Free Trade and of Protection, and to reject one or the other after taking all the circumstances in regard to each into consideration. Suppose when the Free Trade policy was introduced in this country we had had a strong Minister like the Colonial Secretary, who would look at the matter from the same standpoint. Think of all the stories that might have been told of the suffering caused to British agriculture. Did this House pause because British agriculture suffered? No. This House looked at the matter broadly, and said, "We cannot consider the interests of a class; we must consider the interests of the whole nation, and looking at the interests of the whole nation the Free Trade policy is the best we can adopt." I will give one other example. Look at how Ireland suffered by the introduction of the Free Trade policy. The argument of the Indian Secretary appears to be that the production of sugar may be destroyed in India. Has not the production of flour, meal, and, in fact, all the staple products of Ireland been destroyed within the last 50, years? The House has warmed its hands at the blaze which has burned up all Irish industries; yet this House has gone on steadily in the policy because it believed that, on the whole, the policy of Free Trade conferred greater benefit than it inflicted injury. Take the Indian case from the same standpoint. The one argument of the Indian Secretary was that these imports are increasing rapidly. The meaning of that is that the Indian people are welcoming what these other countries are sending. Is not that the best proof that the Indians want it, and that the continuance of this influx of bounty-fed sugar would be a great benefit to the general population of India? There is a statement in the Blue Book that the poor in India do not consume sugar, but I believe that that statement will not stand examination. The consumption of sugar is increasing as rapidly there—perhaps more rapidly—as in most other countries, and the rapid growth of these very imports proves that there are a great many people there who want it, and that a great blow will be struck at the growing industries of the country by the adoption of the policy which the Government has taken up. A great deal has been said about these bounty-giving countries. We cannot hit them; we cannot touch them; we cannot do them any harm. The only people on whom we can lay any burden with regard to this legislation is the people of India. They want something; we refuse to give it to them. They are building up industries in confectionery and so on, just as such industries have grown up in this country, through cheap sugar. We destroy those industries. It has not been denied that cheap sugar confers considerable benefits, but the argument of the Indian Secretary is that it is an illegitimate benefit. But if foreigners are willing to do something for us which is favourable to us, why should we not take the gifts the gods send? Why be too particular in inquiring whether the most strictly moral and honourable principles have been pursued in their production? If we did that in regard to all our commerce it would lead us into very considerable difficulties. Who made us a ruler or a judge as to what it may suit other nations to do We assume too readily that these bounties are based upon an entirely rotten foundation. I once had an opportunity of visiting one of these sugar factories on the Continent, in Russia, and I was greatly interested in it. I was told that this factory was kept by a Pole and a Jew, and that we must walk carefully through the works as we might be suspected of being spies. We saw production going on in every process, and I thought as I walked away from that factory that in the Caledonian Road in last End we could buy that sugar at half the price that was paid at a village about has a mile from that factory. Do these people produce this sugar just for the love of the thing? No, they do it because it pays them and it suits them; they take the whole transaction broadly, and they find that the giving of these bounties answers their purpose extremely well. Does anybody think that they give us this cheap sugar just for the love of us? I for one do not believe it, and I am willing to take the sugar as cheap as they can give it to us, for I assume these people know how to manage their own business, and the people in Austria, Germany, and France also know what they are doing. I believe our true policy is that which we have followed for forty or fifty years, and that is to take whatever advantage these countries offer to us without questioning their motives. This question cannot end where it stands to-day. The step which the Government has taken has been borrowed from America. That step is one of the greatest moment, for it threatens the fiscal policy which we have pursued in this country for the last fifty years. Why should we go to America for an ideal? Have we not our own ideals established by Adam Smith, by Cobden, and by Bright in this House? Had we not many stormy debates here before we adopted the principle of Free Trade? I was sorry to hear the language of the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the agitation in India against the policy of the Government. Had we not lively debates all over England before Free Trade was adopted? And why should the people of India be blamed for carrying on the same discussion Such a policy deserves to be attacked just as much in India as in this country; but the point which I desire to make is that this policy which is being pursued in India cannot stay where it stands to-day. Why should we go to America, which is a Protectionist country, for any of our ideals? We are a Free Trade country, and we should stick to a Free Trade policy and not allow the good heart of the Colonial Secretary to carry us away in this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to prop up the industries of these colonies, he cannot prop them up by Protection. He must allow the winds of adversity to blow about these industries as they blow about all industries, and if they cannot stand against them they cannot stand at all. The Indian Secretary says that it is a great loss for trade to be disturbed from its old channels, but I say this is not so. It is very often a great gain for it to be disturbed, even when it is proceeding in legitimate channels. Was not the tea trade in China in a legitimate channel for that trade to flow in, but does it flow in that channel now? No, it flows in India and Ceylon now to the benefit of this Empire, and to the benefit of everybody who drinks tea. The policy of the Government is a most fallacious doctrine to lay down, for if you draw a ring fence round this industry what will be the effect It will be that production will decline, bad methods of manufacture will be protected, and the people will not enjoy those benefits which they otherwise would enjoy if free competition were allowed to play its part. I am extremely sorry to see that on such extremely flimsy pretexts as are laid down in this book, and advanced by the Indian Secretary, that such a great breach should be made in the Free Trade principles of this country.

*SIR LEWIS McIVER (Edinburgh, W.)

So far as I have been privileged to hear this Debate I have been chiefly struck with the flimsiness of the attack on the Government. Without substantial basis it has been supported by only the most strained special pleading, buttressed by the most shadowy arguments, and padded out by detached lectures on irrelevant subjects. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton gave us three most interesting and detached lectures—one on the constitution of the Indian Legislature—very attractive, and to me very welcome as an old friend. Then a second, in an analysis of the Blue Book. Finally a dear old friend, the elementary lecture on Free Trade principles. The hon. Member for Cardiff followed with a disquisition on the shortcomings of the Colonial Secretary; a sweet contribution on the "uses of adversity," or the blessings of foreign competition; and a second edition of the Free Trade lecture. But very little from either in support of the motion before the House. I am not trying to blame the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He is only an instrument fulfilling a constitutional rôle, giving the countenance of the front bench to the motion, and is too good for the job. The putative, the admitted, engineer of the Debate is the second speaker and lecturer. It has always seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that it would make for our comfort, and certainly for the speedier despatch of public business, if the deadly iteration, within this Chamber, of a well-known elementary lecture on political economy—certain familiar parts of which we have had over again to-night—were invariably to be ruled out of order from your chair. It has been printed so often in Hansard—not to mention the local papers—that we might with advantage have a Sessional Order to the effect that a copy of it be laid upon the Table. We all know it by heart. To the original lecture itself—the venerable classic of fifty years' standing—I take no objection. It is all true, none of it is new, and a good deal of it doesn't signify. But of the modern emendations and glosses without authority—the amateur and discordant variations interpolated in the old score—this can hardly be said. They may be new, but they are rarely true. In practical politics these performances are either out of date or out of tune. They are not wanted. We are all Free Traders to-day, and don't need converting. Of course there is a gamut of degree in the fervour of Free Traders. So there is in the zeal of Christians. The vast majority, in both cases, take their creed quietly—with an unmoving and uninquiring acquiescence, rather than with any very militant quality of active faith. At one pole you have the doubters and the waverers, at the other are the bigots and zealots and fanatics. In the economic school these are represented by the dervishes and fakirs of the Cobden Club, with whom the identity of two oblate spheroids, the terrestrial globe and Bastiat's orange—is a postulate, and settles the whole question. I hope the House will understand that I am not referring to the great bulk of the members of the Cobden Club, who take a rational view of Free Trade, but to that self-appointed priesthood which poses as the club and takes its name in vain—those cotton-gloved ghazis of Manchester, to whom the blessed word "consumer" is as comforting and conclusive as the name of Mesopotamia was to another group of worthy, old ladies. To them Free Trade is a Divine revelation, not to be understanded of the vulgar. The words of its Early Fathers are inspired words—even including, I suppose, some of their still unfulfilled prophecies. The Book of the Law and the exclusive gift of authoritative exposition arc in the hands of an inner circle of Lamas, and their extreme interpretations are of universal application—in all countries, in all circumstances, and in all times. This is esoteric Free Trade, which, logically translated into workaday life, would mean very little trade and practically no freedom. But all this is as far removed from the business Free Trade notions of the general public in this country as is the theoretic Buddhism of Lhassa from the working religion of the Singalese coolie or the Burman boatman; and this separation—this growing divergence between the preachers and the people, between clerics and the laity—is fraught with danger to the Free Trade connection. It creates a situation pregnant with schism and revolt. Theoretically, with the Buddhist, to destroy life is a crime; ergo, all good Buddhists must be vegetarians. And are they? Not much. They don't kill cows; but they keep a Mohammedan butcher in nearly every village, and the simple-minded Burman is a connoisseur of beefsteaks. Buddhism is still the creed of Ceylon and Burma—because it suits the people, I suppose. But if the attempt were made to force the extreme theory of the creed into, practice, there would be more trouble in Burma than we have ever yet en countered in that difficult county. And that is precisely the sort of result I fear from the aggressive assertion of that extreme purism of which the right hon. Member is the mouthpiece to-day. As a sincere Free Trader, I am more afraid of the mulish indiscretions of the doctrinaire Free Trader than of the arguments of the professed Protectionist. I am satisfied that at this moment in the blind Zeal of the Free Trade fanatic lies more danger to the continuity of our national economic policy than in all outside attack from whatever direction. This country is a Free Trade country. Its inhabitants a mostly professed Free Traders. Just this is a Christian country and inhabitants are mostly professed Protestants—and for much the same reason, in both cases. We are mostly Protestan and Free Traders because our filth, were. The majority have never inquiry much further in either case, but from the childhood have accepted both condition contentedly. But of those who have even superficially studied the economic question, who have examined the grounds of the faith that is in them, nine out of would say that they are Free Traders because they recognise that Free Trade has done wonders for this country in the past, that Free Trade is probably doing pretty well for this country in the present, and because they hope it may continue satisfy our wants in the future. They like things cheap, if they are not al nasty. They dislike Customs worries and, on the whole, it might be a dangerous thing to get tinkering with good old Free Trade. That, I take it, is about t average view. It is a practical and strictly mundane view, and very remote from the sacrosanct aspect which Ritualist—the Manchester Mahatma—insists on presenting. The average Britisher does not take his Fee Trade as a Divine revelation, or even credit its doctrines with the permanent infallibility of a mathematical truth. Sir, we accept Free Trade for ourselves in a sober, businesslike spirit, because, balance, it profits the nation, and f, so long as it profits the nation. I repeat, it is this arrogant intolerance that jeopardises the fair fame of Free Trade, and gives a handle to the prophets of Protection. It is speech and action like that of to-day that gives real Free Traders cause for new alarm; and already we have sufficient ground for disquietude. The House must remember that, although he vast majority of people in this country accept our Free Trade system as the best on balance for this country, there have been, from time to time—there are to-day—parts of the country and communities in the country who, for special reasons, do not accept the validity of Free Trade claims with anything like whole-souled enthusiasm. Roughly speaking, our general view of Free Trade is the free exchange of commodities at natural prices; but the bounty system is a direct and gross violation of that view, and should be met in the gate. I may be told that foreign tariffs are a violation of Free Trade. Well, Mr. Speaker, so they are; but that is another story. Primarily a tariff is a fiscal matter, and each country is surely entitled to say how it shall raise its necessary revenue. It is exclusively a Government matter, and the legitimate business of a Government. On the other hand, first and last, a bounty is a trade matter, and means that a Government, departing from its primary and, as I view it, legitimate, attitude, gives its support and its money to bolster up a particular trade in competition with the trade of other countries. That, according to my view, is not a justifiable attitude for a Government. And what we contend is that the Government of a country which believes in, and adheres to, Free Trade principles, is hound to take the strongest available measures to neutralise the effect of this illegitimate interference with Free Trade. The hostile tariffs of foreign nations are their affair, their bounties are very large our affair. Let them protect their interests as much as they like within their own territories; in most cases we still can tackle them and beat them even then; and unless the hon. Member for Cardiff has his way, we shall continue to be able to stick to Free Trade and free imports. But when foreign countries transfer their action to inside our borders, when they insidiously attack our beloved doctrines on our own ground, and so shake the faith of the waverers, we are bound to strike back, if only to stiffen the backs of our own weaker brethren. I submit, Sir, that the bounty question is not an aspect of legitimate trade any more than Greek fire or explosive bullets are debatable subjects in the science of legitimate warfare. It be longs rather to the class of such questions as slave trading and piracy. It is an evil thing and an outrage which all honest nations should combine to suppress, to attack tooth and nail, to stamp out ruthlessly. I maintain that not merely in their interests, but in defence of Free Trade, we, as a Free Trade nation, should treat a bounty pirate as an honest citizen would treat an armed burglar in his bedroom—as an honest farmer would treat a dog addicted to sheep-worrying—shoot on sight, and ask questions afterwards. But, Sir, it is a notorious fact that the bounties which the so-called Free Traders are so anxious to maintain—so determined shall be untouched—are on their last legs. We know that most of the bounty-giving countries are sick of the ghastly, futile expenditure which has only led to an unnatural over-production, that they would welcome any tangible excuse for giving them up; and that, any such excuse once given, the other bounty-giving countries would have to fall into line—would have to follow suit. Everybody except Protectionists of this or that industry denounces bounties. What keeps them going still? One thing and one thing alone—the virginal prudery of the Cobden Club. That, Mr. Speaker, is how extremes meet. In the speech of the hon. Member Free Trade and Protection are for the first time running in double harness. In order to protect some sugar importers in India—or, if you transfer the matter home, in order to protect and increase the profits of certain confectionery and jam industries in this country—it is desirable that the bounty system should be maintained. I do not say that that is his object; but that is what practically he is advocating. I do not say the hon. Member is consciously a Protectionist. I do not suggest that evil communications on that bench below the gangway have so far corrupted the purity of his creed—but, all the same, he is fighting the Protectionist battle. Does he approve of bounties? Are they consistent with his Free Trade creed? Does he desire their maintenance? Well, but what is he doing? He knows they are the most flagrant outrage on Free Trade, and he knows that one word from this Government—the mere threat of counter vailing duties—would put an end to bounties without one sixpence of the countervailing duty even being collected, and yet he forbids that word being spoken. "Under which king, Bezonian?" Is that a blow for Free Trade, or for Protection? Whatever the intentions or the beliefs of the hon. Member may be, the whole body of support which he and his doctrinaire associates have behind them in this country on this question is a Protectionist agitation. The only representations from outside which Members of this House have received on the subject have been appeals to do nothing to interfere with bounties, because they bolster a particular trade. And we practical Free Traders—the real Free Traders—in defending Free Trade, in seeking to strike a blow for Free Trade principles, and to get rid of the shackles on Free Trade imposed by this piratical bounty system, find ourselves confronted, not as usual by the right hon. Member for Thanet and the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield, but by the hon. Member for Cardiff. Sir, if the views for which I have been contending be true, viz., that, if our economic policy is to be maintained on its present sound and profitable lines, that desirable end can only be secured by the frank recognition of the present danger in which it stands, owing to the heretical extravagances of the zealots, by the recognition of the fact that in our national business Free Trade is a commercial, not an academic, policy, and is to be guided by practical principles, not by purblind pedantry—I say, if that view is of force when stated generally, and as applied to the United Kingdom and to our Crown colonies, it is doubly and trebly true when applied to India. When it comes to dealing with India, its revenue, its interests, its welfare, the House has to remember that we are dealing, not with our own property but with one for which we are trustees; and as the House knows, the action of trustees is very properly subject to strict limitations. We cannot deal with the property of our cestui que trusts as fancy dictates. We cannot sell it out at pleasure, and reinvest it in wild-cat stock, like Cobden Club debentures. In our trusteeship for India we are bound by equitable considerations, by obligations of honour, and by the solemn and formal declarations of the proclamation of 1859—so often repeated and expanded—to govern India for the Indians, in the interests of India, and, so far as possible, in harmony with the ideas of the people of India. With regard to the interests of the people of India, this House must recollect that the revenue of India is not the revenue of this country. It belongs to the people of India, to be employed for their benefit according to the judgment of experts on the spot. We have been informed today that the sugar bounty system is injuring the revenue of India. The different ways in which this happens, and the extent to which it happens, has been told to us in full and authoritative detail by the noble Lord who sits below me. For my part, I am content to take the fact on authority. Whether the loss is chiefly by direct injury to certain trades, or by the cultivation of sugar proving unprofitable, with the consequence that land falls out of cultivation, the fact remains that there is a loss of revenue and primarily, let me say, a loss of land revenue; and the extent of the area thus thrown out of cultivation is a detail. If a single acre has fallen out of cultivation from this unholy cause, we, as trustees for India, are bound to see to it. And for this reason: there is a loss of land revenue; that loss has to be made up, and by whom? By some other wretched cultivator who has already only a thin paper partition between himself and starvation— His life is a long-drawn question Betwixt a crop and a crop, and it is our business to see that the question is not made more difficult for him to solve than is avoidable. Again, I will not deal with sugar refining in India, for with that also the Secretary of State has dealt. It is a young industry, and the hon. Member for Cardiff will probably comfort himself with the reflection that babies generally die quite easily and painlessly. In the same way he is, naturally, too humane a man to derive any pleasure from the death-struggles of that industry even in this country. He has possibly consoled himself for the sufferings and losses of the sugar refiners and their workmen and their families with statistics proving that those losses have meant gain to other people. We all know those crusted old figures by heart. It is pointed out triumphantly that if so many thousand odd men in a particular locality were thrown out of work at sugar refining, so many more thousand—probably three or four times as many—men, women, and children in another locality have been employed in making jam and confectionery. It is something, but it doesn't prove the whole case, to my mind, and it certainly seems a trifle hard on the first group. But, can the hon. Member point to any similar compensation in India? Have the sugar bounties increased the manufacture of lollipops in India? Have they led to any new source of revenue? Have they encouraged any new cultivation? Have they removed the necessity for any new taxation? Has the hon. Member been able to show that, in any one respect, the sugar bounties have benefited India, or that the action of the Government of India in this matter is not in the interests of the people of India, and therefore in redemption of our national pledge to that people? So much, then, for the interests of India. With regard to our Government in India being in harmony with Indian ideas, in harmony with what, so far as can be ascertained, are the wishes of the people of India, the hon. Member for Cardiff has been posing this afternoon as the Voice of India—the fog-horn of mute millions—and has modestly suggested that, in his opinion, the opinion of the people of India is necessarily his opinion; or, conversely, his opinion is necessarily the opinion of the people of India. He claimed recently in public to be a devout reader of newspapers, and as a result of his reading—not a direct result, but after some unknown process of assimilation—he has arrived at a concrete Indian public opinion opposed to the action of the Government of India. How far it is an authorised version of public opinion the House must judge for itself. I will offer the House some material for judging. There are in India 586 newspapers and periodicals, English and vernacular. How many of these has the hon. Member, after weeks of inquiry, been able to press into his service I What is the real fact about the Indian Press? Probably never in the history of that Press has there been so marvellous a case of wholesouled, passionate unanimity in favour of a measure; and European and native papers have vied with one another in extolling its wisdom and justice—its necessity, its statesmanship. From the Pioneer and the Englishman, from the Madras Mail and notably from the Bombay Gazette, the Hindoo Patriot, the Amrita Bazaar Patrika, and all the established and reputable Press there is but one voice. I do not say that is conclusive of Indian opinion; but it is a more than average indication. There are in India 757 municipal councils, containing a large representative element of natives, elected by popular suffrage. There are 730 district or county councils, similarly equipped. There are seven legislative councils, where the flower of native intellect and ability find seats. From which of these bodies—representative and elective as most of them are—does the hon. Member produce, I will not say a memorial or a petition, hut even a single word of protest against the action of the Government of India? Then there is that august body the Indian Congress, which discusses Imperial problems with as much avidity, and as little knowledge, as certain county councils that we wot of. Has the Indian Congress been stirred to its depths? Has it rushed to the support of the hon. Member? I don't know that the Government of India would have been much dismayed if it had; but, as a matter of fact, nothing of the sort has happened. Then, Sir, we must take it from the hon. Member for Cardiff, that the existing outlets for the sentiments of the mute millions are, according to the hon. Member for Cardiff, a negligable quantity; neither the native Press nor the native representatives are to be counted. Well, Sir, we must turn to the European residents in India not connected with the Government. The hon. Member puts out of court those who are interested in sugar refining; they are damned by their private, selfish interests. Well, I don't mind; but then, to make things equal, we must in the same way damn the other group of selfish interests. the sugar importers of Bombay and Kurrachee, who are the hon. Member's sole clients. They are the whole question, according to the hon Member. They are the voice of India. They are Free Trade. The logic is perfect. One group of the native refiners is not to be heard because it has selfish interests. The other—a handful of European merchants—are the voice of India, because they have selfish interests. No; I think the two groups will have to be paired—the sugar importers with the sugar refiners; andexit the voice of India. Leaving out sugar refiners and sugar importers, you have a whole mass of non-official Anglo-Indian opinion passionately in favour of the measure.

There is yet another recognised voice of India. To my mind, the truest and most indisputable representatives of the interests of the people of India are the executive officers of the administration of India—the District Officers of all the services and all the departments, who pass their lives among the people, and who know their needs and wants better than anyone else does. I do not say that the Indian civilian is devoid of prejudice on this or that subject, that he may not have a fad about revenue settlement or a theory about cholera germs; but in a question of this sort, as to what are the wishes or interests of the people of India, the Indian official is not only the best, the most trustworthy, but the only real authority, and, almost to a man, the District Officers have approved of the measure. Lastly, you have the responsible Government of India, commanding, at first hand, every channel of information and competent advice, deliberately introducing this measure, supported by the whole mass of Indian opinion, official arid non-official, British and native, by the entire Press, English and vernacular; and against all this, as representing the voice of India, you have the hon. Member for Cardiff supported by the Peculiar People section of the Cobden Club and a handful of sugar importers in Bombay. As the House will recognise, long as I have been, with many of the cogent Indian arguments germane to the Government case I have not dealt at all. The 3,000,000 acres under sugar cane whose cultivation is in peril; the millions of palm trees in southern India exporting half a million cwts. of sugar annually, whose usefulness may disappear; the scores or hundreds of native refineries. closed or closing; the loss of land revenue; the interests of some hundred thousands of natives of India, fellow subjects who earn their living in Mauritius—with none of these have I dealt. My object has been, first, as a Free Trader, to protest against the heresies promulgated by the right hon. Gentlemen, and publicly to dissociate myself from a sort of literary forgery which seeks to father on Richard Cobden a pernicious dogma for which nothing in his works written or spoken, affords a sanction. Secondly, to disavow the childish doctrine, which the world's experience disproves, that what has been, and I hope will continue to be, good for this country would have been, or necessarily is, good for other countries differently circumstanced. And, thirdly, to protest against a wanton trifling with the interests of India and its 300 millions of people—whosetrustees we are—in deference to the extravagant theories of a handful of doctrinaires in this country. Finally, I would invite the House to take stock of the hollowness and the unreality of the attack on the Government, of the irrelevance of the arguments employed, to the real ground and cause of this onslaught. I ask the House to realise seriously that all these proposals have been presented to it, that this much-laboured controversy, this long-advertised Debate, has been thrust upon it, not because sacred doctrines are in danger, not because the interests of India are imperilled, but because the hon. Member for Cardiff, like the President of the Transvaal, does not care much for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

MR. W. H. HOLLEAND

I should like to express my delight with the poetry and imagination of the previous speaker (Sir L. McIver), but I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with the fiscal views which he expressed. I feel as though I am in a unique position in the House in regard to this question, because it happened to be my lot during the last few months to pass through a bye election, and in my address I specifically alluded to the question of countervailing duties, and to au Imperial Zolverein, and I declared myself in favour of Free Trade, on the ground that I believe it to be the best policy to pursue, entirely independent of any course any other nation might undertake, and I am against an Imperial Zolverein and countervailing duties. These views were endorsed by my constituents by a large majority; therefore, I think I have a mandate from them to support the views I gave expression to during the campaign. I observe that the Secretary of State for India claimed that, as the House of Commons had never challenged the instructions to the Berlin Conference, they might be taken as approving those instructions. I do not see why the House should have been expected to disapprove of them, for those instructions expressly disclaimed all idea of imposition of countervailing ditties. I also respectfully demur to the statement of the Secretary of State for India that Free Trade seeks as its chief object to secure equality of opportunity to traders if opportunities were equally had. It did not seek to secure equality of opportunity, but it seeks to secure it under most favourable conditions, and we, the Free Traders, believe that those conditions am most favourable which are most free. I noticed that the Secretary of State for India thought it worth his while to criticise duties that were imposed by his predecessor at the India Office. He did so on the ground that they were protective in character, but he seemed to overlook entirely the fact that such duties as would otherwise be protective in their character were countervailed by the Excise, and therefore could not be described as protective. I do not think that it lies in the mouth of the Secretary of State for India to twit his predecessor in regard to these duties, because we who come from Lancashire recollect very well that on the eve of the last General Election a removal of these duties was promised, and directly the election was over the Secretary for India went out of his way to justify the action which I is predecessor had taken with regard to them. I think he may be excused for expressing his views somewhat strongly in regard to these duties, because he was victimised at the last General Election, because it was by standing by the then Secretary of State for India and voting for him that the suffered at the General Election. I think it was a little unreasonable on the part of the Secretary of State to denounce the Manchester Chamber of Commerce for sticking to its principles of Free Trade. The Secretary of State for India considered that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce ought to be ashamed of itself for passing the resolution it did the other day. Well, I have read this resolution very carefully, and I was present at the meeting, and that resolution was so entirely in harmony with the policy of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce that I do not think that Chamber had anything whatever to be ashamed of. Indeed, I noticed that it was supported by Conservatives as well as Liberals. I feel that those on the Liberal benches, at any rate, need not concern themselves to defend the question of the giving of bounties, because, for the most part, they would never attempt to give them, holding that all bounties are bad in principle. We in this country, and our fellow subjects in India, have been recipients of the advantages of bounties, and it is not the recipients whose province it is to complain, it is the men who pay the bounties who ought to complain; and it is no wonder that the countries at this time who have saddled themselves with these bounties are now groaning under the burden. Bounties are admitted to be blunders, and hence we find that Germany, Austria, Belgium, and Holland are all willing to abolish them if France will do the same. In the case of France, although she is unwilling to abolish them, we find she is reducing them. I find in the report lately issued that the bounties on exports were reduced in 1898 to the extent of 30 per cent. That reduction was not made for the purpose of pleasing us, but because the authorities of France recognise that these bounties are an evil to themselves. When these bounty-giving nations realise the very great burdens they are imposing on themselves I think then, and not till then, they will abandon them. It was clearly recognised at the Brussels Conference that the bounty system was an evil. What did our Commissioners say in their report on the Conference? They said, "The bounty system is now felt to press heavily on the economical resources of those States which have recourse to it." Accordingly, without the help of countervailing duties, I think it is quite clear that the attention of these nations has been called to the bounty system in a very effective way, and that being so it is not likely to last very much longer. What would be the attitude of the iron and steel industries if foreign countries turned their attention to them and extended bounties to them? That is not in the least likely, because it would be a great deal too expensive. The amount already contributed in the case of sugar by these countries is large, but in such important industries as that of iron and steel the amount would be unsupportable indeed. I think it is hard for us to wax indignant about bounties when our working classes benefit by them to the extent of 2¾ millions a year, and while a cottager here can get his sugar at 2d. or 2½d. a pound a cottager in France has to pay 6d. I think that the Blue Book which has recently been published has entirely failed to justify the proposal of the Government. The words of Sir James Westland which were quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton—" I am proposing to open an entirely new chapter in our fiscal history"—practically amount to a fiscal revolution, and I think the House will agree that the onus probandi lies at least with those making this proposal. Has a good case been made out in the opinion of this House? In my opinion there never was such a flimsy case. If these countervailing duties had been demanded evidently and clearly by the public opinion of India I am bound to say I should have hesitated before I said a word against them. But nearly every page in the Blue Book shows exactly the contrary. The Blue Book testifies that this policy was hatched in the Colonial Office and forced upon India. The official mind in India knew what was the opinion of the India Office, and it would be very hard indeed to expect an official called upon to report to run counter to the expressed opinion of the India Office. I think it is clear from a perusal of the Blue Book that opinion in India on the present occasion is a manufactured opinion, and there is nothing easier than to manufacture opinion in favour of Protection. Once admit that you are prepared to open the door for the protection of an industry, and it is the easiest thing in the world to make out a case for it. It is easy in India, and it would be easy in this country. India is all the more ready to embark on a policy of retaliation with a light heart, for, unlike this country, she knows nothing of that long and bitter struggle which took place fifty years ago, and which resulted in the triumph of Free Trade principles. Those who will benefit by these countervailing duties are comparatively few in number, and are more or less organised, and to that extent they are able to make their voices heard. But, on the contrary, those who will be penalised by them are the masses of the people, whose voices are dumb, but who are nevertheless entitled to have their views given expression to in this House. Every Member of the House who knows anything of the industries of India knows there are many industries in which sugar stands in the relation of raw material, and it is an axiom of the successful trader that he must be able to buy his raw material in the cheapest market. Is this policy entirely fair to other industries of India? Sugar is not the most important crop in India by any means, and one would imagine that a sense of proportion would give increased prominence to other crops. Nor has the sugar industry suffered the most. We find that the acreage under pulse has declined by 7¼ per cent., and is cultivated over 78,000,000 acres. Rice has reduced 4 per cent., oilseed 18 per cont., wheat 12½ cent., and sugar only 10 per cent., so that there are other crops in which there has been a more serious diminution of acreage that in the case of sugar. We are told that the refiner in India wants protection, but what manufacturer does not want protection if he can get it? But whether he needs protection is a much more pertinent question. We have a report in the Blue Book from the North-West Provinces which states that the average profit of sugar refiners has been 10 per cent. I am quite sure there are a good many cotton mills in Bombay who do not earn 10 per cent. over a series of years. Other industries can be found in which the need is greater than the need of the sugar refiners. In the opinion of many people it would be ten thousand times better for sugar refiners to improve their methods, both as regards appliances and the quality of the cane itself, rather than to rely on the advantage of countervailing duties. In France very greatly improved machinery has been adopted during the last ten years. From a return furnished a short time ago I find that in sixteen years the number of factories in France has been reduced by 29 per cent., the number of workers in French refineries by 25 per cent., less beet is used and rather less coal, and vet notwithstanding the diminution in all these respects more sugar is being turned out every year. The Indian refiners have already the advantage of a protection of 5 per cent. imposed as import duty. They have that protection against Mauritius and Europe, but they are not satisfied with that advantage. After an extended experience I have never found a protected industry to he satisfied with the amount of protection it obtained. The levying of countervailing duties will yield very little indeed to the Indian revenue, but the consumer will be heavily penalised, because it is not unreasonable to expect an enhancement not only in the price of sugar in India but also in the price of other productions. It is also sought to justify these countervailing duties because of the condition of Mauritius. But I think that the case of Mauritius was completely given away by the Report issued a short time ago, which showed that there was no injury inflicted on the sugar refining industry, but that on the contrary the exports into India were greater in weight during the eleven months ending December, 1898, than ever they had been before during any preceding twelve months. And in point of value that year was one of the best Mauritius ever had. I notice that Mauritius asks not only for the advantages of the countervailing duties, but also for the remission of the 5 per cent. customs duty. That only shows that Mauritius, like the rest of us, naturally wants to have as much its it can get. The countervailing duties are really not in the interest of Free Trade. I notice they are very strongly supported by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. I do not think that is a very strong argument that they are favourable to Free Trade, because I am quite sure the hon. Member is not a great lover of Free Trade. Import duties must be for revenue or protection. These duties cannot be for revenue—because the amount is small, and the Indian Revenue does not need assistance at present—but they are for protection. Countervailing duties are as far removed front Free Trade as it is possible for any duty to be, and their effect is exactly opposite to the effect looked for in Free Trade. Their effect will be to restrict international trade, and to raise prices to the consumer, evils which, in the first instance, Free Trade was designed to combat. I think we will all agree that if we restrict international trade we will be impairing international goodwill, and to that extent we will be undoing the work now in progress at the Hague, which, we trust, will be beneficent in its result. By the passing of such legislation we are inflicting a lasting injury on Free Trade, because it suggests to Protectionist countries that there is something inherently weak in Free Trade which can only be combated by countervailing duties, and we thereby postpone the adoption of Free Trade elsewhere. I think the policy of retaliation which is now recommended by the Government is childish in the extreme. I deny that by any such legislation we can help Free Trade. I think, on the contrary, Free Trade is helped much more really by the spectacle of a great and prosperous people—the greatest trading nation in the world—standing unflinchingly by Free Trade as by a sheet anchor; a nation increasing the number of its works, and paying better wages to its workers. That is a spectacle which is likely to be an object lesson to other nations of the earth, and which must ultimately have effect.

*MR. WYLIE (Dumbartonshire)

I had given notice of an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton to the effect that— In the interests of India and of Free Trade throughout the world this House approves of the Indian Tariff Act, 1899, but in deference to the request of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India I do not propose to move it. Speaking in support of a direct negative, I hope, however, to be able to show that this Tariff Act is not only in the interests of India bit also of Free Trade. I will begin by saying that I am a thorough supporter of Free Trade in its widest sense. With Ruskin I would like to see trade amongst the nations as frank and free as honesty and the sea winds can make it, and I also accept his definition of Protection, that (among other pernicious functions) it endeavours to enable one country to compete with another in the production of an article at a disadvantage. Now in the production of sugar the radical question at present is whether European countries with beet for the source of production or tropical countries with cane can produce sugar better or cheaper. On this ground there need be no dubiety whatever. Statistics show that the oh outage is altogether with the tropical countries. Mr. Martinean, who gives a series of very exhaustive tables of statistics in connection with sugar manufacture, has come to the conclusion that, speaking generally, the production of beet sugar in Europe costs considerably more than £10 per ton, and of cane considerably less titan £9 per ton, and it should he remembered that beet sugar has been enormously subsidised by State protection, ingeniously employed so as to diminish the cost of production, while cane sugar has been subjected to the benumbing influence of a system which iris repelled capital, because no capitalist will invest money in the production of cane sugar when bounties may crash the industry out altogether. Speaking generally, therefore, if a Free Trade and natural policy prevailed, tropical countries would send to Europe their supplies of sugar and receive in return manufactured articles which Europe is much better able to supply. Under these circumstances the general supporters of Free Trade would say of sugar, as Cobden said of Corn: We do not seek Free Trade for sugar primarily because we wish to obtain it at a cheaper money value, but because we require it at the natural price of the world's markets. This, then, is the general aspect of the question from the genuine Free Trade point of view. But several countries of Europe, notably France and Germany, have uttered upon a gigantic system of protection, fostering sugar by enormous subsidies at the expense of their other industries; taking large tracts of cultivated land in Europe which might be much letter applied to other purposes, and rendering desolate and uncultivated vast tracts in the tropics which are much better fitted for its production. But it may be asked what advantage has the British, Empire derived from this protection, maintained at so much cost and sacrifice by Continental countries. The only advantage that can certainly be asserted is that we have got cheaper sugar. The assertion that the jam and confectionery trades have been created by it is a gross exaggeration. The disadvantages not at first apparent more than counterbalances any advantage that may be obtained. It has supplanted a great deal of out more nutritious products, and it has almost destroyed the sugar industry of the West Indies; the sugar refining industry and manufacture of sugar refining ma-chi r wry in this country. Upon a large body of working men throughout the country—in London, Liverpool, and Bristol, and particularly in Greenock, the chief centre of the sugar refining industry it has acted with a peculiarly baneful effect. No other country in the world would have stood quietly by and seen its flourishing colonies and successful industries crushed out by an iniquitous system of protection when it had the means ready at hand to prevent it. The same process has begun in India, and the very same arguments and assertions are being applied to India as were applied in connection with the West Indies for more than twenty years, until they were proved. to be utterly fallacious told misleading by the inexorable logic of disastrous experience. Now, let us examine the ease of India in the light of this experience. The sugar industry of India is one of its most prominent and profitable industries. It covers three million acres, and in the language of the natives is to other tillage as the elephant is to other beasts. It employs two millions of inhabitants, and its annual produce is worth £20,000,000. This industry has been subjected to the baneful competition+ of protected sugar. In the year 1892–3 the importation of beet sugar amounted to about 285,000 cwts., and for the nine months ending December, 1897, it had increased to about 1,041,000 cwts., about four times that amount. And supposing the production of sugar in the East Indies were rendered as difficult as it has been in the West Indies, a very important industry would be crushed out of the country altogether. But the Government of India has wisely determined not to look quietly on, like the mother country. but has restored the balance to Free Trade by the simple expedient of imposing countervailing duties, In this country there are two classes who oppose countervailing duties The first class recognise the justice of countervailing duties, but they fear they will riot stop until they end in a system of Protection altogether. But they may be assured that the principles of Free Trade are so thoroughly understood in this country that countervailing duties will not be pressed further than is necessary to restore an absolutely just balance. The other class believe that bounties benefit this country, and that it does not matter for anything else. Their sentiment is, "Perish the Indies, East and West, as long as we have cheaper sugar and more abundant confections." But the policy of countervailing duties is steadily commending itself to the common sense of this country. Ten years ago people would I nave been considered rank Protectionists who mentioned countervailing duties. Now, I am pleased to think, not only the Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow, but those of London, Liverpool, and other towns have stated clearly and distinctly that they are in favour of countervailing duties, inn order to give this country a fair field and no favour. As a member of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, I am very glad to notice the growth of public opinion on this subject. Ten years ago a man who hinted at countervailing duties would have been considered a rank Protectionist. Now the general feeling of the community is in favour of these duties. I may state that countervailing duties have been Very successfully imposed in the Cape of Good Hope and Australia, and with the further result that the Mauritius has been able to send to them the half of the production of 100,000 tons, the other half going to India, and that under this system of Free Trade these countries have been able to hold their own very successfully. They have not only supplied their own communities, but have been able to export a vary considerable amount of sugar to other countries. The Mauritius has also been in the same position. India has been very fortunate in having at its seat of Government statesmen who have had the courage of their opinions. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India on having encouraged the Indian Government to take this step. He has wisely resolved that the interests of India shall not be sacrificed, as the interests of a large section of the trade of this country have been, by an inquitous system of Protection. This step, which marks a new departure in the commercial policy of the British Empire, will enable India to retain a splendid industry within her domains. In approving of the action of the Government in taking this very drastic step, I venture to hope that we shall give our approval a wider significance than that which attaches to India merely.

*SIR CHARLES CAMERON (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate, because I entirely agree with the action of the Government in this matter, and I should not like to give a vote against a five-line whip issued by my own front bench without showing that I had reasons for so doing. I have listened attentively to all the speeches which have been made, and especially the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. What has struck me most in the course of the debate has been the absentee of any reference to the ancient history of the question. Twenty years ago I supported the right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of our sugar industries and the best means of remedying their depression, and one of my arguments then was that for years one Government after another had been denouncing these bounties and had been taking every step in their power but the right one to get rid of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has twitted the members of the Indian Council with being no longer the disciples of various statesmen, and amongst others he mentioned Sir Stafford Northcote. It struck me, however, that in the course of the Debate on the motion for the appointment of a Select Committee Sir Stafford Northcote had expressed himself in a very different manner. I have the report of the Debate, and I find two expressions of Sir Stafford Northcote's opinion. One was a quotation made by the present President of the Board of Trade from a speech by Sir Stafford Northcote in reply to a deputation on the subject of the sugar bounties. This is what he said: He knew it had been said—sometimes he had seen it put strongly in the journals—that if foreign countries chose to pay bounties, or anything in the nature of bounties, on the sugar which they exported, and thereby supplied us with an article cheaper than it would otherwise be, we as a nation had nothing to do but to take advantage of their folly, and that we need not trouble ourselves as to the effect it had on this or that particular trade. He wished to say that he entirely dissented from that view. He did not think that we ought to comfort ourselves with arguments such as those. In general, he agreed in principle with what had been said by so many there present. He agreed with what had been so well said by Mr. Sampson Lloyd, that we ought not by any legislative enactment to interfere to prevent other countries making use of their natural advantages to supply us with the products which they could supply more advantageously than we could. But that principle did not apply to a case in which by legislative action on the part of a foreign Government, by any artificial action on their part, they could supply us with an article which, if things were left to their natural courses, we could supply as cheaply, or more cheaply, ourselves. That was the teaching of Sir Stafford Northcote. Again Sir Stafford Northcote in the course of that Debate, answering the right hon Gentleman the present Member for Bodmin, said: The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr Courtney) laid down the doctrine that we had nothing to do with questions of that kind, and that the only principle which we were to go on was that we should buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. If that is so, what are the hon. Member for Liskeard and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London to say of the conduct which the latter and his colleagues have been pursuing for so many years-namely, trying to prevent the country from buying in the cheapest market by endeavouring to induce the French and other Governments to put an end to a system of bounties which was apparently productive of advantage to this country? I do not wish to weary the House with quotations from Adam Smith and Ricardo I will confine myself to one or two of the authorities quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. Cobden was mentioned, but here is Cobden's teaching on the subject: We do not seek Free Trade in corn primarily for the purpose of purchasing it at a cheaper money rate; we require it at the natural price of the world's market; whether it becomes dearer with Free Trade, or whether it becomes cheaper it matters not to us, provided the people of this country have it at its natural price, and every source of supply is freely open as Nature and Nature's God intended it to be; then, and then only, shall we be satisfied. Mr. Gladstone also was most emphatic on the subject, and I adhere to the teaching of Mr. Gladstone. What did Mr. Gladstone say in 1866 when he was speaking of the Sugar Convention of 1864 for the Abolition of Bounties? He said: Her Majesty's Government could not but perceive that that would be a beneficial arrangement, beneficial alike to imposters, refiners, and consumers. Returning to the matter in 1879, he wrote a letter which the right hon. Gentleman will find in the report of the Select Committee. It runs as follows: If, as I understand, the circumstances of the case continue unaltered I think that both the trader and the workman engaged in the business of refining sugar have great reason to complain My desire is that the British consumer should have both sugar and every other commodity at the lowest possible price at which it can be procured without arbitrary favour to any of those engaged in the competition; but I cannot regard with favour any cheapness which is produced by means of the concealed subsidies of a foreign State to a particular industry, and which has the effect of crippling and distressing capitalists and workmen engaged in a lawful branch of British trade. And again: If they were hound to observe the principles of equity towards foreign countries, they were bound to observe the principles of equity towards their own subjects.… and not to suffer them to be crushed by the competition of those who were sustained by the lung purse of a foreign Government. These are the teachings of Mr. Gladstone, and they entirely endorse the step which is now being taken. I give the present Government great credit for having at last taken one effective step in this matter in one important part of the Empire. I intend to support them, because I think that this new bounty is giving practical effect to what has for forty years been the theoretical policy of successive Governments. Well, Sir, when the Select Committee was appointed it expressly denied that countervailing ditties were any infraction of Free Trade. To quote the exact words of the Report, it was not "in any sense of the term Protection." If we asked for Protection, we should ask that the duty should be imposed against all imported sugar, whether in bounty-fed States or not. if we asked for reciprocity, we should ask that a duty should be imposed on the sugar of any State that imposed a duty on us. But we do tot ask for anything of the sort. We say it is a capital thing to give bounties and to give as many bounties as you like; but we ask Government to intercept them for the benefit of the State, and prevent them being utilised for the purpose of crushing any particular industry. That, I think, is a legitimate step to take. The Select Committee would have recommended countervailing duties had it not been that evidence had been given by Mr. Kennedy that the imposition of countervailing duties would interfere with the most favoured nation clause in some of our treaties. Well, Sir, I don't believe it would. I have seen a most elaborate opinion of Mr. Sheldon Amos, a most eminent lawyer, pointing out that the exact contrary would be the effect. But the fact is, that the system of countervailing duties is already a characteristic of our fiscal arrangements. The Secretary of State for India mentioned the case of spirits, and read an article from the French Treaty which showed that they had been expressly imposed as a countervailing duty. But, Sir, that is not a solitary instance. I have in my hand a report of the Commis- sion on Customs, and if any hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to look on pages 18 and 23 of that document he will be able to confirm what I say. Not only have you countervailing duties levied in the case of spirits, but also in the case of home manufactured tobacco as against foreign manufactured tobacco; in the case of cigars manufactured in this country as against foreign manufactured cigars, and in the case of chicory as against imported chicory. But it may be said that all these are articles that bring in considerable sums to the Revenue. I want to show that these countervailing duties are imposed absolutely irrespective of any considerations of revenue. Let us take the case of chloroform. Chloroform and ether are anæsthetics which relieve an enormous amount of human suffering. If in anything it was desirable to have free trade surely it is desirable that you should have it in the case of chloroform, so that it may be supplied at the cheapest possible price for use in your hospitals and other institutions. But chloroform and ether require alcohol in their preparation, and these are articles which are enormously taxed. In the Cape, for instance, there is no tax on alcohol, and if you allowed free trade in these articles you would have chloroform and ether sent to this country in such a way as to cut out altogether home manufacture. You clap on 3s. 1d. per lb. on chloroform, and you clap on £1 6s. 2d. per gallon on sulphuric ether. Do you know what is got out of this surtax? 3s. 1d. per lb. levied on imported chloroform brings in a gives revenue of £12 a year, and sulphuric ether at £1 6d. 2d. per gallon brings in a gross revenue of £7. Collodion is another article in the same position. You tax it to the extent of £1 0s. 5d. per gallon. That brings in £12 a year. Iodide of ethyl is taxed at the rate of 13s. 7d. per gallon, and does not bring in a halfpenny to the Revenue; the duty, in fact, is absolutely prohibitive. Take an article in general use, namely, soap. Surely there can be no particular reason for taxing soap. Cleanliness is next to godliness, and it is most desirable that people in this country should have free choice of any soap that suits their taste or skin. Well, Sir, we levy a tax on transparent soap, in the manufacture of which spirit is used, of 3d. per lb. With what result; That we get a gross revenue of £114. In confectionery in the manufacture of which spirit has been used we levy a countervailing duty of ½d per lb.; this brings in £488 a year. I On confectionery containing not more than 50 per cent. of chocolate the amount brought into the Revenue is £59 a year. We levy another countervailing duty upon sweets in the manufacture of which chocolate and spirit have been used, which brings in £153 a year. Now, Sir, I have given a list of items which you will find in the Report of the Customs Commission, which abundantly proves that these countervailing duties are already part of our fiscal system and are levied by us altogether independently of revenue considerations. This country has been too long shilly-shallying in the matter, and "letting I dare not wait upon I would." At last the Government has taken a practical step. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is one of the original apostles of the movement, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is a convert to it now; with such an array of anti-bounty men in the Government I am glad to see that they have at last pit their hands to the plough in the ease of India, and I trust that the example they have set with regard to that country will he followed by the adoption of something like a definite policy in our own country in order to put an end to a mischief which statesmen for the last 40 years have deplored and protested against.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

At this time of night it is necessary to speak within rather strict limits, and I will, therefore, be as brief as possible. I have heard with a great deal of admiration the very able speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State for India. It had the merit, if I may say so, of being a resolute attempt to grapple with all the elements of the problem. It was a good, thorough argument, addressed to the action which the Government have taken, and if any good argument can prove the excellence of their conduct in instigating and supporting what has been done at Calcutta, my noble friend's speech ought to do it. He began by laying down the principle that bounties and protective duties are alike hostile to Free Trade. That they are both hostile to Free Trade I at once admit, but if the word "alike" means that they are hostile to Free Trade in the same manner and to the same effect, I differ from my noble friend, and I will venture to say that it is from want of appreciation of the fundamental distinction between the operation of bounties and protective duties that my noble friend has failed in establishing the conclusion he submitted. Both bounties and protective duties do interfere with the natural course of trade; both are hostile to the principle of Free Trade, but they operate in a very distinct and different way. A bounty is something which the Government or nation paying it imposes upon itself, but other countries dealing with that nation in the commodity in respect of which the bounty is given are primarily benefited by it. A protective duty, on the other hand, fails entirely to benefit the country which imposes it or the country hit by it. It punishes both, whereas a bounty is a punishment on the country which imposes it and a benefit to all other countries. A good deal has been said tonight about our past experience. My hon. friend the Member for Bridgeton (Sir C. Cameron) congratulated the Government on having taken an action which, if it had been taken earlier in a similar and analogous manner, would have relieved us of much from which we have suffered. The hon. Member for Dumbarton proceeded in the same way to refer to the action of the past as having imposed losses upon this country. There are many reasons why we have attempted to get nations to do away with bounties; but the action in the past, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton and the hon. Member for Bridgeton referred, so far from being a burden to this country, has been, in fact, primarily and principally a benefit to it. Anyone who fails to understand that this country has been benefited by the reception of cheap sugar altogether fails to understand the theory of Free Trade. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield is strongly opposed to Free Trade in every fashion.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Our present Free Trade.

MR. COURTNEY

He is consistent enough in rejoicing over this attack on bounties as an attack on the benefits we have enjoyed in the past. The bringing into a country of a commodity at a cheaper rate necessarily displaces, as every improvement in production must displace, some previous producer, and those who fail to understand that have never really grasped what Free Trade means. The whole progress of improvement implies a loss imposed upon someone who up to that point has been engaged in the production of the commodity in respect of which the improvement is effected. But because we as a country have benefited by the introduction of cheap sugar through other countries giving bounties in regard thereto, it does not at all follow that we should go and approve of bounties everywhere, and try to bolster up and maintain them. If we get sugar at a cheaper rate, someone who has hitherto supplied it must be hurt. It is a necessary consequence of every movement in favour of Free Trade, and those who object to cheap sugar ought and must object to cheap corn. My hon. and gallant friend says, quite rightly from his point of view, that cheap corn interferes with the agriculturists, cheap flour interferes with the miller, cheap bread interferes with the baker—they are all interfered with, and therefore the nation suffers. Sir, the nation would be benefitted if twopenny loaves could be showered down from heaven. My hon. and gallant friend would then look up to the skies and say: "This is an interference to trade. Really you are destroying the trade of the agriculturists, and interfering with the miller and the baker. The whole process of trade is interfered with because the bread comes with the free bounty of heaven, and therefore it is wrong.' The process in itself, the process of cheapening a commodity through bounties, is only a minor illustration of the great process of cheapening every commodity which we can get cheapened through the free course of trade. This is true of our own country; it is true also of India. If it is true that we should be benefited, even though farmers and agriculturists and landowners may pay the penalty as they do, so also will it be true of India, that if the Indian population receive a commodity which they want, they will be benefited by the introduction of the commodity at a cheaper rate. It may be said that we have to regard other things than India. But even if we take in the case of Mauritius, which I think we ought not to do in considering the matter of India alone—if we could bring Mauritius and lay it alongside of India, making it a part or province of India, under the same government, the fact that the sugar trade of Mauritius would be injured by the introduction of sugar at a cheaper rate would not be an argument in favour of the Government's policy. I have allowed that bounties are an interference with Free Trade, and I am quite willing to allow, in the language of Mr. Gladstone, that we cannot regard bounties with favour. We look upon them with disfavour—not in a national interest, but in a cosmopolitan interest. If you are a lover of the world at large, you see that bounties do interfere with the free course of trade; that they are a penalty paid by another nation for your benefit, which must injure that other nation, and which in a minor and secondary degree injures you. In a cosmopolitan interest you would desire to do away with bounties; in an altruistic spirit for the benefit of other nations we should get them to do all we could to remove bounties.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Hear, hear!

MR. COURTNEY

But not in the spirit of my hon. and gallant friend, who I am afraid really does not understand the very elements of the problem. If we get this pernicious system of bounties removed we do it at a cost to ourselves. We make some little sacrifice in the attempt to get other countries to follow a Free Trade policy in this matter, and as a practical question we are bound to consider that circumstance with any action we may take. Get bounties removed if you can. But how? In what measure? By what means? These are practical questions, which must be considered before taking practical action. In order to consider every one of them successfully we must bear in mind the primary fact that, as far as we are concerned, a nation not giving bounties, we are benefited and not injured by them. Now, in attempting to get rid of bounties what things arc to be considered? It is admitted that imposing these retaliatory duties is a grave matter, and it ought not to be done unless there is some considerable interruption of Free Trade on the part of other people, requiring an action which is a voluntary self-sacrificing action in- volving some loss, on our part. We ought also, before resorting to a method of removing the evil, to be sure that we should not produce a greater evil. If authority goes for anything, the authority of our greatest predecessors is against making the attempt by duties on our part to counteract the advantages which we may receive from the unwisdom, or even the tyranny, of other people. Our great predecessors have refused, practically, to put on these duties to defeat bounties. They have done more. In a case which appears to me to appeal to our moral sense in a far higher degree than these bounties do, our great predecessors in fiscal legislation absolutely refused to make any discrimination in our duties which were urged as being likely to operate in the cure of a great national wrong. I am referring to the question of slave labour. If ever there was a reason for appealing to the conscience of the nation that reason would be found in the fact that we were receiving sugar from countries produced under conditions of slave labour, which caused it to be cheaper than it would have been had it been produced by free labour, and that we ought, by imposing a differential duty, to negative the advantage which slave-owning countries enjoyed from the existence of slavery. But Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright—not inferior in morality to any of us—strenuously refused to make any such discrimination; and it appears now that practically they were right, because slave-labour is not cheaper than free labour, and this discrimination would not have corresponded to a real difference in the cost to the country. If these statesmen refused to do it in that ease, they certainly would refuse to do it in order to counteract a bounty which is put on by the free action of other countries. In fact we know that they did deliberately refuse to put on these retaliatory duties. The main principle which is suggested by the analogy to which I have referred is that you really cannot measure the practical effect on the price of a commodity of a bounty put on by another country. I know it will be said that our sugar trade is dominated now by bounties; that it is bounties and bounties alone which cause the supplies to come from certain countries; and my noble friend the Secretary of State for India said in his speech that it is proved that cane sugar can compete, if the terms are equal, with beet sugar. I venture to say no—not meaning that it could not so compete, which I think is an unproved question—but meaning that it has not been proved that cane sugar could on equal terms compete with beet sugar. Therefore, in attempting to discriminate and measure the compensating duty you might altogether fail in securing the effect you want. What is the case. We get a good deal of our sugar from Germany and France. The bounty granted varies from £1 5s. to £2 per ton. What was the argument of the West Indies Commissioners on that point? We have it in their report that the difference was not enough to restore the sugar industry in the greater part of the West Indian islands, although it would be sufficient here and there; in other words, that cane sugar could not compete with beet in the greater part of the Wrest Indian islands, even if the bounty were nullified, and that the attempt to make that nullification would be vain, if you thought thereby to restore the prosperity of the West Indies. About a week ago I got another illustration, which seemed to me to be so remarkable that I venture to repeat it, because I think the House will bo struck by its cogency. I met a most intelligent Danish gentleman, and began to talk to him about the Danish West Indian Islands, and about their circumstances, their social condition, their trade, and at last I said, "I suppose you get a good deal of sugar from them?" "Oh, no, we do not," he said. "We do not get any sugar at all from them now; we used to get sugar from them." Where do you get your sugar from," I asked. "Oh, we get it entirely from our own beet." "I suppose there is some difference in duty?" I said. "No, not at all. The rate of duty which we pay on sugar in Denmark is the same whether it conies from cane or from beet." Beet sugar without any bounty in Denmark has beaten cane. That is in a very large measure because with the beet industry you have much more capable, industrious, and energetic employers, men working their own estate on the spot, and not working through inferior labour. You have the greatest ingenuity, and you have what is more than anything else, such a development in the application of the by-products that the cost of the production of the sugar is very much diminished. So that if you think that nullifying the bounties will fully reestablish trade, you will altogether fail. I have said that I myself would be very glad to see bounties abolished, if I could purge the mental confusion of foreign legislators, if I could cure them of what is worse than mental confusion—the international jealousy which underlies all this stealing of trade from one another. But my main objection to this plan of retaliatory duties is that, instead of curing the root of the evil, you intensify it. You make foreign legislatures think that what they have been doing is a good thing, that you are injured by it, and therefore they must gain; and so they go on in the course they have taken. After all, it deals with a very small matter it deals with it in a way you cannot measure and accurately compensate, and instead of during foreign nations of the evil system, you will go on making them more inveterate in it. But I must protest against the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, and by my noble friend the Secretary of State, that the agricultural industry is entirely ruined by this supposed interference with the cultivation of sugar. Out of the whole 230,000,000 acres, only 1⅓. per cent. were under sugar. What would be the effect in India, even if the whole were to go? The Indians would be better off, and would cultivate some other commodity. Those who think they would not be better off are of the opinion that we are not better off through cheap sugar and cheap corn. Then there is the political as well as the economical question to be considered. It may, and probably will, be said that my speech on the whole has been that of a complete doctrinaire, but that is always said when the arguments cannot be disproved. I have never looked upon this question as one which could be solved by considerations of Free Trade alone. I recall the case of the cotton duties, not the cotton duties which were dealt with by my right hon. friend opposite three or four years ago, but the agitation of some twenty years ago, when my lamented friend Mr. Fawcett and myself were in the House together, and when Lancashire Members were making an eager attempt to get rid of the cotton duties in India. We were persuaded like the Members for Lancashire that the cotton duties were bad for the people of India; but we were neither of us very keen in the agitation, because we felt that it carried an ugly look to the people of India, that apparently it would be sacrificing India to Lancashire. In the government of India you must have respect to the prejudices—or the errors, if you like to call them so—of the people you are governing. If you are attempting to force upon India, as we were then, the abolition of the cotton duties, in the face of the opposition of the Government of India, and in the face of the general opinion of India, you are engaged in a dangerous enterprise, against which a good deal may be said, and which ought to be approached with very great caution. But in this case we are really not fighting for England. We are approaching the matter from the point of view of India alone. England has nothing in the world to do with it. It is from the point of view of India alone that we are urging the impropriety of this interposition which has been sanctioned by the Government. I know it may be said that the Council is unanimously in favour of these duties. Yes. But the same Council, minus the Head, was unanimously against them last year. They have changed in the meantime owing to superior information, and the fact that a change had been made in the Governor-General. I will not use the word which the hon. Member for Cardiff applied to members of the Council in this connection, but I think that this question precipitates the bringing forward of the grave question which we will have one day to consider, and which I ventured to suggest a few months ago would soon have to be considered, viz., the composition of and character of the Governing Council itself. Under its present organisation you cannot have those elements of independence which are most desirable in the Government of India. This train of thought was pressed upon me most forcibly quite recently in reading the "Letters and Papers of Sir Robert Peel." When Lord Ellenborough went out to India, Sir Robert Peel had his doubts about the wisdom and prudence of that great Governor - General, and communicated them to the Duke of Wellington, saying— I think the Council had better keep him in order. But the Duke of Wellington, in a note which I commend to the House, said— Oh, no, no! The Council are no use in this regard. They are gentlemen who have served in India, most of them, for twelve years or more; they have been trained in offices; they have gone through an Indian career which leads them always to look up to the Head of the Government, and you will find that a Governor-General—especially one who had been at the Board of Control and made Indian matters his study—will have the Council entirely round his finger. We sent a Governor-General out there who has made Indian matters a great study, and the recent action of the Council in India loses, to me, very much, if not the whole, of its weight when I consider that within twelve months the same Council was of an entirely different opinion. The change has, in fact, been brought about by the introduction of a new Governor-General. This is a very grave question. If it were a case of England, none of us would approve of countervailing duties. If we are going to look upon India as something under our charge, as England is, we ought to apply to India precisely the same action; we ought to refuse there what we refuse here. I know it is said that this is a grave matter, that it is a vote of censure. For my part, I do not very seriously regard these threats of a vote of censure. In the first place, it will not be carried—though that is not much to the point; in the second place, if it were carried, could anyone conceive the Government dissolved on this question arid going to the country in favour of keeping up and enhancing the price of sugar in India—a principle which would be represented, and accurately represented, as leading to an enhancement of the price of sugar at home? The thing is absolutely impossible. I have no fear whatever of the consequences of victory in this matter, even if we could secure it, and I shall vote with my right hon. friend opposite without any fear.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,) Birmingham, W.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather a curious fact that the last two speakers, although their conclusions have been very different, have this at least in common—both of them have spoken against the views of the Party to which they belong. The only difference is that the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow performs that operation very infrequently, while with my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin it is altogether usual. I think I shall not shock my right bon. friend if I say that sometimes his speeches cause some irritation to his friends. That is not because he differs from them, that is not because he is a candid friend, because I can assure him he occupies that position so admirably that the Unionist Party is proud to have so conspicuous a specimen of the genus in their midst. But the feeling is due to a different cause—to that cause which operated in the case of the New Zealand medicine man, as to whom the chief of his tribe said that he gave them so much good advice that they were obliged to put him away. Now, my right hon. friend, in the course of his speech, spoke of his desire—a most natural and creditable desire on his part—to purge the mental confusion of foreign legislatures. That is an extension of his Ordinary role; his ordinary role is to purge the mental confusion of domestic legislators. Yet, as with so many other great benefactors of his species, I am afraid the people he is supposed to benefit are not sufficiently grateful. The right hon. Gentleman has contended to-night that a bounty differs from a protective duty, that it is not so bad as a protective duty, because a bounty is a benefit to the country giving it and an injury to the country giving it. I take issue on both those statements. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that a bounty given by a foreign country to introduce its products where they could not naturally go is equivalent to a rather extreme hypothesis he raised—namely the possibility that Heaven might shower twopenny loaves upon us. There is a difference between Heaven and foreign governments. The bounty of Heaven is more free; it is less interested. If Heaven ever does shower twopenny loaves upon us it will not be because it has gone into the bakery trade. I think the comparison is altogether unfair. But I take exception to his first statement, that a bounty is a benefit to the country receiving it. It is, I think, a mental confusion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman which I desire to purge, that a bounty is the cause of cheap sugar. No doubt if the fact that sugar at the present time is half the price it was so many years ago were due entirely to the bounty system, I admit we should have to consider very carefully before we did anything to prevent that system. But nothing of the kind is the case. The low price of sugar is due, principally, to the reduction in the cost of production, and the reduction in the price of sugar is not much, if any, greater than the average reduction of other commodities and other necessaries. Therefore it is not due to the bounty, and when I come a little later to consider more carefully the question of cheapness, I think I shall be able to show that very little of the reduction in price, if any, is due to the giving of a bounty. Therefore I deny that the concession of a bounty is an advantage to the country receiving it. It is a distinct disadvantage in this respect—that it artificially destroys trades and occupations which are natural to the country, and which, once destroyed, it is very difficult to replace. But then my right hon friend goes on to say that it is an injury to the country giving it. Does my right hon. friend suggest that every other country is a fool in regard to its own business? I have a sort of idea that some of these countries, at any rate, know their business as well as we do, and if they have given bounties for now something like twenty or thirty years, and if they have continually increased those bounties, perhaps they have found some profit in doing it. I would point out to my right hon. friend, as it appears to have escaped his attention, some profits which they have eminently gained thereby. The production of sugar in Germany, for instance, and in France, has been enormously extended and improved owing directly to the bounties. The bounties were given in accordance with the production of sugar per ton of beet, and the result has been that the production, which was for many years 5 or 6 per cent., has now been raised to 11 or 12 per cent. If that stood alone it might be held by foreign economists to be some justification for the expense they had been put to in the production of the sugar. There is one general remark I would make here of the whole argument of my right hon. friend. If bounties are an advantage to the country, why does he want to remove them? I admit I could not quite follow his argument. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite were more fortunate than myself, but if I understood him correctly, what he said was that if he considered the matter in the light of the interests of this country he would not wish to abolish bounties, but, as he takes a wide, a general, a magnificent, a cosmopolitan view of the situation, he wishes that bounties should be removed for the benefit of foreign countries to the injury of his own. I think I have rightly understood my right hon. friend's argument.

MR. COURTNEY

Quite true.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

A philanthropy which takes in the whole world and leaves out of account its own country is one to the heights of which I confess I am quite incapable of attaining. I gather that hon. Members opposite are able to sympathise with my right hon. friend. Whether that may make them more popular in the country to which they belong, but whose interests they are willing to sacrifice to the interests of the whole world-whether their universal philanthropy will really be more acceptable than my commonplace patriotism, I must leave to the House to decide. One other remark about the speech of my right hon. friend. He professed to believe that the prevalence of beet over cane was due to a sort of natural selection and to the fact that beet sugar can be produced more cheaply than cane sugar. That is entirely opposed to the figures of the case which have been submitted to me by the authorities in this matter. The cost of cane sugar under the most favourable circumstances is less than the cost of beat sugar also under the most favourable circumstances, and I would submit to my right hon. friend, who shakes his head—perhaps his knowledge of sugar production is greater than mine—that if it is not as I state there is no occasion for a bounty, for why on earth should foreign countries give a bounty in order to force their beet sugar into our country and other countries if, naturally and without any bounty, beet sugar would be cheaper than cane sugar? It is evident that the course of this Debate has run upon two questions—the question of principle and the question of expediency. The question of principle covers the whole question of bounties. It covers bounties so far as they affect the West Indies, Queensland, and Mauritius; it covers countervailing duties so far as they affect this country as well as the particular question of India. There is also the question of expediency—that is to say, that, granting countervailing duties may be properly applied in particular cases, you would then have to consider the merits of each particular case. There, of course, a distinction might be drawn between the case of the West Indies and the case of India, or of any other country. I trust this Debate will result in a clear issue and a decision, by an undoubted and overwhelming majority, which will give the opinion of, at all events, this Parliament in regard to the question of principle. Our opponents in this Debate, and generally, claim that their principles, which they associate with the doctrine of Free Trade, absolutely preclude the consideration of countervailing duties or prohibition. They base the general view of the situation on the authority of what my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton calls the high priests of the order, among whom, much to my surprise, he names myself. I can assure him he does me too much honour. I was never a high priest at all. It is not my line. But they base this conclusion in the first place on the authority of the high priests, and, in the second place, upon a theory which they, as I shall endeavour to show, have evolved themselves, that Free Trade consists in the doctrine that cheapness, by whatever means obtained, is the great object of our legislation. Now, Sir, we say, on the contrary, that countervailing duties are not opposed to Free Trade. We absolutely deny it, and we allege that bounties are the very worst form of Protection, because they protect the foreigner, not in his own market, for which there might possibly be some sort of justification, at all events in exceptional circumstances, but they protect the foreigner in our market, in which he has no claim whatever to protection. And, Sir, we say, secondly, that cheapness is not, and never was, in the view of the high priests of Free Trade, the primary object of Free Trade, and, accordingly, our contention is that we can counteract bounties by countervailing duties, or secure their abolition by prohibition, without in the slightest degree derogating from our character of orthodox Free Traders. In the course of the last twenty years or so we have discovered a new Liberalism, a new Radicalism, a new trades unionism, and now there is a new Free Trade doctrine of which the originators of Free Trade were absolutely ignorant, and which I believe they would have repudiated. The new Free Trader has changed altogether his ideas as to what Free Trade consists of, and I think he has made a mistake, and I do not believe that the new Free Traders are the true friends of Free Trade. I remember Lord Macaulay, in a very eloquent speech he made on one occasion, warned his hearers not to give the sanction of religion to abuses which were not religious, because, he said, if you do, in the fall of the abuses the religion may go also; and it seems to me that if you connect in the minds of the people the inevitable sequence between the abuses which have followed the proclamation of Free Trade and the original principles of Free Trade, you will be creating the only danger from which Free Trade has ever suffered. It is a dangerous thing, in my opinion, to teach the people of this country that Free Trade is inseparable from gross injustice and from unfair attacks on their employment and occupations. The hon. Member for Cardiff, in the earlier part of the evening, was daring Members of the Government to go to their constituents and say that in given circumstances they would be prepared to propose countervailing duties in this country. I should not be at all afraid to go to my constituents and propose them. I think there is, on the contrary, a growing feeling in the country, which to a certain extent alarms me, that injustices have attended Free Trade which ought not to have attended Free Trade and which are not due to Free Trade; and the pressure of those injustices has to my mind produced so great an impression on the working classes in the manufacturing centres that I am sometimes alarmed lest they should go a great deal further than I do, and lest they should be ready, not only to remove the abuses, but to deny the doctrine and principle of Free Trade. I think that is a real danger and worthy of some consideration. I think Free Trade is therefore, as I have already said, in danger from its friends. Free Trade is a political religion, and it has had to endure the hard fate of all religions, that it has been corrupted. Since it was promulgated in its original purity it has suffered from the work of annotators and commentators and false prophets, and as a result the doctrine of Free Trade has become a dogma and the religion a fetish, and I think we had better go back to the original fount of inspiration and try, if we can, to clear this religion of the corruption which has been imposed upon it and to remove from it all the result of the fanaticism of certain subsequent professors, like my old friend Lord Farrer. It would be absurd to answer in a debate of this kind without alluding to Lord Farrer, who may be said to he the fons et origo of it. Every argument used on the other side of the House has been taken from Lord Farrel. He is one of the ablest of our public servants, and, as I have reason to know, he has done more than any other Man to maintain bounties and prevent their abolition during the last twenty years. He has been full of arguments and facts and statistics, and I am ready to admit that in 1881, the year in which I made certain utterances quoted by my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton, I was greatly influenced by what lie said. [Laughter.] I do not understand why that is a subject of merriment. I am not ashamed, but I am proud, of having been influenced by so able and experienced a public servant, by his statements, by his knowledge, by the facts which he produced; and I will go further and say that I was led to believe in the predictions he then made, every one of which has been falsified by subsequent events. I am still ready to believe in his facts, I am still ready to believe in his statistics; but never again will I believe in his prophecy. Lord Farrer represents the extreme of Free Trade fanaticism; he is the Torquemada of Free Trade, and I believe he would go to the stake himself, and I am afraid he would send my friends and me there too, rather than sacrifice any of his principles. I maintain that there is no justification whatever in the writings or speeches of any of the great Free Traders of the doctrine that countervailing duties are opposed to the principles of Free Trade. That is a challenge. Some quotations which I had noted have already been made to the House, and I will not repeat them. Mr. Cobden gave two definitions of Free Trade. He defined it as being the abolition of protective duties. Countervailing duties are not protective. A countervailing duty, as its name applies, is a duty strictly confined to countervailing the advantage given by a bounty; it does not go beyond that, and it does not protect the industry to which it applies. Another definition that Mr. Cobden gave was that Free Trade was to enable the consumers in every country to obtain what they desire in the cheapest and the best market. [Opposition cheers.] Yes, but that is not all. That is where you stop. But Mr. Cobden added "At its natural price," and that is what hon. Members opposite have forgotten. They have remembered the cheapness, but have forgotten the natural price. Now the main object of the great Free Traders was to secure the natural course of production and of exchange. That was the argument again and again elaborated in all their speeches. Their ideal was that each country should produce what it was naturally best fitted to produce and to exchange it without artificial arrangements. The great Free Traders denounced all artificial arrangements which turned their trade into unnatural channels. They disapproved of Protection whenever it turned labour and capital into operations which might be considered to be artificial and unnatural, and which would be unremunerative under ordinary and natural conditions. But they advocated countervailing duties in cases where it was necessary in order to restore equality. Now, I am going back to the original founder of Free Tradec—to Adam Smith. Mr. Cobden said to Mr. Bright that he would take Adam Smith in his hand and would go up and down the country preaching, with the "Wealth of Nations for his text-book, the doctrines of Free Trade, and so convert the nation. Adam Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" argued against protective duties and in favour of Free Trade, but he said there were certain eases in which a nation might impose duties to protect their home industry. The first case has nothing to do with the present discussion. The second case, in which it might be advantageous to lay some burden on the foreigner for the encouragement of domestic industry, is when some tax is imposed at home on the produce of the latter; in this case it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. By what reasoning does be arrive at this suggestion Adam Smith did not contemplate bounties as we understand them, but you will find his reasoning applies equally to countervailing duties. He says: This tax would not give a monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor would it turn to a particular employment a greater share of the stock of labour of the country than would naturally go to it. That is true of countervaling duties. He goes on to say: It would only hinder any pat of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction. Substitute "bounty" for "tax" and you have the exact argument. That is exactly the argument which we have pointed out in the course of this Debate. Reference has been made to the spirit duty and other duties which we impose as compensatory to the home tariff by the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow. I do not think it has been noted—it is rather a special point—that we have actually put a countervailing duty upon West Indian rum to prevent the producers of the West Indies from having an advantage in this market, at the same time refusing to West Indian producers to put them on an equality with regard to their other productions. Then again, take the case of the Indian cotton duties. In the case of the Indian cotton duties—the case of a protective duty put on cotton from this country—the right hon. Gentleman opposite avowed it to be his intention and desire to place the cotton industry on exactly equal terms in Bombay and Manchester, and he put on an Excise duty which was intended to produce equality. Then equality is what we are striving at! But if equality in cotton and in rum, why not in sugar? Remember that in all these eases the result has been to increase the price to the consumer. If the excise duty on rum were taken away the English consumer of rum would get it 5d. per gallon cheaper, and if the excise duty on Indian cotton were taken off the Indian consumer would get it 5 per cent. cheaper. Therefore, according to the doctrine of the right hon. Member for Bodmin and the inconsistent doctrine of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, these surtaxes ought never to have been imposed, because they add to the price of the consumer and interfere with the privileges of the great god Cheapness, which they all adore. Let us consider this question of cheapness a little more closely. How much does the consumer gain by the bounties in regard to cheapness? I think he gains very little. I have been considering this question lately in the light of further information, and I think I and others have been mistaken in attributing a large proportion of the reduction in the price of sugar to the influence of the bounties. Now, let me make it clear to the House. Suppose that the cost of cane sugar is £8, and that the cost of German beet sugar is £9. Suppose the German bounty is 30s. That enables the Germans to undersell the cane sugar. In the first place, £1 of the bounty goes to cover the increase of cost of the beet sugar. That leaves 10s. which the German producer has in hand, and he may give it if he likes to the English consumer. But does he give it? Is he such a fool? All that is necessary for him is to give a trifle above the cane price. If he can sell his sugar at £7 19s. he would cut out the whole of the sugar which would come in at £8, and all that he has to give away is 1s. a ton. The rest either goes to meet the difference between the natural price between the beet and the cane, or it goes into the pockets of the producer. I challenge my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, or anyone else, to prove that, out of a bounty of 30s., more than an infinitesimal proportion ever goes into the pockets of the consumer in this country.

Mil COURTNEY

But the producers compete among themselves.

Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN

But the competitors are not quite so rabid as my right hon. friend has suggested; they are not so foolish. No man in competition cuts his price down lower than is necessary. If they can provide the quantity of sugar which is required from foreign' producers by excluding cane sugar, they are perfectly satisfied, and they arrange among themselves in such a way as not to cut down the price more than is necessary to fill their mills, and sufficient to enable them to cut out the cane sugar. I wish here to quote Lord Farrer on this question. In his last pamphlet—his pamphlets follow each other very quickly—Lord Farrer said: How far the abolition of sugar bounties would raise the price of sugar to the consumer—very doubtful. My own impression is that the effect of the bounties been much exaggerated. I think that the effect of the bounties to the consumer has been much exaggerated but not so in regard to the producer. In spite, however, of his opinion that the difference in price is not much, Lord Farrer still maintains that a certain increase of price will result from legislation in the shape of countervailing duties, and on that ground chiefly he is opposed to it, because he says that cheapness of price to the consumer is the main object to be attained. I think that hon. Members seem here to confuse two things. They divide the community into two classes. On one side are the consumers, and on the other the producers. As a matter of fact, the consumers are generally producers, and the only class of consumers who are not producers—the only class, therefore, benefited by legislation, which is directed solely in the interest of consumers, and as against the interest of producers—is that class which "toil not, neither do they spin." Is it not a scandalous inversion of roles that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be directing the whole of their energies to securing special benefit for that extremely limited class? Mr. Cobden has been already quoted by the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow in opposition to this theory that cheapness is really the object which Free Traders should have in view. I should have liked to quote Mr. Gladstone to the same effect, hut I am afraid of curtailing unduly the time which remains. On the first question of principle, then, I say that our position is that countervailing duties are matters of expediency to be judged in each case on their merits, and that there is nothing in Free Trade which would exclude their consideration. Then I come to a very important matter. I do not like the tone of the hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this Indian question. It is entirely an Indian question; and I agree that it is to be considered entirely from the point of view of Indian interests. But that is not the position taken by my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin and others.

MR. COURTNEY

Yes, it is.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

No, Sir; my right hon. friend is now going to vote practically against the unanimous opinion of the only persons who can properly represent India, and who can deal with the subject in their representative character.

MR. COURTNEY

That is not the point. My right hon. friend says that I do not look at this question from an Indian point of view, but I do.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Then my right friend presumes to know better what is good for India than the only persons who are authorised or are in any way qualified to represent Indian opinion, that is, the Indian native Press, the English Press of India, the Council for India in this country, and the Legislative Council in India. My fear is that there is a tendency on the part of some hon. Gentlemen to return to that mercantile system which was the curse of our colonial empire. It was that system which lost us the United States of America and estranged from us many of our most promising colonies. And what was that mercantile system? It was that the interests of our colonies should be subordinated and put on one side in favour of the interests of British consumers and producers. It is based on the subordination of colonial interests and colonial opinion to British interests and British opinion; and it seems now that there are persons who hold that the interests of the East Indies, of the West Indies, of Mauritius, and of Queensland are comparatively of no importance; that the local opinion of these places is to be sneered at; and that when the planters say they are going to be ruined they are to be told that they do not know what they are talking about, and are making fortunes as hard as they can go. That is the line taken in deference to a number of pedantic economists, and in the supposed interests of the working classes. We are told that we should be sane Imperialists. That is not sane Imperialism. That is insane Imperialism, whatever else it is, and it tends to produce a state of feeling between us and the Colonies which I for one exceedingly regret. In the present case, as I have said, the public opinion of India is practically unanimous. I was quite astounded to hear my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton minimise this opinion by saying, what of course is true, that you have not a public opinion in India such as you have in this country. Why, Sir, my right hon. friend came down here sonic years ago to defend his policy in respect of the cotton ditties; and he himself appealed to this opinion of the native Press, the English Press, and the Council of India, and, above all, he made a most eloquent defence of a particular official, who, he said, was one of the ablest officials India had ever known, and to whose opinion he attached great importance. He complained that my noble friend Lord James of Hereford, then Sir Henry James, had appeared in some way to slight the value of that opinion. Who was this Government official whose opinion was to be taken without criticism? It was Sir James Westland. It was a member of the Legislative Council, who now, in an admirably reasoned speech, has defended these countervailing duties. It is his opinion that my right hon. friend would set aside as of no importance at all in comparison with the views of English economists such as Lord Farrer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin.

SIR H. H. FOWLER

There has been a change of opinion. I have every respect for the opinion expressed by Sir J. Westland in May, 1898, and I believe that everything that has happened since has confirmed that opinion.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

My right hon. friend is not justified in saying that there has been any such change of opinion. Where is the speech of Sir J. Westland in regard to that former decision? All that former decision amounted to was that the Government were not prepared to consider these countervailing duties at that time. It is not a reasoned argument against them, but a decision merely for the moment, which was probably justified. All this local opinion which was appealed to in relation to the cotton duties was expressed in a still more marked degree in favour of the course we have followed. Now it is a strange thing—and I am almost ashamed to refer to it—but the hon. Member for Cardiff made a speech earlier in the evening in which he attacked the Government with considerable feeling, and especially myself. He seemed to think that, whether the Government policy was good or bad, it must certainly be bad if it was advocated by the Colonial Secretary. He has got the Colonial Secretary on the brain; I am to him what King Charles's head was to Mr. Dick's memorial. But I cannot make out why he attacks me with so much violence. He always professes his loyalty to his party, and I am sure he does it with perfect sincerity, yet he never speaks but to attack some representative Member of the Government. For a long time I was totally unable to make out why. I knew it could not be a personal feeling against myself, for I do not think I have ever spoken to the hon. Member, therefore he could not have any quarrel with me. Then I felt it must be some great question of principle, but fortunately the hon. Member himself relieved my mind, for some time ago I observed that some of his constituents were impertinent enough to ask why he, a supporter of the Government, so often attacked members of the Government. Well, he gave them a proper dressing, and he explained afterwards to a reporter in an interview, a report of which appeared in his own newspaper in Cardiff, that he was not actuated by any antagonistic feeling either against the Government or the Colonial Secretary, but that he was in the position of a man who is looking through the keyhole into a banqueting room in which the Liberal Unionist party were eating, enjoying themselves, and making merry. Well, looking through a keyhole is not a very dignified position—

MR. J. M. MACLEAN

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; let us be accurate. What appeared in the paper was descriptive of the general character of the party, and did not apply to myself in any way.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not know what authority the hon. Gentleman has for applying it to other members of the party; but at any rate I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the process which he describes so graphically is apt to produce a distorted vision. Now what is his point about the Colonial Secretary? My noble friend has explained with absolute accuracy what took place; but what an extraordinary idea the hon. Member must have of the power of the Colonial Secretary! What is his theory? It is that the Colonial Secretary first forced the hand of the Secretary of State for India, that he then hypnotised Lord Curzon, and by some process of suggestion he influenced the whole of the members of the Council in India, not one of whom he has ever seen; and lastly, for the same reason, in some occult, mysterious, and pernicious way he influenced the Council of India in this country. Well, really the hon. Member pays me a compliment I do not deserve. I am Colonial Secretary, and when a colony appeals to me, as Mauritius did, reporting that its trade is in a parlous state, in a sad condition, and that it will be seriously endangered unless something is done in the shape of legislation in India, it is my duty to convey that information to the Secretary of State for India. I said at the time that the interests of India would dictate the decision of the Secretary of State in Council, but that, so far as I was concerned, I hoped the condition of Mauritius would be sympathetically considered by the Council in India. There are two or three objections taken with which I will deal in a few minutes. It is complained that the Indian Government and Council decided without completing the inquiry which they had then undertaken. Well, as my noble friend has pointed out, in the interval he had information that led him to believe that if he did not act soon his object would be frustrated by a large importation of foreign bounty-fed sugar. But, after all, the inquiry on which he was engaged could not add much information which would affect his decision, because all the inquiry would be to show what was the effect of the importation of sugar up to that time. It is admitted that they interfered before importation had become a matter of great importance. No serious effect was anticipated up to that time. The steps that were taken were preventive steps. Well, then, the same reply also answers the objection that it was unnecessary to interfere because the amount was so small. Yes, it was small up to the time importation took place, but it was growing rapidly, and there was not the slightest doubt that there would have been an enormous introduction of sugar, diverted from the United States and imported into India, if it had not been for the wise policy of the Indian Government. Then, it is said that the true policy of the Indian Government was not to put on countervailing ditties, but to encourage better methods of production. That has often been said about the West Indies and other colonies; but it is an absurd argument, and shows entire ignorance of the situation. You cannot encourage better production, you cannot introduce new energy and new capital, unless you can give stability to the industry. What is my position at this moment? Have I not been for months, I may almost say for two years, considering night and day methods by which the past prosperity of the West Indies might be restored, and by which the fatal effects of bounties might be removed? And my efforts in that direction have been largely bent to securing, among other things, the introduction of fresh capital and fresh energy. I went to people who are interested in the largest undertakings in this country, who have the possession of the largest capital and have shown the greatest energy; and at this moment I have a statement by one of these parties that he would to-morrow engage to invest a million sterling in the production of sugar in the West Indies if the Government would guarantee him against an increase in the bounties that are now given by foreign countries to beet sugar. Now, a last word in regard to Protection. It is said that if we impose countervailing duties foreign countries will retaliate. Sir, they will retaliate, no doubt, if it is to their interest to do so; but it is not to their interest to do so. They take from us nothing now, they take nothing from India, that they can help taking. They take the raw materials for their own manufactures; they would injure themselves much more than India and us if they retaliated by refusing them. They cannot refuse cotton, they cannot refuse tea, they cannot refuse jute, and other products of India to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton referred; and under these circumstances, in my opinion, there is no practical fear whatever that they would retaliate in any way by the increase of duties. I would say then, in conclusion, that it appears to me the issues before us are simple. In the first place, we have to decide whether or not there is such an overwhelming, over-mastering principle, either in connection with Free Trade or anything else, as to put countervailing duties out of court, and prevent their consideration on their merits. In the second place, we have to decide whether we are willing to overrule the clearly expressed opinion of the authoritative representatives of Indian interests, and whether we are to do that avowedly in the interests—the very indirect interests as I consider—of the British consumer, These are the two principles, at any rate, that are to be decided by our vote tonight. But I go one step further. I would say also that, in my opinion, even if we thought the policy of the Indian Government to be wrong, we should still hesitate before we over-ruled it. But, Sir, the Government hold, and they are perfectly willing to accept the responsibility for that opinion, that the policy of the Government of India was right. They hold that the Government of India was right in relieving the burden imposed by this most pernicious system of bounties, in securing to one of the staple productions of India equal opportunity with its foreign competitors, and in neutralising the arbitrary advantage which the foreigner is seeking to obtain in a market to which he has natural claim.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

We have listened to two speeches of extreme interest from my right hon. friend, the Member for Bodmin, and from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. They were lectures on the subject of Free Trade, dealing with the theory and the practice of Free Traders, and it will be somewhat of a relief to the House to know, especially with the scanty time at my disposal, that it is not my intention to inflict upon the House a third essay upon that subject. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin spoke with his usual warmth and enthusiasm. I cannot rise, myself, quite to the heights of economic philosophy to which my right hon. friend has attained, but in the main I accept his doctrines and agree with his conclusions. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, in the early part of the evening, when he rose to address the House, began by asking those of his hon. friends who had put down Amendments to this Motion not to move the Amendments which stood in their names. I heard this appeal without surprise, because on looking at the Paper it was evident that the Amendments showed how far this question reaches—how very far it goes beyond the mere question of India and the Mauritius, and of their relations to the bounty-fed sugar - producing countries, and displayed really the motives and intentions which underlie the policy in the minds of many of those who support it. But I need not have formed this estimate of the noble Lord's motive, because from the moment he began his speech it became apparent, and it became still more apparent in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the main part of their policy, which they are now seeking to apply to India, it is their intention to apply at a more convenient time to this country. The noble Lord invited my right hon. friend to go to the country in defence of the system of bounties; but the noble Lord must know perfectly well that we are as much opposed to the system of bounties as he is. I agree with my right hon. friend in that I regard bounties as merely another form of protective duties. We need not speculate as to which is the worse of the two. These bounties appear to me to be bad, to disturb trade, to hinder the development of the country, and above all to punish the very nations which employ them. So that I do not know what there is to be said in favour of them. There is no quarrel between us on that score at all. Where we differ is as to the remedy to be applied. The noble Lord spoke of himself as an old Free Trader. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has told us that there are new doctrines of Free Trade, which are altogether heretical. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is a good judge of new doctrines. For my part I prefer, if a doctrine is to be developed, that it should be developed in a forward, rather than in a backward sense; and if it was a new development of the old Free Trade principle I should not be afraid of it on that account. But when he said that retaliatory duties—what are called countervailing duties, I prefer to call them retaliatory duties—were accepted, and were advocated in certain cases by the old orthodox Free Traders, I cannot but call to mind a maxim which is constantly quoted, and which is, I think, one of the standing maxims on this topic—the words of Sir Robert Peel, when he said that he would "fight hostile tariffs by free imports." That was the way in which old Free Traders, the high priests of Free Trade, intended to deal with such a case as we have before us. I prefer the old method to the new, Mr. Speaker, and when the noble Lord challenges us to go to the country, as he did, as the advocates of bounties, my reply is, in the first place, that we are not advocates of bounties, and, in the second place, I would invite him, on his part, to go to the country with the cry of "Retaliatory tariffs and dear sugar." There is much interest taken in the relations of these two Cabinet Ministers to each other. There was a suspicion engendered by the Blue Book which is before us that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India has been acted upon, has been driven into this policy, and, in fact, has been obliged to make himself the obedient servant of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am bound to say there was nothing in this which seemed to me a priori improbable. But one thing cannot be denied, and that is, that from the very moment the Secretary of State for the Colonies appears upon the scene, activity is shown in the India Office in pushing this new policy. Evidently there was no positive action taken until he read this new economic catechism. One thing is certain—and it is a very remarkable fact—that the proposals of these new duties did not originate in India, wherever they did originate. I have not time to go over the list of dates which was given by my hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampton, which proves conclusively that the Government of India not only expressed a contrary opinion a few months before—and that contrary opinion was not an opinion contrary to the adoption of that policy at that particular moment, as the right hon. Gentleman says, but an opinion contrary to it in general terms—but they had also engaged in an elaborate inquiry, which, oddly enough, was initiated by the very Department of the Government over which Sir James Westland presides, which is some proof that he was not so fixed in his opinion as the right hon. Gentleman represented. They engaged in an inquiry to ascertain the opinion of the different provincial Governments and to obtain the facts from them, and that inquiry was not concluded, and the reports had not been received, at the time the decision of the Government was taken. So that that decision was taken upon English information, and not upon information from India. The noble Lord said, and the right hon. Gentleman repeated it, that they had information which led them to believe that there was serious danger impending. What was that information? If it was Indian information it must have been in the possession of Lord Curzon when he told us in the month of January that he was himself instituting a fresh inquiry in order to ascertain the effects of the duties. I wish to bring before the House one or two figures which bear upon this supposed danger to the cultivation of sugar in India, and to the sugar industry in India. I will confine myself to the question of imports. It was said that the imports from the beet-sugar countries had reached alarming proportions, and that they were interfering with the imports from Mauritius. What are the figures? The figures show that in the average for the years from 1890 to 1895 the imports from Mauritius were 71,610 tons; in 1896–97 they were 83,300 tons; in 1897–98 they were 88,900 tons; and in 1898–99 they were 105,80 tons—a steady, wholesome, healthy increase year by year, showing no falling off and no tendency to fluctuate. But from Germany and Austria there came, in the average of 1890 to 1895, 17,800 tons; in 1896–97, 43,750 tons—a very great increase; in 1897–98, 107,550 tons—again a huge increase; but in 1898–99, which is the critical year, they had fallen to 73,490 tons. So that there was actually a falling off in the very imports which are the foundation for this policy of countervailing duties. There are other figures which bear closely on this matter. I have here the figures of the exports of sugar from Germany to the United States during the last three years. They are given in millions of pounds, and are for nine months in each year. In 1897 Germany exported to the United States 778 millions of pounds. Then there were countervailing duties put on by the United States Government, with the result that in 1898 the exports from Germany to the United States, instead of being 778 millions of pounds, were only 40 millions of pounds. (Cheers.) Yes, but in 1899—the year which ended a few months ago—the exports amounted to 658 millions of pounds. So that the United States is the quarter to which have been attracted the large over stocks of German sugar which so frightened the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, and these stocks have gone to America, despite tin se countervailing duties which the noble Lord thinks will work wonders in the case of India.

*SIR EDWARD CLARKE (Plymouth)

And the duties were paid upon them.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I pointed out that the quantity exported to the United States, which fell to 40 millions of pounds in 1898, rose again to 658 millions of pounds last year, and this corresponds to the falling off in the exports from Germany to India, so that the relation between the two is clearly proved. The salient facts of the situation, then, are the falling off in the export of sugar from Germany to India, and the steady increase in the export of sugar from Mauritius to India. And therefore I will be content to leave it to the two right hon. Ministers facing me to decide, if by this measure they succeed in excluding bounty-fed sugar from competition, which country is to benefit. Is India, according to the glowing picture of the noble Lord, to develop her sugar industry so as to supply not only her own wants, but the wants of all the world? In that case, what is to become of Mauritius, the prosperity of which is so dear to the Colonial Secretary? On the other hand, if Mauritius is to flood the Indian market with its sugar, where is the benefit to the Indian trade? On the general question of Free Trade it is unnecessary for me to argue just now. But we are opposed to bounties as to protective ditties, and what we say is, Do not correct the financial

errors of other people by committing financial errors of your own. If the policy of countervailing duties is good for India, it is good for this country or the West Indies. We are opposed to it in both. The Government ought honestly to have said whether they really intend to extend these countervailing duties to this country and to the West Indies. The noble Lord thought he had placed us in a difficulty by bringing up the duty of 5 per cent. on cotton and the surtax on foreign spirits. But the answer is that we have no objection to these duties imposed for revenue purposes. It is to duties imposed for protective purposes that we object. Sir James Westland, who has been referred to in terms to which I quite agree as to his eminence and his great career, has emphatically pronounced in the debate in the Indian Council that this measure opens up an entirely new chapter in our fiscal history. That is why we support the Motion. A new chapter is being opened up, says this great financial authority; but where is that chapter to be closed, how is it to be closed, and what is to be the effect before it is closed? We adhere to the old-fashioned Policy under which Great Britain and India also have flourished. It is matter of common knowledge that the nations of Europe are becoming tired of these bounties; that Germany and Austria are willing to abandon them if France would do it at the same time. Let us hope that they will see the mischievous effect of these bounties upon their own people, and by the pursuance of our remonstrance against the course they are maintaining we shall be more likely to achieve our end than by departing from the sound financial practise of this country.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 152; noes, 293. (Division List No. 193.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead)	Burt, Thomas	Davies,M.Vaughan (Cardigan
Allen,W. (Newc. under Lyme)	Buxton, Sydney Charles	Davitt, Michael
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Caldwell, James	Mike, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Hen.	Cameron, Robert (Durham)	Dillon, John
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)	Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Doogan, P. C.
Barlow, John Emmott	Carvill, P. George Hamilton	Duckworth, James
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Causton, Richard Knight	Dunn, Sir William
Billson, Alfred	Channing, Francis Allston	Edwards, Owen Morgan
Birrell, Augustine	Clark, Dr.G.B.(Caithness-sh.)	Ellis, John Edward
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Clough, Walter Owen	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)
Broadhurst, Henry	Commins, Andrew	Evans,SirFrancisH.(South'ton
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Courtney, Rt. Hn. LeonardH.	Farquharson, Dr. Robert
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)	Farrell, James P. (Cavan, W.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Dalziel, James Henry	Fenwick, Charles
Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)	Lough, Thomas	Reckitt, Harold James
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Lyell, Sir Leonard	Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	MacAleese, Daniel	Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Galloway, William Johnson	Mac Donnell, DrMA(Queen'sC	Roche, John (East Galway)
Gibney, James	Maclean, James Mackenzie	Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Goddard, Daniel Ford	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Schwann, Charles E.
Gold, Charles	M'Ewan, William	Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)
Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley	M'Ghee, Richard	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)	M'Laren, Charles Benjamin	Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Leod, John	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Maddison, Fred	Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Maden, John Henry	Souttar, Robinson
Hammond, ammond, John (Carlow)	Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand	Spicer, Albert
Harwood, George	Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)	Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Hayne, Rt. Hn. C. Seale-	Morgan,J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)	Stevenson, Francis S.
Healy, Maurice (Cork)	Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)	Strachey, Edward
Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)	Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.	Morley, Rt.Hon.J. (Montrose)	Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Hemphill, Rt Hon. Chas. H.	Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)	Tennant, Harold John
Holden, Sir Angus	Moulton, John Fletcher	Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)	Wallace, Robert
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jacoby, James Alfred	Oldroyd, Mark	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Joicey, Sir James	O'Malley, William	Wedderburn, Sir William
Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)	Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Jordan, Jeremiah	Palmer, George W. (Reading)	Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Kearley, Hudson E.	Paulton, James Mellor	Wills, Sir William Henry
Kenyon, James	Pearson, Sir Weetman D.	Wilson,FrederickW.(Norfolk)
Kilbride, Denis	Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)	Wilson, HenryJ.(York,W. R.)
Kinloch,SirJohnGeorgeSmyth	Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)	Wilson, John (Govan)
Kitson, Sir James	Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)	Wilson, J. H.(Middlesbrough)
Langley, Batty	Perks, Robert William	Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Lawson,SirWilfrid(Cumb'land	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Yoxall, James Henry
Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington	Power, Patrick Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Leng, Sir John	Price, Robert John	Mr. Herbert Gladstone and
Leuty, Thomas Richmond	Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)	Mr. M'Arthur.
Logan, John William	Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
NOES.
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Brymer, William Ernest	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Allsopp, Hon. George	Bollard, Sir Harry	Curzon, Viscount
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh
Archdale, Edward Mervin	Butcher, John George	Dalkeith, Earl of
Arnold, Alfred	Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasg.)	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)	Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis	Carlile, William Walter	Denny, Colonel
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbys.)	Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.
Bag of Capt. J. FitzRoy	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Digby, John K. D. W.-
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Baillie, J. E. B (Inverness)	Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. D.
Baird, John George Alexander	Chaloner, Captain R.G.W.	Dorington, Sir John Edward
Balcarres, Lord	Chamberlain,Rt. Hon.J.(Birm.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Balfour,Rt. Hn.A.J.(Manch'r)	Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r	Doxford, William Theodore
Balfour, Rt. Hon.G.W.(Leeds)	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell	Charrington, Spencer	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart
Barton, Dunbar Plunket	Chelsea, Viscount	Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Bathurst, Hon.AllenBenjamin	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Elliot, Hon A. Ralph D.
Beach, Rt.Hn.SirM.H(Bristol)	Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)	Fardell, Sir T. George
Beach, WW Bramston(Hants.)	Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.	Fellowes, Hon A. Edward
Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fergusson,Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Man'r)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Finch, George H.
Bethell, Commander	Colomb, Sir John Charles R.	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Colston, Chas. Edw H. A.	Firbank, Joseph Thomas
Biddulph, Michael	Cooke,C.W.Radcliffe(Heref'd)	Fisher, William Hayes
Bigwood, James	Corbett,A.Cameron (Glasgow)	FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-
Bill, Charles	Cornwallis,FiennesStanley W.	Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Blakiston-Houston, John	Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cranborne, Viscount	Fletcher, Sir Henry
Bowles,Capt.H.F.(Middlesex)	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Flower, Ernest
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Folkestone, Viscount
Brookfield, A. Montagu	Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)	Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Brown, Alexander H.	Cruddas, William Donaldson	Gedge, Sydney
Gibbons, J. Lloyd	Leighton, Stanley	Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matt. W.
Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLond	Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson
Gibbs, Hon.Vicary(St.Albans)	Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Gilliat, John Saunders	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.	Robinson, Brooke
Goldsworthy, Major-General	Loder, G. Walter Erskine	Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walt'r
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon	Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Round, James
Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.Geo's)	Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)	Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelten'm)
Goschen, George J. (Sussex)	Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller	Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Graham, Henry Robert	Lorne, Marquess of	Rutherford, John
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Lowe, Francis William	Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Green,WalfordD(Wednesbury	Lowles, John	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. M.
Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)	Lowther,RtHnJW(Cumbland	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gretton, John	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Savory, Sir Joseph
Greville, Hon. Ronald	Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred	Seely, Charles Hilton
Gunter, Colonel	Macartney, W. G. Ellison	Seton-Karr, Henry
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Macdona, John Cumming	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Halsey, Thomas Frederick	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.	Maclure, Sir John William	Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Hanson, Sir Reginald	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim,E.	Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)
Hardy, Laurence	M'Killop, James	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Malcolm, Ian	Stanley, Edw. J. (Somerset)
Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Maple, Sir John Blundell	Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Heath, James	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Heaton, John Henniker	Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F.	Stephens, Henry Charles
Helder, Augustus	Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.	Stewart, Sir M.J. M'Taggart
Henderson, Alexander	Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)	Stock, James Henry
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Stone, Sir Be n a min
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Middlemore, J. Throgmorton	Strauss, Arthu
Hill,Rt.Hn.A.Staveley(Staffs.	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Hoare,Edw Brodie(Hampstead	Milton, Viscount	Talbot, Lord Er. (Chichester)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)	Milward, Colonel Victor	Talbot, Rt.Hn. J.G.(Ox. Univ.
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)	Monk, Charles James	Thorburn, Walter
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	More, Robert J. (Shropshire)	Thornton, Percy M.
Houston, R. P.	Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)	Tollemache, Henry James
Howard, Joseph	Morrell, George Herbert	Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Rowell, William Tudor	Morrison, Walter	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle	Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)	Valentia, Viscount
Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil	Mount, William George	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn	Muntz, Philip A.	Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)
Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice-	Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)	Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Warr, Augustus Frederick
Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies	Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)	Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse	Myers, William Henry	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Jenkins, Sir John Jones	Nicholson, William Graham	Wharton, Rt. Hn. John Lloyd
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u. -L.)
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Northcote, Hon. SirH.Stafford	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George	Orr-Ewing Charles Lindsay	Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Kemp, George	Parkes, Ebenezer	Willox, Sir John Archibald
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.	Parnell, John Howard	Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.	Penn, John	Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath
K swick, William	Percy, Earl	Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Kimber, Henry	Pilkington, R.(Lancs,Newton	Wylie, Alexander
King, Sir Henry Seymour	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wyndham, George
Knowles, Lees	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)	Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lawrence, Sir. E. D. -(Corn.)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)	Purvis, Robert	Young, Commander(Berks,E)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Younger, William
Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)	Rankin, Sir James
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.	Rasch, Major Frederic Carne	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Sir William Walrond and
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie	Rentoul, James Alexander	Mr. Anstruther.

Resolution agreed to.