Commons Sitting of 29 July 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; London United Tramways Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bournemouth Gas an Water Bill [Lords]; Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Perth Corporation (Tramways) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Aberdeen Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Irvine and District Water Board Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Wick and Pulteney Harbours Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Friday.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
Bradford Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ARMY (VOLUNTEER RIFLE RANGES).
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the allotment of the £170,000 provided
  670
  in the Military Works Loan (Head 3, Sub-head 2), for the purpose of assisting Volunteers in connection with expenditure on Rifle Ranges [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE AND MERCANTILE MARINE (GREAT BRITAIN, ETC).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th June; Sir John Colomb]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 284.]
  CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1903–4).
  Estimate presented, of the Further Sums required to be voted for the Service of the year ending 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 285.]
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Forty-seventh Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 10th July, 1903, granting a retired allowance under the Act to Alfred Flood Baker, a second division clerk in the Savings Bank Department of the General Post Office [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Fifty-eighth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 286.]

  GRENADA.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for providing Gratuities to Prisoners on their discharge from Prison [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  CHAMBER OF LONDON.
  Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1902 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 287.]
  LUNACY.
  Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, and the number of patients seen, by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 30th June, 1903 [by Act.]
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statements of Particulars of Loans of which the balances outstanding are proposed to be remitted or written off (in whole or in part) from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund." [Mr. Elliot.]
  CANADA (PREFERENTIAL TARIFF FOR GOODS FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM.)
  Return ordered, "of the yearly value of Imports for consumption from the United Kingdom and the United States into Canada since the Canadian Preferential Tariff for British goods came into force, and of the different rebates on the duty allowed on goods from the United Kingdom, and the yearly population of Canada during that period." [Mr. Alfred Davies.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cooper's Hill College—Indian Students.
  Mr. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India will he state how many Indian students presented themselves at the entrance examination of Cooper's Hill College, and how many were selected for the Indian Services during the last three years; whether, seeing that the number of selected Indian students is limited to two, even if more are included in the list of successful candidates, and that the admission of these two Indian students is left to the discretion of the Principal of the College, irrespective of the merits of the candidates, he will say whether the candidates are selected according to the order of merit; whether the results
  672
  of the entrance examinations are made public; and, if not, whether he will state the reasons for such a course.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George, Hamilton.) During the last three years thirteen Indians presented themselves at the entrance examination of Cooper's Hill college; of these eight were unsuccessful; of the remaining five, one, who was nominated for the telegraph service, has for private reasons resigned; two have obtained, or are about to obtain, appointments; the other two are still students at the college. The candidates are selected in order of merit, as shown by the entrance examination, subject only to their possessing the qualifications laid down in the public prospectus of the college, and the result of the examination is communicated to the candidates individually.

  Physical Training in Scotland—Progress of Inter-departmental Committee.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART: To ask the Lord Advocate if he can state what progress is being made by the Inter-Departmental Committee for drawing up a model course of physical exercises, as was recommended by the Royal Commission of Physical Training (Scotland).
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Inter-Departmental Committee has already held several meetings. A model course of a tentative kind is now being framed, which, after the Committee has further considered it, may be tried experimentally.

  Date of Opening of Mayfair Telephone Exchange.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state when the Mayfair telephonic exchange will be ready for the use of the public.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) It is hoped that the Mayfair Exchange will be opened about the 1st of October.

  General Post Office—Tube Attendants and Lobby Officers.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that tube attendants I are to be promoted no longer to lobby

  673
  officers, he will state if they are to receive any compensation for this loss; and whether, as pensioned policemen are to be utilised for these positions, he will state if the pensions these men receive are taken into consideration when their wages are fixed, with a view towards depreciating the scales of wages previously paid for this class of work.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have under consideration a Memorial from the tube attendants for higher pay, but I do not propose to grant any compensation on account of the alteration made in the system of recruiting the class of lobby officers referred to by the hon. Member. A considerable economy has been effected by the employment of police pensioners, who are quite capable of performing the duty and better fitted for it than the tube attendants.

  Glasgow Public Market—Cattle Weighbridge.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state the average weekly number of cattle weighed on the cattle weighbridge in the Glasgow public market between 1st January and 30th June of the current year, and the receipts of the Glasgow Corporation from this source as compared with their expenditure in erecting the weighbridge; and whether, in the interests of agriculture, he can take steps to secure the general provision of weighbridges for live cattle at markets.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) We are informed by the town clerk that the average number of cattle passing each week over the corporation weighbridge in the Glasgow cattle market is 225, for which service fees averaging about 19s. 6d. weekly are received. The cost of the weighbridge was £176. All market authorities are bound already under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts to provide accommodation for weighing live stock, unless they are expressly exempted by the Board of Agriculture from doing so on the ground that the number of animals sold is so small as to render the provision of weighing accommodation inexpedient.

  Cotton, Woollen, and Iron Goods Return.
  MR. WHITE RIDLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will grant the Returns as to Cotton, Woollen, and Iron goods standing on to-day's Notice Paper.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) These Returns would be very laborious, and to some extent impossible, to furnish, and having regard to the amount of work at present thrown on the Department I am afraid I cannot accede to my hon. friend's request.
  The Return referred to is as follows:—

  1. Cotton.—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive—(a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total consumption of cotton in the United Kingdom, with particulars of the chief sources of supply; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures from the United Kingdom to foreign countries, to self-governing colonies, to India, and to other British possessions; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures into the United Kingdom; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total consumption of cotton; (2) total exports of cotton manufactures; (3) total imports of cotton manufactures, giving separately the amount of such imports from the United Kingdom.

  2. Woollen Goods.—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, inclusive—(a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of woollen manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures to foreign countries, self-governing colonies, India, and other British possessions; (3) total imports of woollen manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of woollen manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of woollen manufactures, giving separately the quantities anal values of such imports from the United Kingdom.

  3. Iron and Steel.—Return showing for each year from 1890 to 1902, Meinsive—(a) with regard to the United Kingdom (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures to foreign countries, to self-

  675
  governing colonies, to India, and to other British possessions; (3) total imports of iron and steel manufactures; (b) with regard to the United States and Germany (1) total production of iron and steel manufactures; (2) total exports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures; (3) total imports, quantities and values, of iron and steel manufactures, giving separately the quantities and values of such imports from the United Kingdom.

  Annual Leave of Customs Assistant Clerks.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the assistant clerks employed upon checking duties in the Customs tea and dry goods branch were specially selected from the outports to fill the places of examining officers engaged upon checking duties, with salaries rising to £340 per annum and further prospects and annual leave of thirty-two working days, and that before entering upon such duties, owing to their nature, each assistant clerk was required to enter into a bond of £100, he would he willing to consider another application from these men for an increase in the amount of their annual leave.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The assistant clerks employed on checking duties in the Customs tea and dry goods branch were not specially selected to fill the places of examining officers engaged upon checking duties with salaries rising to £340 per annum. The largest portion of the work now performed by assistant clerks with checking allowances was formerly done by examining officers of the second class, who only rise to £220. In no case are they employed on work which was specially assigned to first-class examining officers, nor do they fill places formerly held by officers of that class. I see no reason to depart from the decision previously announced.

  Trout and Salmon Poaching in Lough Erne.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the poaching of salmon and trout that is carried on in Lough Erne, whereby, in
  676
  particular, the salmon fishery of the River Erne is being injured; whether the Department of Agriculture, etc., in Ireland has taken, or is proposing to take, any steps to inquire into the alleged poaching and destruction of salmon and trout, and to prevent the same if carried on; and, generally, what steps are proposed to be taken for the better protection of salmon and trout fishing in the inland rivers of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The attention of the Department has been directed to a number of statements on this subject affecting the district mentioned, which, on investigation, proved to be without foundation. With regard to the protection of inland fisheries, the duty of protection rests primarily with the hoards of conservators, who have been assisted by the Department in certain cases in which the protection was to a large extent for the benefit of the general public.

  Application of Mr. Treston, of Gort, for Gun Licence.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what decision has been arrived at in reference to the application made by Mr. Treston, of Gort, County Galway, for a gun licence.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The resident magistrate will be prepared to issue a licence authorising Mr. Treston to keep a gun on his farm if application be made by the latter for such a licence.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if a national teacher, the average daily attendance at whose school for the year ending 31st March, 1903, reached 29·3 or 29·4, is debarred from receiving second grade salary; whether, in the event of the attendance for the year ending 31st March, 1904,reaching thirty or upwards, he will be entitled to be placed in the second grade; and whether promotion to a higher grade is made from year to year as average attendance warrants or is only awarded at the end of every three

  677
  years on conditions similar to those relating to triennial increments.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No teacher of a school in which the average attendance for the calendar year is less than thirty is eligible for promotion to the second grade. The promotion of teachers is contingent not only on a sufficient average attendance but also on training, position in school, ability and general attainments, good service, and seniority. A teacher must, as a rule, remain three years on the maximum of a grade before he is considered eligible for promotion to a higher grade.

  Applications for Transfer from Constables stationed at Rasharkin, Co. Antrim.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of constables who during the time Sergeant Long has been principal officer at Rasharkin, County Antrim, applied for transfer to other districts; to what religious denominations these constables belong; and the number who obtained such transfers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Six constables applied for transfers from this station during the period referred to (four years four months). They were all Roman Catholics.

  Irish Land Act—Applications for posts in connection with new Department.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Civil servants in other Departments in England, Ireland, and Scotland will be eligible as candidates for positions in the Department about to be created in connection with the forthcoming Land Purchase Act; and to whom shall applications for such positions be addressed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Section 23 (8) of the Land Bill provides for the nomination, in the first place, of existing members of the staff of the Land Commission to assist the Estates Commissioners in the performance of their duties. It is not practicable, at present, to estimate the extent of the new Department, or to state whether it will be necessary
  678
  to appoint to it persons not already on the Land Commission staff. All nominations and appointments will be made by the Lord Lieutenant.

  Distribution of South African War Medals.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say whether the Army Order in South Africa to the effect that all medal rolls were to be rendered before 31st July, 1901, was complied with; and can he say whether the medals for these rolls have all been distributed; and whether any regiments which proceeded to South Africa after July, 1901, have received their medals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the medals of all the regiments which proceeded to South Africa after 31st July, 1901 have been issued, with one or two exceptions where the rolls have been sent to Woolwich for medals to be issued or the rolls themselves are still under examination at the War Office.

  Improved Wages in Dockyard Trades.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decisions have been arrived at with regard to the petitions of various trades in the Royal dockyards; and when such decisions will be communicated to the men concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I must beg to refer my hon. friend to the replies given to the similar Questions asked by the hon. Member for Newington on the 23rd instant† and to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 27th instant,‡ as I have nothing to add at present to the information given on those occasions.

  Paymasters in the Navy.
  MR. JOHN HOWARD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has been arrived at as to the readjustment
  † See page 54.
  ‡ See page 310.

  679
  of the age at which accountant officers of the Navy reach their relative rank; and whether the Admiralty proposes to abolish the rank of staff-paymaster and to promote all paymasters of eight years service to the rank of fleet-paymaster.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster). I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to announce the decision of the Board on this subject, which is still under consideration. As I have stated on other occasions, I think it would be inconvenient, pending the decision of the Board on the question as a whole, to deal separately with points such as that raised in the latter part of the hon. Member's inquiry.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Army Text Books.
    SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is impossible to obtain by purchase or otherwise a copy of the King's Regulations, or the Manual of Military Engineering, and the several other books required by officers preparing for their promotion examinations; and, if so, whether he will order the reprint of such books.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): As I explained to the House on a previous occasion several of the text-books are under revision, owing to changes in Army organisation and duties, but every effort is being made to complete the work as rapidly as possible. It has been found necessary in many cases to thoroughly re-write the books concerned, which involves considerable care and time. In most cases, therefore, a reprint of the old work would be useless. As regards the King's Regulations, a few copies can be purchased from the War Office in the usual manner.

    Hospital for Royal Naval College, Osborne.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided not to convert the barracks at East Cowes into
    680
    an infectious hospital in connection with the Royal Naval College at Osborne.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): It has been decided, owing to the continued insanitary state of the foreshore at East Cowes not to carry out the proposed conversion of the barracks at the present time, but to erect a small infectious hospital on another site.

    Imports of British Colonies.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the fact that 26 per cent. of the total imports of British colonies consist of food, raw material, and live stock, of which the United Kingdom does not produce sufficient for its own needs, or does not produce at all; and, if so, whether he will furnish the House with figures on the subject.
    THE SECRETARY OE STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The Return promised to the hon. Member for the High Peak Division of Derbyshire will give the hon. Member the information he desires.†

    Canada and Germany.
    MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the representatives of Canada, or of any other colony, expressed an opinion at the Colonial Conference that the mother country was not sufficiently protecting her children in the matter of German discrimination against Canada, or any desire that the mother country should retaliate on Germany by imposing duties on German goods; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the discussion at the Conference on this subject, and of the subsequent discussion between the Canadian Minister and himself.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The opinion of the members of the Conference has been summarised in the Paper on the subject already published. I have already
    † See page 311.

    681
    stated in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, on the 22nd of June,† that nothing further can be published as to what took place at the Conference, because of the objections taken to such a course by some of the colonial representatives.

    Trinidad Disturbances.
    MR.WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the recent disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad, in connection with the water ordinance, it is stated that there was absolutely no justification for the use of the bayonet by the police, will he state whether the members of the police force by whom the bayonet was used have been discovered; and will compensation be granted to the relatives of those persons who lost their lives.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member will see from the Papers published that I have ordered a special inquiry. The Chief Justice of British Guiana has now been appointed a special Commissioner to inquire into the conduct of the police on the occasion. Until he has reported I am unable to consider any question of compensation.

    Canadian Tariff Policy.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ins attention has been called to the statement made by the Finance Minister of the Dominion in his last budget speech, that any additional tariff preference would only be granted to the mother country for and in consideration of the preference that Canada has asked for her products in the markets of Great Britain; whether any step has been taken by him to learn whether the word products is limited to food supplies, and, if not, what other products are included; and whether he has already informed the Dominion Government, or, if not, whether he will inform that Government, that His Majesty's Government has assured this House that it will not tax raw material.
    Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the statement to which the hon. Mem-
    † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 63.
    682
    ber refers. It does not add anything to the statement of the position of the Dominion Government as defined in the Memorandum laid before the Conference of last year and already published. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question the usual sources of information as to statements made in the House are available to the Dominion Government, and I have not thought it necessary to make any communication to them on the subject.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made to the Dominion Parliament by the Canadian Finance Minister in April, and recorded in the Canadian Sessional Paper No. 10A, to the effect that at the time of the Conference last year in London Mr. Fielding frankly told the Colonial Secretary that, while his Government were prepared to rearrange their tariff so as to give Great Britain a preference over the foreign competitor, they were not prepared, as between the British and the Canadian manufacturer, to make any further reduction in their tariff which would operate to the advantage of the former; and will he either cause the Canadian Sessional Paper No. 10A, containing the correspondence in connection with the German tariff, to be issued as a Parliamentary Paper, or secure copies for hon. Members who may wish to have them.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The statement to which the hon. Member refers appears to be the speech of the Canadian Minister of Finance in introducing the Budget in April last. In that speech he referred to the Memorandum published in the Conference Blue-book, which the Question does not adequately summarise. As soon as I can obtain copies of the Canadian Sessional Paper referred to by the hon. Member I will lay it before Parliament.

    Religious Orders in France.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received any recent despatch from the French Government relating to their policy in dealing with various religious orders in France.
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I ask the noble Lord whether, before entering into further negotiations, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to ascertain the views of Orangemen on the subject?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The communications recived from the French Government have reference to the treatment of the two English. Religious Foundations—the Benedictines at Douai and the Passionist Fathers at Paris. The most recent note received by His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris from the French Government is dated the 20th of March last, but some verbal communications have since passed. Papers on the subject are now being prepared for presentation to Parliament.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has the French Government made any protest against the language used by the Under Secretary?
    LORD CRANBORNE: Not that I am aware of.

    North Sea Fisheries Investigation.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that France, equally with other countries of Europe, will benefit through any information in regard to fish habits that may be gained under the International Scheme of North Sea Fisheries Investigation, will the British Government consider the expediency of inviting the French Government to participate in the scheme.
    LORD CRANBORNE: By desire of the Conference which met at Stockholm in June, 1899, an invitation was addressed by Sweden to the French Government to participate in the investigation. The French Government, however, felt themselves unable to accept the invitation.

    Revenue Returns.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in reference I to the Annual Return showing the amount contributed by England, Scot-
    684
    land, and Ireland, respectively, to the revenue collected by Imperial Officers; the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such revenue; and the balances of revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure, he will consider whether, in future Returns, this information can be given for Wales under a separate heading.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): It would be impossible to distinguish accurately between England and Wales as regards either revenue or expenditure.

    Cost of Education.
    MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state in detail, as far as he can, the cost of education in all its branches, more especially schools, colleges, Universities, and museums, to the National Exchequer.
    MR. RITCHIE: I can only refer the hon. Member to the Civil Service Estimates (Votes in Class IV., the Vote for the Irish Department of Agriculture in Class II. and Sub-head E. of the Vote for the Board of Agriculture, England, in the same Class) where he will find the sums voted for the services in question. In addition, certain sums are paid annually from the Consolidated Fund—viz., £7,000 to each of the three Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and various small and miscellaneous sums which will be found set out on pages 55 and 56 of the Finance Accounts 1902–3, (House of Commons Paper 219 of 1903).
    MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I have been in the library and had the assistance of the librarian and have been unable to get these particulars? I will repeat the Question this day week in the hope that I may get a full reply.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not think a public Department should be called upon to make up statistical information for hon. Members when they can obtain it for themselves. I have given the hon. Member the full information which will

    685
    enable him to obtain what he requires without the assistance of the librarian.

    Lightships and Wireless Telegraphy.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the work of connecting certain lightships with the shore by wireless telegraphy for life-saving purposes has been commenced; if not, when it will be commenced; and when the further connection of lightships with the shore by these means is going to be taken in hand.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I must refer my hon. and gallant friend to the reply given him on June 30th.† We have every intention of carrying out that amount of work with all possible expedition, but at present we are awaiting some amended financial proposals from the Marconi Company.

    Statistics of British Imports.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board Trade whether, in view of the bearing on the fiscal inquiry of the Return promised to the hon. Member for the High Peak Division in reference to the imports from foreign countries into British Possessions,‡ the often misleading character of trade statistics when taken for a single year only, and the desirability of showing the growth of the imports in question, he will consider advisability of extending the Return so as to cover several years prior to the last available year.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I in formed the hon. Member on Monday§ I am not prepared to agree to the extension asked for, which would cause great delay in the publication of the Return.

    The Board of Trade and the Fiscal Inquiry.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the pressure on his Department at the present time to expeditiously
    † See (4) Debates, exxiv, 923.
    ‡ See page 311.
    § See page_330.
    686
    furnish Statistical Returns relating to Imperial trade, he will consider the desirability of making additions to his staff either temporary or permanent?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Every effort is being and will be made to cope with the exceptional pressure of work thrown on the Board of Trade by means of addition to staff and otherwise. I cannot say whether the additions to the staff will be permanent.

    French Commercial Policy.
    SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any country adopting a retaliatory fiscal policy has access to the French market on more favourable terms than the United Kingdom.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer is in the negative.

    Fiscal Inquiry.
    SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: I leg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Cabinet will, in its investigations as to the alleged evil effects of the dumping down of foreign imports below cost, also inquire as to the benefits which have accrued to the United Kingdom from such imports, with the view of ascertaining whether this country has been on the whole advantaged or otherwise thereby.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The inquiry will naturally include both sides of the question.
    SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what Member of the Cabinet information on this point should be addressed?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Post Office—Wages Inquiry.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is yet in a position to announce the constitution of the Wages Inquiry Committee.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): No, Sir.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make the announcement?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope before the House adjourns, but I cannot give a definite date.

    Vaccination Exemption Applications at Brentford Police Court.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of times application has been made for exemption from vaccination at the Brentford Police Court during the last two years, and the number of times such application has been refused.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY TO THE HOME OFFICE (Mr. COCHRANE,): I am informed by the magistrates' clerk that no record is kept of the number of applications or refusals, but that eight exemption certificates have been granted in the last two years at the Brentford Court.
    MR. LEVY: Will instructions be given to have records kept in future?
    MR. COCHRANE: I must ask for notice of that.

    Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state whether the Secretary for Scotland is now prepared to announce the policy of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Crofters' Commission on the social condition of the people of Lewi
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The Congested Districts Amendment Bill, now before Parliament, deals with certain recommendations contained in the Report referred to. The Secretary for Scotland awaits final communication from the Local Advisory Committee in the Lews before deciding upon any policy in regard to the remaining recommendations. It will not be possible to do all that the Secretary for Scotland thinks necessary, unless the amending
    688
    Bill, now before the House of Commons, should pass into law.

    Queen Victoria—Proposed Statue in Westminster Hall.
    MR. PLUMMER (Newcastle-on-Tyne): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the question of commissioning a sculptor to execute a statue of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, to be placed in Westminster Hall, in continuation of the series of other statues already therein.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I at the same time ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of removing from Westminster Hall the whole of the statues now there, as I am informed that they are neither portraits nor works of art.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is perfectly true that the statues to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fareham refers are not portraits, because they have all been made in the course of the last thirty years. The Government are of opinion that if there is to be a series of statues of Sovereigns of Great Britain in Westminster Hall, it is well worthy of consideration whether a statue of Her late Majesty should not be added.

    Royal Commission of Civil Service Superannuation.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Royal Commission on Civil Service, Superannuation has yet completed its inquiry; and, if so, when will the Report be presented.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Report is now, I am informed, under consideration, and will, I believe, be presented at an early date.

    Germany and Canada.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the letter of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Herr Boff in November last, in which, replying to a letter from that gentleman stating that Germany is prepared to

    689
    negotiate a commercial treaty between her and Canada in 1903, he says that if Germany is prepared at once to negotiate such a treaty the Dominion Government would be happy to discuss its terms; and to the letter of the same month to Herr Boff from the Finance Minister of the Dominion, in which he says that the Dominion Government would at a convenient moment be prepared to consider with Germany the general question of trade relations between the two countries, but that the making of a formal treaty would require the appointment of plenipotentiaries by His Majesty the German Emperor and by His Majesty the King of Great Britain, on behalf of Canada; and whether, should the Dominion Government entertain the same opinion at present, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to advise His Majesty to appoint plenipotentiaries on behalf of Canada with the concurrence of the Dominion Government; and whether the Dominion Government has at any time suggested to His Majesty's Government that retaliatory duties should be either imposed or threatened to be imposed on German goods entering the United Kingdom should Germany refuse to admit Canadian imports on the most-favoured-nation terms.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Colonial Office has not received, officially or unofficially, any request from Canada for the appointment of a plenipotentiary to negotiate a commercial treaty with Germany on behalf of the Dominion. The only communications that we have had from Canada have already been published.

    MOTOR-CARS BILL [LORDS].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 301.]
  NEW BILL.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    "To grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund; and for other purposes relating to local loans." Presented by Mr. Elliot; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 300.]

SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to Question [28th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I suppose it is inevitable that in this debate there should be references made to the fiscal inquiry now pending, although I confess I do not myself see exactly what connection there is between this Bill and the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. Whatever may be said in regard to it, that scheme, as far as practical polities goes, is a new question; whereas the subject of the sugar bounties is an old one, which has occupied the attention of successive Governments and successive Houses of Parliament for a great many years. One would think, from speeches made on both sides of the House, that the Government had suddenly made a great plunge and adopted an entirely new policy in pressing for the abolition of the sugar bounties. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Hear hear.] My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn cheers that statement, but surely he knows, and the country knows, that this question has been before it for upwards of forty years. As long ago as 1862 a Liberal Government caused a Convention of Foreign Powers to be called in order to discuss this very question, and a few years later Mr. Gladstone urged the abolition of the sugar bounties on the ground that they were had for the producer, the importer, and the consumer alike. Both parties in the State have, in successive years and on many occasions, endeavoured to get this question settled, but now we are told that it is contrary to free trade. I approached the question of free trade with considerable fear, for if we take the statement of those who have always been regarded as the leading free traders of this country, they have never for one

691
moment regarded sugar bounties as anything but an abomination, and they have desired to get rid of them as a step in the direction of free trade. Mr. Cobden said—
"What we free traders want is that every natural source of supply should be open to us, as Nature and Nature's God intended it should be, without artificial interference."
And the late Mr. Gladstone—whose orthodoxy as a free trader no one would doubt—in 1881, said—
"We do not regard with any satisfaction the system under which an artificial advantage is given in our markets to the product of foreign labour—the principle to be observed being that of equality. Some people say that it is a good thing, because the consumer gets the benefit of it, but I do not think that any benefit founded on inequality and injustice can bring good even to the consumer."
Then again, the late Lord Farrer, another orthodox free trader, speaking as lately as the year 1897, to the Cobden Club, used these words—
"Upon this point (sugar bounties) we must walk warily. We must admit to the fullest degree that sugar bounties are an abomination; and we must not, because they make sugar a little cheaper in this country, say that they ought to be continued. If Mr. Chamberlain were asked in any fair way to get foreign nations to do away with their bounties, we ought to wish him God speed."
My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn and hon. Gentlemen opposite ironically cheer these sentiments! What is the meaning of it? Surely the Government have gone a very long step forward towards doing what Lord Farrer said they would wish Mr. Chamberlain "God-speed" in doing. They have succeeded in getting foreign nations to agree to the abolition of sugar bounties. How is it, therefore, when this thing has been accomplished—a thing which both Parties have been striving for for years, we have this determined opposition to the carrying out of this most eminently laudable free trade doctrine.
What are the objections to the Sugar Bounties Convention and to this Bill? They are brought forward I frankly admit for one particular object—viz., to save some of our colonies from ruin. The Sugar Bounty system has well nigh ruined the West Indian colonies. Some hon. Members appear to doubt that and seem to think that if one trade is destroyed another can be established in its place, and that all the West Indies have
692
to do in order to regain their prosperity is to start some other trade. That, however, is not a very nice prospect for the West Indian planter, who has sunk his capital in the sugar industry. But is it true that other trades can be set up which will restore the prosperity of the islands? One or two of the islands have been enabled to do this, but a Royal Commission has stated specifically that some of the West Indian Islands depend on sugar alone, and if the trade in it were destroyed destruction awaited them. In the case of Barbados, British Guiana, and the Windward and Leeward Islands this is the case, and can hon. Members contemplate with equanimity the destruction of the trade of these colonies? Are we right or not in trying to save them? Are we going to allow them to be destroyed by the bounty system when we have ready to our hands a weapon which will enable us to get rid of it? How far are hon. Members prepared to go? Are they prepared to see certain trades in this country destroyed also by the bounty system? I venture to say that if any trade in this country were threatened as the West Indian trade is, hon. Members opposite would be the very first to urge the Government to conclude a convention whereby the bounties might be abolished. What then are the specific objections to this Bill? We are told in the first place that the Convention and the Bill based upon it, will not benefit the colonies to any appreciable extent, and secondly, even if it does it will inflict a heavy burden on the English consumer and on the manufacturer who depends on sugar as a raw material.
Take first the case of the colonies. Is it proved that this Convention will not benefit them? I am informed that the Royal Commission took the view that the abolition of the sugar bounties would be of enormous benefit to the colonies. Indeed, the Commission said it was the only thing which could benefit them. It is not a question of the price of sugar. It is a question of credit, and the reason why our colonies have fallen so far behind is that they have been unable to obtain sufficient credit to enable them to develop their estates, to put in the best machinery, and to adopt the best methods

693
of cultivation. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn made a great point as to the unproductive character of the methods employed in the West Indies. He seemed to think that because they had not been progressive nothing should be done for them. He seemed to forget the reason. I venture to say that if you get rid of the bounties, capital will flow into the West Indies, and the inhabitants will have an opportunity of developing their resources, of improving their methods, and of producing sugar more cheaply than can be possible so long as the bounties exist. But we are told that if we benefit the West Indies we shall greatly increase the cost to the British consumer, and it is practically suggested that the evil would be so great that we ought to do nothing for the colonies. We have heard all kinds of prophecy, and we have had this statement put forward in every shape and form, but I think the most remarkable form of all was that advanced last night by the hon. and learned Member for the Launceston Division, who stated that the bounties had reduced the price of sugar to the full extent of the bounty given. I think that was a ludicrous argument. It is not true in fact, neither is it in conformity with any theory I have ever seen put forward. That it is not true in fact can easily be proved. We have been informed by the President of the Board of Trade that the cost of production of sugar in Germany and Austria is about £8 15s. per ton. The bounty amounts to £5 per ton, and consequently if the bounty had reduced the price of sugar by the full amount, sugar would have been sold here at £3 15s. a ton, whereas the price has never fallen to anything like that amount. It has never gone below £6 or £7 a ton. If it has not so fallen then I say the price will not rise in a like degree. No doubt the greater part of the bounty does not go to the benefit of the consumer in this country, it goes into the pockets of the producers of sugar in Germany and Austria. If you abolish the bounties my belief is that although there may be a slight rise on present prices, it will be very small indeed, and it will very soon be equalised by the fact that the cane-producing countries of the world will produce a great deal more
694
sugar; there will be free competition, and cheaper methods of production, tending to reduce the price of sugar. When a bounty is put on an article a very large part of it naturally goes in the first instance towards countervailing the superior natural advantages of the countries against which it is directed, and inasmuch as the West Indies can now produce sugar cheaper than it can be done in Europe, a large part of the bounty goes to countervail that advantage. It is quite untrue that the producer gives the whole of the bounty to the consumer; he only gives just enough to secure the market and he pockets the rest. Therefore it is monstrous to suggest that the abolition of the bounties will increase the price of the article by the full amount of the bounty.
But suppose you do not abolish the bounties. Suppose you permit the present system to go on. What is going to happen? Yon will create an absolute monopoly on the part of the German and Austrian producer of beet sugar, and he will, of course, when once he has secured the monopoly in our market, proceed to raise the price of sugar to any extent he likes. We are told that the confectionery trade will suffer. I think it will suffer a very great deal more if the present bounty system is allowed to continue. It may gain at the present moment by the temporary cheapness of sugar, but it will suffer later on by having to pay anything the German or Austrian producer may choose to charge. Last year 72 per cent. of the sugar imported into this country came from Germany and Austria. The Germans and Austrians have no doubt gone to very great expense in giving these bounties, but we may be sure that they have not been given merely to benefit the English consumer. The object has been to obtain the mastery of our markets and to drive out cane sugar altogether, as well as to get rid of other competitors in the beet sugar industry. That they have nearly done, for France has dropped far behind in the race, and when they finally succeed they will be able to raise the price of sugar to any extent they like. We hear a great deal about the confectionery trade, but where will it be if hon. Members, by conniving at the keeping up of the bounty system, pave the way for raisin, the price of sugar to a prohibitive

695
amount? Where will it be if the Germans obtain the mastery of our markets? We have heard that we are placing the control of our fiscal arrangements in the hands of a foreign Convention. But after all that Convention only exists in order to see that the Powers agreeing to it carry out the Convention. We are no worse off than any other nation in that respect. If we do not abolish the sugar bounties we shall be placing the control of our sugar supply absolutely and entirely in the hands of a foreign sugar ring, and that would be far more dangerous to this country than allowing a foreign Convention, on which we are represented equally with other nations, to see that all parties to it carry out their agreement. There is nothing more serious and nothing more likely to damage our people in the future than allowing the control of our food supplies to fall into the hands of foreign rings. We had an example of that last year in connection with the beef trade. An American ring controlling that trade put up the price of beef to every consumer in this country from 1d. to 2d. per 1b. At that time we in this House were discussing the shilling registration duty on corn, and although we seemed to be much concerned about the possible effects of that in increasing the cost of the foods of the people, we paid no attention whatever to the action of the foreign beef ring, which had really increased the price of meat and inflicted enormous hardships on our people. I again assert that the abolition of sugar bounties will not really put up the price of sugar except to a very small extent, whereas if we allow the control of our sugar supply to remain in the hands of those who pay the bounties, and have thus obtained the mastery of our markets, the effect upon our people will be very serious indeed. I do not think I need labour the point further.
For my part I candidly confess that I do not understand the objection of hon. Members opposite to this Bill. I am not going so far as to say that because we ratified the Convention last November we are therefore bound to carry it out. Of course we retain our freedom of action, but we are, I say, bound to carry it out unless we can show very strong reasons indeed for going back on our policy. To my mind there seems every reason for going forward with the policy of abolishing the bounties—a policy which every
696
Government for the last forty years has striven to bring about. Like everbody else, I do not wish to see the destruction of the confectionery trade; but what will happen to it if the victorious German or the victorious Austrian, having destroyed the West Indian sugar planters and the sugar refiners of this country, then proceeds by a system of bounties to destroy the confectionery trade? Suppose they gave large bounties to export confectionery from Germany and Austria, and dumped the goods down here, so that English confectioners would be unable to compete with them. What would be the position of the confectionery trade then? Will hon. Members still say that we have no right to interfere with the bounty system? Will they still say that it is far better to leave the foreigner to make these presents to English consumers. I venture to say they will take an exactly opposite line, and I can see the hon. Member for West Islington come here, hat in hand, asking the Government to get rid of the bounties because they are ruining the English confectionery trade. The same principle applies all round, whether we are free traders or protectionists. Bounties are an unnatural interference with the course of trade; and because this Bill will enable us to get rid of them, and will at the same time give a chance to our colonies and to our home refiners, I hope the Government will continue in their policy, and, by carrying this Bill through, will consummate what has been the object of this country for so many years.
MR. KEABLEY: The assumption underlying the speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge is tie the Bill will abolish sugar bounties, but I would like to point out that under its provisions a permanent bounty is going to be set up far higher than the official bounty given by various countries for many years past. His argument as to what will happen unless these bounties are abolished therefore falls to the ground. It is clear that bounties are not going to be abolished at all. The hon. Member has pointed out some terrible things that are going to happen to us at the hands of certain Continental sugar producers if bounties are not abolished. He says that Germany and Austria will get us under their heels, and have a monopoly

697
of our trade, but he seems to forget that the total sugar production of the world is increasing at a great rate, and that therefore we need never be in the position of being under the heels of either Germany or Austria. The hon. Member has not perhaps studied the statistics as to the production of cane sugar, but I may tell him that the quantity produced has in the last two or three years increased by considerably more than a million tons, therefore we are not so dependent on the action of Germany or Austria as he seems to think.
MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Seventy-two per cent. of our sugar imports last year were German.
MR. KEARLEY: There is such a thing as sugar production in countries outside Europe, and the statistics show that what the hon. Member has predicted cannot possibly happen. What has induced the Government to join this Convention? They have advanced two reasons—first, that our West Indian colonies are being ruined by the bounty system, and secondly, that British sugar refining is also being ruined. I have a few words to say about the arguments used by the President of the Board of Trade in building up the Government case. He told us in November last, and he practically repeated the same thing yesterday, that bounties are responsible for the over-production of sugar, and that that over-production has caused wild fluctuations in prices. He argued that were the bounties abolished the wild fluctuations would cease and we should have a natural and normal price of sugar. He says that these wild fluctuations of the past twenty years have been occasioned solely by the bounties. What are the facts? In fifteen of those twenty years the only bounty that existed was what is termed the official bounty. For the last five years there has been another bounty—created by the cartel system. The official bounties in Germany and Austria, the two largest exporters of sugar, amounted to from 1s. to 1s. 2d. per cwt., so that for the fifteen years before the cartel system came into existence the bounty was, speaking roughly, 1s.
698
per cwt. In the last five years the creation of the cartel has increased the bounty to 4s. 6d. or 5s. Now, between 1882 and 1897, the fluctuations in the price of sugar ranged from 8s. to 28s. per cwt., while in the last live years, although the bounty has been four times as great, the fluctuation has only been from 6s. to 12s. 6d. What becomes, then, of his argument that the bounties are the cause of these wild fluctuations? Then again the right hon. Gentleman says that the bounty of 1s. per cwt. has caused over-production. I always thought that over-production caused prices to fall, and, consequently, the price of sugar should have fallen continuously, but it has not. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what has really caused the fluctuations. He has no practical knowledge of the trade; he only gives the views of the experts who have coached him; and I want to show him how utterly fallacious is the statement that the fluctuations in price have been occasioned by this 1s. bounty. In 1882 the price of sugar was 23s. 6d. per cwt.; in 1884 it had fallen to 10s. Was that fall brought about by the 1s. bounty? No. What was the real cause of it? It was the law of supply and demand. At the end of each sugar year statistics are collected showing the amount of sugar on hand from the old crop. In 1884 it was found that the carry over of sugar was 1,200,000 tons—more than sufficient to supply this country for the coming year. Naturally this had a very disconcerting effect on the market, and prices tumbled down to 10s. per cwt. The 1s. bounty had nothing whatever to do with the fall. In 1889 sugar suddenly shot up to 28s. per cwt.—the highest price reached for 25 years. What was the cause of that? Was it the 1s. bounty? No. It was found that the carry over at the end of the year was only 473,000 tons. That influenced the market immediately and produced speculation which led to very high prices. I think I have disposed of the contention that these wild fluctuations were occasioned by the 1s. bounty.
The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the West Indies can produce sugar more cheaply than Europe, but that these wild fluctuations in price prevent capital going into the colonies, and he wants

699
the House to believe that when these bounties are abolished we shall have a normal and natural price of sugar. We shall have nothing of the sort. We shall still have the same variations in the market. The Colonial Secretary knows something about business. Will he not admit that fluctuations are occasioned by outside circumstances, such as the state of the crops and their magnitude or their expected failure. If the Government base their case on the assumption that prosperity will be brought back to the West Indies by stability of prices I would not give much for their future prospects. It is preposterous to say that in the future the price of sugar will not be determined by supply and demand. But according to the reasoning of the President of the Board of Trade, cost of production is to govern prices in the future. The right hon. Gentleman said that the price of sugar in the future will not be greater than the average of the past.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): No; I said I believed the fluctuations in the price of sugar in the future would not be higher than the average.
MR. KEARLEY: We have had it said over and over again that the price of sugar in the future would not be higher than the average.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I never said that. It would be absurd. I always admitted that the price of sugar is subject to fluctuations, but that those fluctuations would sometimes be above the normal natural price and sometimes below.
MR. KEARLEY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the normal and natural price of sugar? What does he mean by drawing our attention to the fact that the cost of production in the West Indies is £8 10s. per ton and in European countries £8 15s.?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I was speaking of the average price when I said that it would not be higher than it had been in the past. That is very different from saying the price would never be
700
higher than the average price in the past.
MR. KEARLEY: The average price in the future will not be higher than the average price in the past. What is the average price of sugar. How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at it.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I took the average for ten years.
MR. KEARLEY: In 15 years the price has fluctuated from 5s. 9d. to 28s. The whole case for the Bill is based on stability of price; and when the right hon. Gentleman is asked what the average price is he takes the average price for the past ten years, and on such a happy-go-lucky calculation contends that sugar will be no dearer in the future than in the past. It is on these grounds that we are asked to go into this Convention? That brings me to another general proposition. The right hon. Gentleman says—
"That even if the interests of consumers of sugar and users of sugar did suffer from the abolition of bounties, that abolition would still be an object for which we ought to strive."
Why? There is no divine law against bounties. They are not immoral in themselves. Each bounty, I maintain, should be considered on its merits. The effect of these sugar bounties is to give buyers in this country an advantage in price which they would not otherwise enjoy. I do not think it can be shown that any home or competing industry is suffering. It has been stated that a great number of sugar refineries have disappeared. But it still has to be proved that the refining industry has been ruined by these bounties. The fact is the manufacturers of this country get the advantage of the bounties, or they could not carry on their trade. Remember, it is only the official bounty which is to be abolished under this Bill. The pseudo bounty, created by the eartel system, is going to remain. If the 1s. bounty has ruined the sugar refiners of this country they will continue to be ruined by the larger cartel bounty. Thirty years ago there were thirty or forty sugar refineries scattered about the country; many of them have now disappeared, and the conclusion is jumped at that they have been ruined by the bounty system. As a matter of fact the bounties have had nothing to do with it. They have been

701
vanquished in competition with English competitors. Take the case of Greenock. Have the refineries there been ruined by the competition of foreigners? The responsible authors of their decline were the two successful firms of the present day, Tate's and Lyle's. Lyle was originally a Greenock refiner in a small way.
MR. JAMES REID: He was in a large way. He had a refinery capable of turning out 1,500 tons a week.
MR. KEARLEY: And now he turns out double the quantity. He left Greenock because he found it was not a suitable centre for carrying on his operations, and in view of the changed condition of affairs as well as with a view to the development of beet refining, he left Greenock to come to London. He has increased in wealth and importance, and those who remained behind in Greenock have fallen out, being unable to face the competition of their old townsman Lyle, or of Tate. The Colonial Secretary says: "Oh yes, but Tate's have a special patent process which has placed them practically outside the region of competition." That is absolutely not the case. It is true that Tate's have enjoyed the benefit of a certain patent, but they have not had a monopoly of it. The patent from which Tate's cubes proceed was acquired by Tate in 1876, when Tate was an ordinary small refiner. But that patent was owned conjointly by one of the oldest refining firm in the country—Messrs. Martineau & Sons—a firm with an existence of 100 years behind them, and all the benefits of an old connection. What happened? Tate amassed an immense fortune, and his sugar is pre-eminent throughout the country, but the old firm of Martineau & Sons failed. Why was this? On the one hand you have a new man with a new equipment, who, working according to modern ideas, kept himself to the front, feared no Competition, faced the competition of Europe, was the better for it, was not defeated, and is now one of the greatest refiners. On the other hand you have this old firm, with the traditions of a hundred years of trade, working with obsolete machinery, but who, notwithstanding the advantage of the patent which the Colonial Secretary says is responsible for Tate's position, went under. Lyle had no patent of any
702
sort or description, and he is still doing well. Tate and Lyle between them turn out as much sugar as the whole of the thirty refiners who existed thirty years ago turned out. I will go further. These two refiners between them turn out more domestic sugar than all the other refiners in the country. The output of Tate and Lyle is estimated at 300,000 tons a year, while that of all the other refiners amounts to 360,000 tons, of which 120,000 is brewers' invert. The refining industry of this country is not ruined; it is a prosperous industry. Anybody who likes to embark upon it with up-to-date machinery, capital, and business ability, is bound to make a large fortune. One of the grounds upon which we are being called upon to support this Bill is that the sugar refining industry of the country is being ruined, but I say there is no sign of any such ruin.
The only remaining question is that of the West Indies. Before I come to that let me say a word more about the bounties. The President of the Board of Trade last night said they amounted to 4s, 6d. or 5s. Does he contend that the English refiner does not get the full benefit of that bounty? Is that the contention of the Colonial Secretary? Some speakers have asked, "How can the English refiner expect to carry on his business with an adverse bounty of 4s. or 5s. against him?" He could not keep his factory doors open a week if that were the case. The thing is too ridiculous. I maintain that the English refiner enjoys to the fullest possible extent the advantage of the bounty. As regards the West Indies, they produce the raw material, and no doubt bounties would have some effect. But if anybody hopes that the abolition of bounties is going to restore West Indian sugar refiners to a state of prosperity, he will be greatly disappointed. We all desire to see such prosperity restored, but the bounties alone are not the cause of their distress. Until recent years sugar production in the West Indies was a very profitable industry. The old West Indian planters were extremely rich men, and a small share in a West Indian plantation was considered to be a fortune. They extracted sugar from the cane by windmills and all sorts of obsolete machinery. But with competition of beet and the bringing of the process of manufacture up-to-date, the West

703
Indies dropped behind. They dragged on thinking something would come up to rehabilitate them, but they have gone from bad to worse. They had all the natural advantages in the West Indies.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Hear, hear.
MR. KEARLEY: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman, by that ironical cheer, suggests that when the bounties were abolished the West Indies would prove their capacity to compete with the rest of the world. How long will it take for that to happen? Until the West Indies improve their methods, bounty or no bounty, they will never regain their old prosperity. We were invited last November to consider this question from a practical point of view. Let us consider the West Indian aspect of the case from the profit and loss standpoint. What are we to gain or lose by the abolition of bounties? The English refiner is prosperous, and the abolition of the bounty is not required on his behalf. There is some case for the West Indian, I admit. Every 1s. of bounty that we throw overboard represents £1,500,000 a year. Some estimate the amount of the bounty to be 5s., or a total annual value of £8,000,000 a year. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I do say it would be far cheaper for us to give the West Indies a large sum of money every year instead of throwing away all the advantage of these bounties. The abolition of the bounties will be a very bad thing for this country. I cannot conceive what has induced the Government to adopt the course they are pursuing. It cannot he that they desire to see £8,000,000 a year thrown away. I can only conclude that they have not made themselves acquainted with the true facts of the case, and that they are proceeding on faulty information. I oppose the Convention because I contend that we must have regard to British interests at large, which we are not doing by this measure. We have allowed ourselves to be lured into this Convention by a coterie of interested people, and I hope that at all events those who hold that free trade is a good principle will vote against this Bill, which is really the first step towards protection. No arguments have
704
yet been adduced which prove conclusively either that the sugar refiners in this country are entitled to the benefits they will receive under this Bill, or that the passing of the measure will restore the prosperity of the West Indies.
SIR WALTER THORBURN: My hon. friend who has just sat down has spoken mainly of the bounties given on raw sugar, and he has not dealt at all with the large bounty which is given on refilled sugar. The amount of bounty given upon refined sugar practically, makes it impossible for the trade to be carried on in this country. There is no doubt whatever that for a long period of years the refiners have been unable to carryon their industry in this country because of the unfair competition. London is the centre of a very large population, and the consumption of sugar in the Metropolis is so great that sugar can be distributed at a much less expense than in the case of those who, carry on refineries farther away. A refinery in London can get nearly Is. per cwt. more for the same class of sugar than a refinery in Greenock. Of course it is impossible that all these refineries can be carried on at one centre. Many hon. Members who have addressed the House upon this question are more or less interested in certain trades which are supposed to benefit by these bounties. I intend to make a few remarks on the effect winch these bounties have produced upon the sugar industry in Scotland. Prior to the introduction of bounties the refining industry in Greenock was a large and prosperous one. Some years ago there were no less than 16 sugar refineries in Greenock. I do not assert that all of them were in a thorough state of efficiency, but we have at the present moment only six of them left in active operation, and with regard to them I can say that there are no factories better equipped, and they can turn out sugar as cheaply as any other refineries if they have fair competition. For many years past the margin of profit between the claw and the refined sugar has been absolutely nil. To my certain knowledge if these refineries had kept their works going simply by buying the raw material and refining it at once, they were bound to lose almost all the expenses of refining. Only those

705
connected with the trade who are well off financially, and who can buy largely when the raw sugar is cheap, can possibly get any advantage, but the ordinary average man who buys the raw material from day to day finds that it is impossible for hint to make a profit. The German bounty is 35s. per ton on refined sugar. A general impression exists in this House that this country gets the full advantage of the German bounty, but there is nothing so erroneous. All that the German refiners give off that 35s. is a margin just sufficient to submerge the profit of refining in this country, with the result that it is impossible to carry the trade on here. I ask hon. Members if they happened to be engaged in an industry like this, I ask those interested in the confectionery trade if they were so handicapped, would they sit quietly by and say, "We can do nothing." This state of things is not for the benefit of the country in the long run. Is it for the benefit of the country that all the money which has been sunk in refineries, in machinery, and in stores, should be put down the gutter while the German manufacturers, after having killed the industry in this country, will be able to get what price they choose to ask for their sugar? Is it to the advantage of the country that all the labour which those factories would employ should not be utilised?
In the town of Greenock the Harbour Trust built large stores for the storing of sugar, but since the collapse of the sugar industry these stores have been practically unused. At one time the Harbour Trust bonds were looked after very anxiously by investors, but what is the case to-day? The second bonds, which at one time even trustees would buy in very large quantities, had been so affected by the decline of the sugar trade that the price of the £100 bond was now down to something a little over £30. If hon. Gentlemen think that the extinguishing of this industry is one which is beneficial to the country in order to give a temporary benefit to certain people by these bounties, then I can only say that I take a very different view. The confectionery trade have been very active in this matter, and I do not know how many circulars I have received more or less couched in the most extravagant language. These confectioners have been absolutely coining money.
MR. LOUGH: You want to stop that, I suppose?
SIR WALTER THORBURN: No, I do not, but I think they will be very little injured by this measure. For the sake of maintaining these enormous profits the confectioners are using all the resources they possess to induce hon. Members to vote against this Bill. Those people have no competition at all abroad, and if they put their heads together they can get any price they like. No doubt they will take that course. No one can complain of the, price of sugar in this country even now or in regard to what it will be under this Convention. I believe that when the bounties are abolished the price of sugar will not appreciably rise. I believe that the price of a good white sugar is from 1¾d. to 2d. per 1b., and for brown sugar about 1½d. per 1b.; surely moderate enough in all conscience. The expectation of the trade is that this Convention will produce a much steadier range of prices, and that on the whole prices will be decidedly low. I do not know what part of the world my hon. friend referred to as showing an extraordinarily increased quantity of cane sugar. I know that for some years the bulk of sugar produced in the West Indies has gone principally to America. Why? because America countervails all bounty-fed sugar, with the result that better prices can be obtained there that in this country. After the passing of this Act I have no doubt that more West Indian sugar will be grown, and that it will come to this country in larger quantities than for many years past. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are never done speaking for working men in this matter. I happened to meet a number of working men, not all of my way of thinking politically, and I discussed this question with them. I put the whole facts before them at the time when it was proposed to deal with the sugar bounties, and everyone of them, without regard to Party, declared that such a state of matters as that should not be allowed to exist. When the bounties are abolished, at all events you will find that the West Indies will be put on an equal footing with continental growers of beet. Fair competition I do not object to. If we cannot compete with our foreign competitors after the abolition of the bounties,

707
then I will accept the situation, but I protest as strongly as I can that an industry which was carried on and employed a considerable number of people in this country should be killed by unfair competition under a system of bounties. The hon. Member for King's Lynn quoted Messrs. Tate's prospectus, but he omitted to say that the £200,000 he refers to was largely because of the imposition of the four shillings duty that year. I may further explain that Messrs. Tate were protected by patents which enabled them to obtain higher prices. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen stated last night that cartels would still exist and the bounties would still be carried on. If that is so, why object to this Bill. We think differently. We believe there is sufficient provision made by the Convention to prevent cartels. If we fail, then I hope there will be a Government in power that will deal with any other system of cartels that happens to arise. I speak feelingly, as one who has suffered, and I can assure the House that the Scotch sugar refiners resent it being stated that the reason for their misfortune is owing to their machinery not being up to date. I fearlessly assert that no sugar works in this country are more efficiently equipped as regards machinery than the six works in Greenock which I have referred to. I cordially support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONThe hon. Baronet who has just sat down has put before the House the case of certain industries in Scotland, which he alleges have been injured, if not ruined, by the existing state of things. I want to follow him because I represent a constituency where an exactly opposite condition prevails. But before I say a word from the point of view entertained by them, I wish to say a word on the general aspect of the discussion. An hon. Member who spoke early in the debate expressed some surprise that the opposition on this side of the House to the Bill should be so strenuous as it appears likely to be. The reason of that is not far to seek. It is that we, at all events, rightly or wrongly, regard this debate as the first action between protection and free trade, the first step in the great controversy which
708
seems likely to occupy the attention of the country for some time to come. I cannot help remembering what has occurred this session on a similar occasion when the bread tax was under discussion. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer who imposed the bread tax last year, came forward this year and voted for its abolition because he saw that it might be used in the interest of protection. I hope that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House will be inclined to take the same action with regard to this proposal, and that, although they may have voted last year for the ratification of the Convention, seeing as they must now do, that the Convention is part of a great new system, they will vote against the Bill on this occasion. May I remind the House that this is not a mere case of protection, but protection in its worst form. It is not a case of countervailing duties only; it is a case of absolute prohibition. I am quite sure that all those concerned in the trade, and all those who know the needs of the country, would say that if there was to be any dealing with this bounty system in the country at all, they would prefer that it should take the shape of countervailing duties, bad as they are, rather than the prohibition proposed under the Bill. And it is a prohibition which we are to impose at the dictation of a foreign tribunal manned by the representatives of protectionist States, and avowedly inspired by local protectionist motives. It is to be automatically imposed upon the Government of this country at the behest of that Commission without any regard to the justice of the particular decree the Commission may name. I should like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether it would not have been better to have given the House of Commons an opportunity of deciding on all these decrees itself. How are we to know whether a particular decree is wise or just. Would it not have been possible to bring forward each ease on its own merits and to have voted permission to take action. They are asking for them en bloc, without giving any opportunity of considering the evidence on which the Commission acted or discussing the justice of the decisions at which they have arrived. Why not submit each particular case to the House, and do with this as with other and larger questions—consult the people beforehand. It is because we regard this

709
Bill as part of an insidious and long continued campaign against free trade, which is now beginning to be disclosed, that we oppose it. I hope that in all the future stages of this Bill we shall continue to offer strenuous opposition to the proposal of the Government.
May I say a word about those local interests which have benefited by the system of bounties? I represent a community which has profited largely by the present system, though I am not putting their case as one which should prevent the House, merely in their interest, from taking what may appear to be a right and proper action. The case of the manufacturing confectioners in places like Dundee is exactly the case of the people at large. But I am anxious to put their view, because on former occasions, if not now, their opinion has been misrepresented. Local opinion has been cited in favour of these proposals; but local opinion, so far as I know, is absolutely against them. The President of the Board of Trade quoted the opinion of the head of the great firm of Keillers as being in favour of this proposal. It is true that the late Mr. Keiller, fourteen years ago, expressed an opinion in favour of the proposals of to-day, but I have the authority of his successor to say that the present firm and its head are entirely of the other way of thinking. The case of the Dundee industries is typical. They import sugar from Germany and mix it with their local fruits, and sometimes with foreign fruits, and they make up confections which they send back to Germany, thus selling to the Germans at a profit the very sugar that is imported from them. The belief of the industries concerned is that the price has already risen more than it would otherwise have done in consequence of these proposals, and their belief is that it will rise further still if these proposals are carried out, and that, just as the Greenock refiners have been injured by the present system, so the industries that have been brought into existence under that system will probably be injured, if not ruined, by the alteration now proposed. We set up the case of the people and the case of the manufacturers against that of the West Indies and of the sugar refiners. Bounties are bad, and I do not desire to advocate them, but would prefer to see a bounty given to the West Indies
710
and the refiners rather than have alt other sugar driven out of the country. But why are bounties impossible? Because the people would then know exactly what they were paying to the West Indies and the sugar refiners. A proposal to give half a million to the West Indies and the sugar refiners would raise such a storm in the country that no Government would dare to propose it. But the Government are proposing in this indirect way to inflict upon the whole people a burden ten or fifteen times as great. They are thus adding to indirect taxation without giving any corresponding benefit to the people.
There are only one or two other points to which I wish to direct attention. One is the serious question of our handing over, not merely the control of our fiscal arrangements, but the control of the legislation of this House to a foreign tribunal. Let me refer for a moment to the Convention. I do not know whether the House really knows what has beep done by Article VII. of the Convention. You set up a Commission whose business it is to supervise the execution of the provisions of the Convention. And how do they propose to supervise it? We have an example of the kind of action they intend to take in the despatch of Sir Henry Bergne, dated 13th July, which said—
"The duty of the Commission was, first to examine the legislation of the Contracting States, in order to see if they were in conformity with the Convention."
And he gave an account of the proceedings taken by the Commission under this delegation of Powers. For instance, this foreign tribunal, on which we have one single representative, pronounced by a majority that "the legislation of the Netherlands was in harmony with the Convention"; and they presumed also to sit in judgment on this country. The report of our delegate said—
"Great Britain and Belgium had not yet passed their laws, and it was, therefore, not easy for the Commission to express decided opinions. I submitted our existing law and our Bill, saying, however, that the latter might be altered in Parliament. A few easily answered questions were asked, but no objections were made. A cursory examination of the Belgian Bill was made in the same way. No objection was found to it. It may be

711
added that it was recognised that all these decisions were not definitive in character, but were subject to revision at future meetings of the Commission, if occasion should arise."
That meant that our Bill may not, in the end, satisfy the Commission, and that they asserted the right to sit in judgment upon it subsequently. We have no assurance that the Bill, if passed in its present form, will satisfy this Commission. I am satisfied that this Bill, on many points, will not be in harmony with their opinions. What I want to impress on the House is that we are, first of all, legislating by direction of a foreign tribunal; and, second, that we have not got its final direction; but that, even if we pass the Bill, the result may be that this Commission may have another meeting to examine it again, and may direct the British Government to bring in an amending Bill, and compel the Government to come down to the House of Commons and say that they had an international obligation to carry out the wishes of the Commission. I do not think that is a position to which the House of Commons ought to reduce itself. It is not merely giving away our power over our fiscal arrangements, but it is surrendering our Imperial right of legislation. So far as the Crown colonies, some of which manufacture sugar, are contented, this foreign Commission is to have the right and duty of supervising their fiscal system as regards sugar, and the Imperial Government must see that these sugar colonies obey the dictates of the Commission. What is the position of the South African colonies? I understand that they are, under the Convention, clearly non-signatory States, and if so they fall under the declaration made by the Convention as to such non-signatory States. The question has been raised that if they give bounties on sugar produced in their territory, we would be compelled to exclude their sugar from this country. It is quite true that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, on behalf of the Government, repudiated that obligation. But how? He told us that he had informed the foreign Governments that we should wider no circumstances consent to penalise the sugar from our self-governing colonies. But that does not settle the question—right or wrong—under the Convention. The German,
712
Austrian, and French Governments do not accept that view.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): Our consent to the Convention was only given subject to that condition.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: But the effect is that it is disputed by certain members of the Convention, and not admitted by a good many more; and the only answer that we can give is that we deposited our ratification of the Convention on the understanding that we were not to be held liable to exclude the sugar from our bounty-giving self-governing colonies.
LORD CRANBORNE: Subject to conditions.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Then this was a conditional ratification. I do not understand a conditional ratification. Has this condition been accepted formally by the plenipotentiaries at the Convention? I understood that when a treaty has been made between eight or ten Powers, if the ratification is not absolute, it is no ratification at all. It conies to this, that we are asked to-day to sanction the execution of an international Convention, the meaning of which is disputed by one of the most important parties to it, and as to which the Government of the day has given no real ratification. I think that point ought to have been cleared up before the Bill founded on the Convention was brought before the House. I am sorry that this business has been left in the position it has been by the Government. There is a very serious question of the same sort, or of a similar kind with regard to the most favoured-nation clause. The point has been raised that the treaty as sanctioned, or, at all events, the legislation founded on the treaty, will be in conflict with the most-favoured-nation clause in treaties with foreign countries. Our Government does not admit this; Russia is of a contrary opinion. I have read the correspondence, and I think Russia sets up a very serious case. I do not think that it is a satisfactory answer to say:—"If you do not like it, we are prepared to denounce the treaty with

713
Russia." The policy which begins with a readiness to denounce commercial treaties is a policy which ought to be proceeded with very slowly. I do not argue the question as between Russia and this country; but I do not support the attitude of the Government in refusing to make this question of the meaning of the most-favoured-nation clause the subject of arbitration. That is not a satisfactory way in which a great foreign nation should be treated. That is one of the most serious objections I entertain, not only to the Convention itself, but to the Bill founded on the Convention. I put it to the noble Lord whether he can tell us if, under such a clause, in such a treaty as we have with Russia, any single State has even claimed a right of discriminating between modes of production and modes of protection. If he has a precedent of that kind I hope he will produce it. My point is that the Convention cannot give you any greater right to set aside the most-favoured-nation clause than you would have independent of the Convention. This Bill is merely in its preliminary stage to-day, and I hope there will be a full discussion on it in Committee. The great objection to it is that it is again doing what was done last session in what was called "broadening the basis of taxation." It is part of the same policy. You are increasing the burden of taxation on the poorest of the poor in the most objectionable of all forms, because you are not adding with that burden on the poorest of the poor a single penny to the Treasury revenue.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I have listened with the closest attention to this debate so far as it has at present proceeded, and a reflection has been borne in upon me by it which I desire to submit to the House. It was always found in the past to be a misfortune to a country when it was governed from one particular point of view, or in the interests of any particular class, whether it was the Court, or the Church, or the Army, or the mercantile or labouring classes. Every country ought to be governed from some central point of view, where all classes and all interests are proportionately represented; and I venture to think that even in modern days that principle to some extent applies to our Government, and that there will always
714
be ground of complaint against the Government and friction and distorted and disproportionate acts of legislation, when any one particular Department has too much to say to the making of policy. I consider that the Colonial Office has had far too much to say in our policy during the last four or five years. I think that the country ought to be governed by the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister associates himself in particular with any one of his colleagues, that colleague ought to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Treasury is, after all, in a certain sense a central point of view. When the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are closely associated, when there is an intimate sympathetic understanding between them, their views must prevail in nearly every case upon the rest of their colleagues in the Cabinet, and the course of public business will be smooth and satisfactory. But if the Prime Minister should fall under the influence of one of the spending or administrative Departments, if he should unduly allow himself to be swayed in Ins policy by the influence of a Minister of one of these Departments; worst of all, if he should hand over some part of his supreme authority to such a Minister, then I say there will be friction and disturbance in the Cabinet, and distorted and disproportionate acts of legislation like the Bill we are now considering.
I am quite aware that this is a subject upon which free traders take different views; and it is quite natural that they should. The economic arguments for or against the Sugar Convention do not he by any means on one side; and in theory, at any rate, they may be said to be almost equally divided. The abolition of bounties as a general object is one which all free traders ought to desire, or, at least, to acquiesce in, whatever views they may entertain about the method by which that abolition is obtained. Another point occurs to me. I have heard it said that this Convention will confer great benefit on the foreigner and great injury on our own people. I believe that is perfectly true. So far as the injury to our own people is concerned, I deplore it; as to the benefit to the foreigner, that is not a matter which should accentuate hostility of free traders to this Convention,

715
for we believe that in commerce the good of any is the good of all. I quite understand that there are on this side of the House a great many hon. Gentlemen whose fiscal orthodoxy is unquestionable, who will go into the Lobby to-night to support this Convention, and who will not think themselves in the least compromised as regards the far graver issues which have lately been raised. After all, when this Convention was first introduced we stood in a different position. They gave their support to the Government then, and when support is given to a Government for one special particular act of policy, it ought not to be withdrawn except for very strong reasons indeed. Therefore, I would observe that the division to-night is not a division which can in any sense be said to represent free trade opinion on the main issues which are before us; and although I do not doubt that the associates of the right hon. Gentleman (the Colonial Secretary) will not hesitate to make what capital they can out of the division, I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself is too clever to let it seriously influence his calculations. Nevertheless, I would submit to the House, and to those hon. Gentlemen who are going to vote for this Convention to-night, and who are staunch and true free traders, that the case has been very much altered since we were first confronted with this Convention. Then it stood alone. It was an isolated act of policy to meet a special case of admittedly peculiar hardship. Then the great principles of free trade under which we had so long proceeded were unchallenged, and not only unchallenged but were actually extolled, applauded and employed by the very authors of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking in support of this Bill last year, said he spoke as a convinced free trader.
Do principles change with dates? When this Convention was first brought to our notice we must remember that the rise in sugar which is contemplated, and which it is designed to effect, might be considered apart from any plan or proposal for increasing the cost of food generally in this country. Now all these things are changed. Now we are told that this Convention is a sample, a specimen, of what we are going to have when the right hon. Gentleman has got his mandate, and when the new
716
regime begins to add to the prosperity of the country. Now there is a very deliberate and insidious attack on all those principles of free trade which many of us on both sides of the House regard with veneration and confidence. Thirdly, the increase in the price of sugar, which this Bill proposes, is no longer an isolated act, but part of a general scheme for raising the cost of articles of consumption in this country, in the real or supposed interests of individuals or industries in the, colonies. The noble Marquess who has the Foreign Office in charge said in another place about three weeks ago:—
"And with regard to the question of retaliation I cannot help hoping that just as we have hardened our hearts in the case of sugar, so we may find it possible to deal in a similar spirit with similar aggression in respect of other kinds of industries and manufactures."
This Bill, therefore, if I understand it rightly, is a working model submitted to us for inspection before we lay down plant on a large scale. I do not desire to pay any compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that if that is the intention of the measure it is a very perfect working model indeed. There is hardly a feature which the greater scheme contains which is not shown on a small and convenient scale in this Sugar Convention Bill. I notice, in the first place, the same avoidance of debate. This measure was passed last session at a single sitting, which was terminated by the closure. It is brought in this session very late, when many hon. Gentlemen have to be away from the House, and when naturally interest in political affairs is not so keen as it would be at an earlier and cooler period of the session. There is the same inconsistency in this measure as in the greater scheme. The corn tax was abolished just before we were to be told that a tax on corn is vital to the continuance of the Empire. There is the same inconsistency shown in Clause 11 of this measure that we are actually prevented from making, in respect of sugar, that preferential arrangement with our colonies which the right hon. Gentleman says is necessary if we are to remain an Empire, or indeed a nation. There is the same disingenuous use of free trade arguments, the same interference with trade, the same odd mixture of sentiment and business, and the same astonishing exaggeration of colonial

717
as against British interests. There are, moreover, one or two very instructive points to be noticed. We have a fine, full-fledged, substantial specimen of "dumping" in full working order. All the nations of Europe are combining "to dump," and we find it very profitable. We are to have retaliation, such as a great Imperial statesman, if he obtain carte blanche from the electorate, would apply, and it is found that this retaliation is unnecessary, wasteful, futile, awl inconvenient. Lastly, we have one thing very certain, whatever else may be uncertain, whatever else may be arguable, and whatever else may be proved or not proved—we have in this, as in the greater scheme, the certainty of dearer food. We have dearer food, not as a statement in a leaflet, not as a Parliamentary device of the Opposition, not merely as a menace for the future, but as an accomplished fact, avowed and admitted, and which is vaunted as the achievement of the legislation we are now asked to pass. I would ask the House to remember that we have to consider this Sugar Convention in a new light. We have to consider the proposal to increase the price of sugar—for that is what the Convention practically does, as far as we are concerned—in conjunction with the Colonial Secretary's proposal to put a considerable tax on corn, and with his plan of putting a tax on meat, including bacon. We have to consider the proposal to increase the price of sugar in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's plan of putting a tax on butter, cheese, and eggs. The right hon. Gentleman will contradict me if I am wrong.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I cannot contradict the hen. Gentleman.
MR WINSTON CHURCHILL: The House will doubtless appreciate the extreme reluctance of the right hon. Gentleman to give any information on this subject. Lastly, we have to consider the proposal to increase the cost of sugar in conjunction with the proposal to increase the cost of fruit. Under these circumstances, I think that hon. Gentlemen, even those who, on free trade grounds, support this measure, are justified in pausing before they finally commit themselves by voting for it, while those of us who have opposed the Bill from the beginning—and I may
718
claim to have been one of the first to protest against it—find ourselves fortified in our hostility by the facts I have mentioned. Let me look a little more in detail at some of the features of this smaller scheme which are also apparent on a larger scale in the greater scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. What is the position to which the bounty-giving nations have reduced themselves by the policy of bounties? I do not take the view that they are poor ignorant foreigners, unable to appreciate the simplest economic truths which any schoolboy is able to learn. These things are not so simple as that.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the case for fair trade is sufficiently delusive to be of considerable use when it comes to an electioneering campaign. We are ourselves learning the temptations to which the minds of quite clever people are exposed by the arguments of fair trade and protection when they are put forward, as they were last night, by a very skilful politician. But we are not in the position that foreign nations were in when they embarked on the bounty system. It is very easy to embark on that policy, but it is very hard to stop, and still harder to repair the consequences which that policy entails. We have not merely to balance economic arguments one against the other; we can see the results of the policy itself. We have the experience of these other countries before us, and we shall have only ourselves to blame if we are led into the same disasters and the same confusion. What is the experience of all the European nations who have adopted the bounty system? They have reduced themselves to an astonishing position. Vast industries of poor people, artificially stimulated, exerting considerable political power, and using that political power to maintain and even increase that artificial stimulation; giant trusts enjoying a complete monopoly of the home market, making enormous profits out of the home consumer, and no doubt using the wealth thus obtained still further to influence the Government machinery. As the

719
result of this state of things over-production on a prodigious scale; cut-throat competition between the trusts for the free English market; enormous exportations at unprofitable prices, and encouragement by the Government of this enormous unprofitable exportation, which increases year by year at an astonishing rate. As the result, again, of this, a score of trades in these countries are hampered by dear sugar, and many industries are driven out of the country; the bounty-giving Governments are confronted with deficits and financial embarrassment, and sugar is 7d. a pound to the population of the country in which the sugar is grown. And all this time free trade England, anchored by irrefragable logic to economic truth, rides out the gale—indolent, prosperous, triumphant. What an object-lesson! They would indeed have been poor ignorant foreigners if they had not made a great effort to repair the misfortunes which have come upon them through the policy they had adopted. It is to their conviction that this bounty system had got out of hand and was injuring them in an extraordinary manner, and to their belief that they must do something to put a stop to it, and not to the diplomacy of Lord Lansdowne, or the supplications of the West Indies, or even the prestige of the Colonial Secretary, that the Sugar Convention we are now considering is due.
I would ask to be allowed to consider a little more in detail the great advantages which accrue to England, not through any merit of our own, but through the adoption of this bounty policy by European States. I am told on very good authority that, merely looking at the difference between the price of sugar with the bounty and the price as it would have been without the bounty, the gain to this country is £5,000,000 a year. But that does not by any means represent the total advantages. We have to add to that the economies in the cost of production which this extraordinary, and, to some extent, unhealthy competition has produced. Those economies have amounted in many cases, in regard not only to beet, but also to cane sugar, to 50 per cent. of total cost. The sum of these two advantages may be
720
variously estimated at from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 a year. What are the consequences of all this? I think it was Burke who said of the French Revolutionists, that they forgot that every set of circumstances involved every other set of circumstances. So it is with the fair traders. They watch the river flowing to the sea, and they wonder how long it will be before the land is parched and drained of all its water. They do not observe the fertilising showers by which in the marvellous economy of nature the water is restored to the land. Sugar is cheaper in England than anywhere else. What does that mean to our crowded populations? First of all it means that the masses of our people eat more sugar, and are comforted and strengthened thereby. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that important? [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN made no reply.] The right hon. Gentleman does not think that important! I think it very important, and I know a lot of people outside this House who think it very important too. Next, because they spend less upon their sugar they have more to spend on other things. See what a real refreshment this is to that great home market of which we hear so little from the right hon. Gentleman that one might almost think he did not now it existed. It is very difficult to trace further the consequences of these two great advantages which we have enjoyed; their further consequences are real, large, important, and valuable, but intangible. There is, however, a third set of advantages which are enjoyed as the result of cheap sugar and which we can trace a little further. Upon the basis of this cheap sugar, precarious and unnatural as it was to some extent, which we obtained, not by breaking, but by rigidly adhering to economic law, there grew up a various and imposing array of secondary industries. The hon. Member who yesterday moved the rejection of the Bill, in a speech which I venture to think was heard not without pleasure even in quarters where it did not excite agreement, read a long list of the industries which had grown up as a result of cheap sugar. We make jam and biscuits for the world; we make soda-water, and all kinds of sweets; even French chocolate is made in London. And in spite of the greedy

721
consumption of the home market—for the home consumers clustered like a swarm of bees round these good things—our export trade in these commodities steadily increased. I was reading only on Monday an article in The Times by that writer whose articles are so interesting and amusing, and who, though he is plainly a very wasteful person, signs himself "Economist," and I observed a quotation from the Statistical Abstract showing that the export trade in confectionery is increasing to a very considerable extent. Then, Sir, sugar attracts fruit. The union between sugar and fruit is natural, pleasant, profitable, and prolific. I wonder that my right hon. friend the Member for the Sleaford Division, who all his life has been on the watch for anything that could help or benefit the agriculturist, has not attacked the right hon. Gentleman for reducing the cheapness of sugar which has no doubt reacted on the demand for fruit in the English market. Furthermore we must remember that all these articles require other commodities to wait on them. Bottles have to be made to hold the soda-water, pots for the jam, jars for the pickles and preserved fruits, labels for all, and corks, stoppers, and boxes. Special and complicated machinery had to be set up. I am told that at the Glasgow Exhibition there was a corridor or large gallery entirely occupied with the special kinds of machinery used in the making of jams, biscuits, and so forth, the construction of which has been made a great and growing industry in England by the stimulus afforded by cheap sugar. I do not say that the withdrawal of the bounties would kill these industries. That would be attempting to prove too much. But in so far as you succeed in raising the price of sugar—and you have already succeeded to some extent—you will injure all these industries, and they know it well. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade told us that the sugar refiners had been ruined. That is not quite true. No doubt they have suffered, but, as has been pointed out, they now produce more than they produced before. I see that there are now employed 2,416 persons in the refining business, as against 3,733 in 1891. Although there has been a decline, which I do not want in any way to minimise, it is not arguable that that decline can be set against the great and vigorous new trades which have sprang up.
722
I have a theory which I should very much like to have examined by competent persons. I will make a present of it to the Prime Minister, who is almost the only person in the country, not grossly ignorant of the whole subject, who has an open mind, and perhaps he will have it tested. Old countries in which there are no new discoveries—of mines, mineral oil, or water power—must look not so much to their basic industries for the development and expansion of their trade as to the more complicated and secondary processes of manufacture. As their primary industries are brought more and more into competition with the resources of new countries, possessing perhaps greater natural facilities, it will undoubtedly be necessary for the older countries gradually to move on to the more complicated and secondary processes of manufacture, and in the higher grades of manufacture to obtain the expansion of their trade which they need. I have heard it said that in the evolution of the steel and iron trade something of that process is to be traced. We export less in weight, but more in value. I think there is something hearing on that point in this sugar story also. So far as it is effective, I think we ought to contemplate that evolution and the transference of our people from being, as it were, hewers of wood and drawers of water to the more elaborate processes of manufacture with unmixed satisfaction. But if we are to find that outlet for our strength, energy and skill, it will be only by utilising our resources of capital, which old countries have accumulated, in the provision of better education, the best machinery, and the highest scientific knowledge. It is only by those means, and under the influence of open competition and free enterprise, that we may succeed in finding the outlets we so seriously need.
At this stage in the story it is right to consider the action of the Colonial Secretary.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: You have been considering nothing else.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman occupies such a very large arena. The West Indies are unde the Colonial Office; the West Indies were suffering; the West Indies had to be relieved. Parliament had shown its disinclination to continue the policy of subsidies;

723
consequently we were hurried into this Convention. Now either this Convention will raise prices or it will not. If it raises prices the English consumer pays; if it does not raise prices the colonial producer does not gain. The Convention has, in fact, raised prices by about £2 per ton. Have the objects of the Convention, therefore, been achieved? It is not enough merely to raise prices, but to raise them sufficiently to let in West Indian sugar. In order that the West Indies should benefit effectually, it is necessary that the British consumer should suffer substantially. But that is not all. There is no parity between the loss and gain. It cannot even be argued that what we take out of the pockets of one class of British subjects we put into the pockets of another class. Even assuming that the whole of the present output of West Indian sugar is taken by this country as a result of this Convention, we shall still have to buy from foreign countries six times as much as we get from the West Indies. For the purposes of the argument it does not matter by how much sugar is going to rise. But the President of the Board of Trade knows all about the future rise in price. If he is such a good prophet, I wish he would tell us when the general election is going to be, and what the result is going to be. I will not emulate the right hon. Gentleman's prophetic power. For every 1s. per cwt. that sugar goes up it is self-evident that we pay 1s. more for what we buy. The West Indian producer gets 1s. more for what he sells, and as we buy six times as much sugar from foreign countries as from the West Indies, we lose 6s. for every 1s. the West Indian gains. That is a very interesting calculation, because it enables us to measure the relative importance which the Colonial Secretary attaches to a British subject resident in the colonies under the authority and protection of the Colonial Office and one of the ordinary subjects of the King. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, a British loss of 6s. is compensated for by a colonial gain of 1s. That, again, accords well with the general conception of this larger scheme. But it does not stop there. It is certain that we shall lose, but it is not certain that the West Indies will gain. We lose immediately; the West Indies may not
724
gain for a great many years. Therefore it is not an exaggeration to say that the actual opinion of the right hon. Gentleman tested mathematically as to the relative importance of persons under the care of the Colonial Office and persons outside the authority of that Department, is that a certain and immediate loss of 6s. to the British public is compensated for by the remote possibility of a gain of 1s. to the West Indies. We are to lose. There is no doubt about that. Even if this Convention would save the West Indies I would not support it. I think there are cheaper ways of helping them. But will it save the West Indian sugar industry? The real market of the West Indies, I am informed by those who have carefully studied the subject, is not to be found in Europe. The West Indies export 260,000 tons of sugar per annum, of which 200,000 tons go to America, and only 60,000 tons to the rest of the world. In regard to the export to America, they are greatly aided by countervailing duties. The United States have now acquired Cuba, and that, with the growth of the beet industry in the United States, is going to make them, as regards sugar, nearly as self-supporting as the right hon. Gentleman would like this Empire to be. In four or five years, therefore, the American market w ill probably be closed to the West Indies. What follows? They will have to find a market over here not for 60,000 tons, but for 260,000 tons, and that sugar have to come into competition with the will product of Europe. Although sugar will undoubtedly rise under this Convention, there is great probability that it will not rise sufficiently to benefit the West Indies. I will give the House five reasons for that. The stocks of sugar are enormous. The harvest last year was the best on record. European consumption will naturally grow slowly. European production, when the bounties are withdrawn, will naturally dwindle slowly. Lastly, the rise in price will stimulate competition from Java and India. The result may easily be that we shall suffer this loss through the rise in sugar without conferring those benefits on the West Indies which everyone in this House would gladly see conferred. We shall not save the West Indian industry; we

725
shall only prolong its dying agony; and by impoverishing ourselves we shall weaken our power to help the West Indies in the hour of their need as charity may suggest and policy dictate. Under these circumstances, I shall have the greatest satisfaction in recording, consistently with my former action, my vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: The hon. Member for Oldham has pointed out that we do not stand exactly where we did when this Convention was first introduced. I think that is perfectly true. We do not know exactly where we do stand. But as far as I understand the scheme of the Colonial Secretary—and I confess I do not understand it in all its completeness—there are aspects of it which do not in any way commend themselves to me. The hon. Member for Oldham bids us examine the Bill before the House as.a working model of the larger scheme which the right hon. Gentleman is to propound. On that I will make only this observation. If this Convention is a true sample of the bulk of the larger scheme, our fears will be very largely diminished. I desire to distinguish between the objective or principle of this Bill and the machinery by which effect is to be given to it. I remember an interesting occasion in this House when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General attempted to distinguish between theology and the machinery by which you give effect to theology, and he received a very severe rebuke from my noble friend below the gangway for distinguishing between doctrines of religion and the machinery by which they are propagated. We are not now dealing with theology, but with an economic subject, and although one hears the phrase orthodoxy and heterodoxy in connection with this matter, it is from persons whom no one would ever suspect of being theologians. What is the declared objective of this Convention? It is the removal of the inequality of competition between the different kinds of sugar and the increased consumption of sugar. I think those are objects which must commend themselves to every free
726
trader. The evil which it is desired to remove by this Convention is the artificial stimulation of a particular commodity in given countries by the settled policy of the State in giving bounties to the producer, which has created an unfair competition. That, Mr. Speaker, is the evil which this Convention is designed to remove, and it is a course, I think, which may fairly be taken by free traders to remedy the state of things which exists in Central Europe. In this connection, may I point out that what it is desired to alter is an unfair and illegitimate and artificial system by which a bounty-fed product has driven out, or at any rate has retarded, the development of another product which relies wholly or mainly upon the natural law of supply and demand. The hon. Member for Devonport, in a most able speech, called attention to the relative position of beet and cane sugar, and seemed to argue that cane sugar had not suffered in the way some hon. Members of this House had suggested. I hold in my hand some interesting figures on this point, which show that between 1892 and 1902 the development of beet sugar, under the steady influence of a system of State bounties and cartels, had risen from 3,420,000 tons to 5,850,000 tons; and that during the same period the other kind of sugar which rely mainly upon natural circumstances, and owe nothing to State assistance, had only varied to this extent—that in 1893 the production was 3,510,000 tons, and in 1902–3 it had only reached 3,940,000 tons, which practically may be taken as a stationary position. I do not think it can be denied that that is not a satisfactory position for this country to contemplate. When hon. Members speak of the effect of bounties, it is impossible for them to judge them by their effect in one or two years, and during our debates upon this question the cumulative effect of bounties, steadily pursued for a course of years, has been somewhat ignored. I think the figures I have given to the House fairly show that these bounties have artificially stimulated the one kind of sugar, and in that way the effect has been to depress and retard the development of the more natural and, if I may say so, the more nutritious kind of the article.

727
A great deal has been said about the possible results of this Convention. I do not intend, in regard to the question of price, to enter the schools of the prophets. I think it is perfectly impossible to predict either the exact price or the average price which will rule in the future as regards such an article as sugar. But I think it cannot be for a moment denied that the general tendency after the removal of these bounties will be for the price of sugar to advance. I know there are some hon. Members of this House who persuade themselves that all these matters are the concern of the foreigner. They imagine that if a duty is imposed upon an article it is always in some mysterious way borne by the foreigner, who takes the convenient form of a United States railway which reduces its carriage in order to countervail the effect of the duty. I cannot really follow such a mysterious doctrine as that. If you impose a duty, the result is in the main to increase the price of the article to the consumer: and in the same way, if you have an artificial cheapness due to the giving of a bounty in the producing country, the removal of that bounty will have exactly the same effect, and will raise the price of the article. I am not going for a moment to deny that I think the general result of the abolition of these bounties will be a tendency to raise prices. I followed carefully the hon. Member for Oldham in his description of the advantages which this country has derived from the cheap sugar supplied by Central Europe. I do not think it is possible or desirable to minimise those advantages; we must face them, and the only valid argument which I think will be found in the long run to hold water, as justifying us in voting for this Convention as free traders, is that by so doing we are attacking and condemning the vicious principle of State interference with trade, and the artificial cheapening or enhancing of values by State interference. That is the principle which is attacked by this Convention, and it is therefore with a clear conscience, or almost a clear conscience, that as a free trader I vote for this Bill.
I am aware that the West Indies have to be considered in this matter. I followed the hon. Member for Devonport in his remarks, when he stated that the refining industry of this country had not
728
suffered very much from these bounties. I think he must admit that there has been a great dislocation of trade, and I cannot conceive that it has been altogether for the benefit of the refiners of this country that they have had to scrap a great deal of their machinery, and transfer or close their works altogether. They have also had to adapt their machinery to this particular kind of beet sugar in such a manner that they are not prepared to deal now with cane sugar at all. That is a point which appears to have escaped the hon. Member for Devonport. That is a point which emphasises the artificial position as regards this country, which I do not think is a safe one, because it places us more or less at the mercy of State bounties adopted by France, Germany, and Austria, and which I think, as free traders, we are justified in getting rid of, if we can do so upon the merits of the case. I am not, however, prepared to rest the case upon the West Indies, which supply only 2½ per cent. of our total imports of sugar. But while I do not desire to ignore them as a factor, I do not think it is possible to justify this Convention upon the case of the West Indies alone. I do not desire to get into the habit, which I think would be deplorable, of weighing the colonies against the mother country. In this case, were I to do so, I am not sure the scales would not go against the West Indies. That is the last thing I wish to do. I wish to see the British Empire knit together by bonds light as air, but durable as steel, and it should not be driven to rest itself for unity upon a series of huckstering bargains between its component parts, in which the gain of each would be regarded as the loss of another. While I take that point of view, I must fall back upon the larger and wider view which has been tacitly adopted and affirmed by the high contracting parties to this Convention, namely, that these bounties have produced a false economic position, that they are burdensome to the countries that have given them, and who now desire to be released from them; that we feel that the principle is vicious, and that the position in which we are placed is not satisfactory; and that, weighing the whole thing up upon a balance, we are prepared to adopt the principle of this Convention.

729
Then, Sir, may I say a word or two about the machinery? I think that such steps as the abolition of the bounties and the rigorous limitation of the surtax are distinctly in the right direction. The hon. Member who spoke from the opposite benches called attention to this fact, that in some way a new system of bounties by means of the surtax was set up by this Convention. I think these surtaxes have always existed in these producing countries, or at any rate have existed for a very long time, and that they have been the basis upon which these cartels and trusts have flourished, which have been instrumental in producing this artificial state of affairs. Therefore the abolition of the bounties, from a free trade point of view, must be welcomed as a pure gain That is also a distinctly free trade position. The further position that no preferential terms are to be given, either by this country or by the Netherlands, to their colonies is surely one more concession to the principle of free trade. I freely admit what we are going to get under the Convention is not absolute free trade in sugar. It is only an approximation to free trade in sugar. It is perfectly true that protective duties remain in the countries that now have them, though they are, under this Convention, to be strictly limited, regulated, supervised, and confined to what those countries think their legitimate object—the protection of their native industry. Therefore it is open to the opponents of this Convention to say that we are conniving to a certain extent at a vicious violation of free trade principles by allowing our delegates to administer or supervise the protective machinery of those European countries. I understand that possibly in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite there is some fear that our delegates may be contaminated in their free trade principles by having to supervise this protective machinery. Well, there is a very easy remedy. Those delegates have been appointed, but I suppose they can be changed. There are plenty of gentlemen, even hon. Members of this House, who are so far inoculated already with protectionist principles, who could be trusted to go into this bad company and take no harm whatever. I am not sure but that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade—though I am sure we could not afford to lose him from this
730
House—went on the Commission, so far from taking any harm he might give them a wrinkle or two in the matter of protective machinery which it is some part of the work of the Commission to supervise. But this concession, if it be a concession, to protective principles, will not, I hope, be too severely condemned. Even Naaman was not condemned by Elijah for occasionally bowing in the House of Rimmon, even after his flesh had come again to him as a little child, and I do not find it recorded of Elijah that he had any attack of leprosy for saying to him, after hearing his confession of weakness, "Go in Peace." Therefore I hope we may as free traders on this side of the House be forgiven if we are satisfied with a fairly complete approach on the part of those European Powers to free trade principles, if we cherish hopes of their final conversion, and if we, because we cannot free them at once from chains of protective bondage, yet do not refuse to extend to them a helping hand upon the path upon which, I take it, they are now entering.
The hon. Member for Oldham referred to this Convention as a dangerous precedent, and as simply a sample of what might be further expected. If any future measures are taken by this country to meet bounty-fed competition, and the same conditions are insisted on that exist in this Convention, I do not think we shall have much to fear. You have general consent not to the indiscriminate retaliation of one autonomous fiscal unit against another, but a general consent of most, if not all, of the principal nations of Europe to retaliate, and to retaliate only in cases of specific offence on the part of the nation giving bounties upon sugar. A strict adherence to this principle will make the punishment fit the crime, by making the amount of countervailing duty equivalent exactly to the bounty conferred, with a provision, of course, that the countervailing duty will cease with the cessation on the bounty given by the producing country. I think that all these are satisfactory features, and that on the whole, although this Convention has its doubtful and weak points, it is a sufficient vindication and justification of the principles of free trade to enable us who are free traders on this side of the House to vote for it with a certain amount of goodwill. Though the political position has certainly

731
changed since this Convention was first introduced, may I say that I have been strongly fortified in my adherence to it by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. I do not refer to his recent speeches, although, of course, they have made an impression on my mind, nor do I refer to those earlier speeches of, say, twenty years ago, which are now for some mysterious reason being circulated so widely throughout the country. I refer to his comparatively recent speech on the 24th November last year, in which he justified this Convention upon absolute free trade principles. On that occasion the Colonial Secretary said:—
"The hon. Member for South Shields, I think, triumphantly appealed to what he says is the fact that since the adoption of a protectionist policy by foreign countries their trade has fallen off proportionately to ours. Well, Sir, as a convinced free trader, I listened to that argument really with seine alarm. Because, if free trade is to stand upon such a foundation as that—upon that assumption that protection has reduced proportionately the trade of foreign countries in comparison with our own—we have indeed to look forward to a bad time for free trade, because the absolute reverse is the case. As a matter of fact, since the establishment and since the increase of this protectionist policy, we have found the trade in the United States, which is the most protectionist of all nations, and the trade of Germany, which conies very near at its heels—we have found that trade increasing with giant strides, and we have found it increasing in very much larger proportion than our own. I have always thought that there was an answer to that from a free trade point of view. We must attribute this enormous expansion of trade to other circumstances, without detracting from the principle of free trade. What was the doctrine of free trade? It was not founded merely on commercial expediency or on questions of temporary loss or gain, but on the endeavour to establish as a principle that everything should be done to secure the natural course of production and exchange. Mr. Cobden said something to this effect—I do not know that I am using his exact words—that, 'What we (meaning the free traders) want is that every source of supply should be open to us as Nature and Nature's God intended it should be, and without artificial hindrance.' But this Convention, on the face of it, at any rate, is surely intended to secure this equality, and to secure the natural course of trade. Our object is to secure the natural course of production and exchange."
That line of argument and justification by the Colonial Secretary of this Convention amounts to this, that it is a defensive operation against the artificial deflection of trade from its natural sources by the intervention of States; and that seems
732
to me the most emphatic condemnation imaginable of any attempt to apply the same principle either to this country or to the British Empire at large. I will take a hypothetical case and assume that some Minister of the Crown were to step forward and suggest that our colonies, or some part of the British Empire, was to be given a bounty—for that is what it comes to—in the shape of a preference in the largest consuming market in the world—the market of this country—and to propose that particular parts of the British Empire should be artificially stimulated to produce certain food-stuffs, just as central Europe was stimulated to produce beet. I should place that proposal exactly on all fours with the policy of Germany, Austria, and France, which in another way, but with exactly the same object, has stimulated the artificial supply of beet sugar in those countries. I do not want to insist too much upon the argument, but it appears to me that those on this side of the House who are going to vote in favour of this Convention are voting in condemnation of the artificial deflection of industry, and in condemnation, as the Colonial Secretary himself put it, of any interference with the natural course of trade. If a Minister should ever come forward with such a proposal I should rely on the Colonial Secretary of November last year, as the champion of the principle of non-interference with the natural course of free trade, to be foremost in the application of the principle to the British Empire. This is a line of argument which I think amply justifies those of us who are free traders on tins side of the House in voting for this Convention. I admit that it is not a perfect measure, but it is possibly the best that could have been done in all the circumstances. It is at any rate an attempt to deal with a principle which is vicious and which leads to artificial results. I hope it may be successful, but, in any case, the vote we shall give to-night in its favour will be to retard, if not to shatter, any movement for applying this radically vicious principle to the Empire of which we are so proud.
MR. LEVY: I think I have never heard professed free traders put forth the theory that to close our ports is the best method of expressing their opinions

733
as free traders. And yet, practically, that is what the last speaker has done. I always thought that free trade was to open our ports and to take all the goods we required which other nations would send us at the lowest possible price. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in introducing this Bill, said we were compelled to pass it, otherwise it would be a breach of faith on our part as a nation. I am not quite sure of that, as under Article XII. the "constitutional laws of each of the contracting parties" must be adhered to; and it is specifically provided that if we or any other nation should not confirm the ratification of the Convention, it is possible for the other nations to continue or secede from it—thus making it clear that we are not irrevocably bound to this Convention. I go farther, and ask: Is it better to break faith with foreign nations or to break faith with the people of this country, and, by a side issue, alter the whole fiscal policy of this country? For this is undoubtedly the first step in the Colonial Secretary's scheme towards the abolition of free trade in Great Britain. Still further, is not this Bill intended to put an increase on the cost of the food of the people of this country, possibly to the amount of £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 per annum? The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade said that the price of sugar would not average in the future more than 10s. a cwt. But that would necessarily lead to an enormous increase in the cost to the people, and therefore there would be a diminished quantity of money to spend on other commodities, therefore while we are all thinking so much now of the education of the rising generation, of physical culture, and of the necessity of getting a strong manhood, we are going by this Convention to limit the supply of food to the great majority of the people of the country. The Secretary to the Board of Trade asked last evening, "Do principles change with dates?" That is a very pertinent question, which should surely have been addressed to the other side of the House, and the right hon. the Colonial Secretary might have given an answer; and if he were consistent to his principles he should support the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for West
734
Islington. Speaking on the sugar question in this House in August, 1881, the Colonial Secretary said:
"Why is it that this trade has been so prosperous of late years, so much so that I have heard it currently reported that one of the leaders of this manufacture has made a fortune of £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 in less than twenty years. It is partly, at all events, in consequence of the injudicious system adopted by these countries, which has enabled our manufacturers to get their raw sugar at less than cost price, and has enabled them to undersell the manufacturers of the rest of the world, especially neutral countries."
Why should we to-night endeavour to do away with what the Colonial Secretary says enables us to get sugar at less than cost price and to undersell the manufacturers of the rest of the world? Probably the Colonial Secretary may take this opportunity of showing how the wages of the people of this country can be increased when the price of their food is increased. It is his duty to do so. We have a right to demand that he should show how he proposes to increase the wages of a great majority of the people of the country when we are to give annually £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 more for our sugar to the foreigner. What precedent have we for that?
This whole thing has been engineered by the Anti-Bounty League. The Royal Commission on the condition of the West Indies has reported directly against this Convention, and stated—
"It must be recollected that the chief outside influence which the Government of certain colonies have to redeem are the representatives of the sugar estates, that these persons are not interested in anything else but sugar, that the establishment of any other industry is often detrimental to their interests, that under such conditions it is the special duty of your Majesty's Government to see that the welfare of the general public is not sacrificed to the interests, or supposed interests, of a small but influential minority which has special means of enforcing its wishes and bringing its claims to notice."
Surely these words prove conclusively that the agitation in favour of the Convention was not got up on the part of the great majority of the people of the West Indies but on behalf of those who owned the sugar estates there. We are not justified in endeavouring to bolster up a decaying industry—decaying

735
on account of their land laws, the indolence of the people, the lack of improved machinery, and the want of enterprise. If we wish to improve the West Indies there is a far better method than allowing our own trade rivals to dictate to us what the fiscal policy of this country should be. When we do that we lay ourselves open to the Members of the Brussels Sugar Commission to dictate to us what shall be the conditions under which we shall carry on our trade with people who buy from us £100,000,000 of goods every year. In my opinion, the people of the West Indies would be infinitely more benefited if we established there a system of peasant proprietors, if we got rid of the "gombeen" man; if we provided, if you like at the Government expense, new machinery for the sugar factories; if we endeavoured to reduce the shipping charges, and secured better conditions of labour for the people. Half-a-million spent in this way would do far better service to the West Indies and to this country than by the ratification of this Convention.
But there is a more serious aspect to the question, and that is the international and the colonial aspect. Now, the United States have not been invited to take part in the Conference, and I think we have a right to know why the United States were not invited. We also have a right to know whether our Government has since received any communication from the United States Government in reference to this Convention. I know it is argued by the members of the Government that America sends us very little sugar. Although that may be true, at the present moment America has a very large sugar-producing power, and under the conditions which it possesses that power may increase year by year. I believe that the amount of sugar imported by the United States last year was £2,500,000 less, than in any previous year, and when its resources are developed it will naturally become an exporting country. Then this Conference in Brussels might say to us, "You shall not continue to receive sugar from the United States in future because it is a countervailing and bounty-giving nation." That is a very serious state of chairs to contemplate. It is absurd to think that we should have a policy dic-
736
tated by foreigners who are all more or less anxious to capture our markets if they possibly can. But again, have we not got to look after our colonies? The Colonial Secretary is always saying that we should have the power to give preferential tariffs to the colonies; but under the conditions of this Convention we should be excluded from such a course, for by this Convention we are bound to do nothing to interfere with the inflow of sugar from Germany. Germany would therefore have control over our imports from our colonies because it was distinctly stated in the German Parliament by Baron von Thillman, that—
"As regards England, I can affirm that the Imperial Government will sign no Convention in which we bind ourselves to her as regards export bounties or sugar duty, were she to retain a free hand to treat the raw sugar front her colonies more favourably titan German sugar."
The case is even somewhat more serious, because when handing in the ratification of the Convention, Baron Koziebrodzki, of Austria, stated clearly that his Government would not be bound by the reservation Great Britain had inserted, and which Germany would not accept, and that Austria and Hungary would "merely take note of the reservation made by the Royal Government of Great Britain, on the presumption that, in practice, no bounty fed sugar coming from the English self-governing colonies would be imported into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the period of the Convention, and they reserve to themselves a complete liberty of action, in case a considerable importation of such sugar into the United Kingdom should occur during the course of this period." That shows clearly and conclusively that any considerable importation of sugar from any of our colonies where there is any system of bounty or preference will be prohibited by this Convention; and, therefore, I say we have no right to enter lightly into this Convention. There are far better methods of providing for the needs of the West Indies. It is unnecessary that the people of this country should be asked to make such sacrifices and have one of the principal items of their food taxed to such an unreasonable rate, nor ought we to be

737
parties to any such arrangement which permits the traders of Russia, Austria, France, Germany and Belguim, to limit and allot the exports of sugar in such a way as to increase the price in Great Britain, nor ought we to permit foreign nations to dictate our fiscal policy. On these grounds I support the Amendment of my hon. friend.
MR. CUST: Unwilling as I ever am even to criticise for a moment the policy of the Government, I am bound both by consistency and conviction to protest against the further progress of this scheme, not only for its own inherent viciousness, but because of the methods and management by which it has been introduced and forwarded. I quite admit the danger of refusing support to the Government in Acts of an international character; indeed, my attitude is not opposition, but rather in the nature of what I believe in philanthropic circles is called rescue work. We want to save the Government from itself, not by destruction, but by postponement. We want to stop it committing suicide, but we do not want to kill it ourselves.
The President of the Board of Trade expressed a hope that the same speakers would not use the same arguments as last year, and then he himself recapitulated as lucidly, but more concisely, his speech of last year. And here, Sir, on a particular point, I would protest most emphatically against the right hon. Gentleman's sentimental appeal to "National honour," "good faith," "obligations," etc. He appeals first to the preliminary negotiations, then to the Resolution of last year, and then to the signing of the Convention. I will not dwell on how the original approval of the House was obtained. The plan was sprung on us at very short notice indeed. The House was largely in ignorance of the subject, and had not time to appreciate the character of the Blue-book, which had only just been issued. The Colonial Secretary, on the eve of his departure as the apostle of colonial peace, made an appeal to the House not to handicap his future; and I do not think that an expression of approval, which was then obtained, such as it was, in any way
738
bound the honour and good faith of this country. But, apart from these singular methods, a financial treaty expressly differs from all others. The assent of the House must be obtained before such a treaty binds, and this is expressly recognised in this treaty. Article XII. lays down that the treaty can only be ratified and confirmed subject to the passing of this Bill.
It is absurd, therefore, to talk of honour and good faith. If the Government has engaged the country in such an understanding they have grossly exceeded their powers; if they have not, their appeal is, to put it indulgently, mere sentimental rhetoric. We know that France and Austria, two of the most important Powers, equally engaged with ourselves, have admittedly not yet fulfilled the legislative necessities, but we have not heard for a moment that their national honour and good faith are impugned.
So much for the methods and the handling of this proposal. Now what are the motives, and what will be the result? The motive, as we gathered from the debate in November, must be one of three: (1) To benefit this country; (2) to benefit the West Indies; (3) to push the principles of Free Trade.
The case of the West Indies has been already dealt with at length. The one central authority found for us by the Government is the Report of their own Commission, which may be summarised as follows: The West Indies may be saved, but the abolition of bounties will not save them. I will read extracts from that Report, if desired, but all interested have read it already. Here, Sir, I would pray the Government to remember that there is much value in a sense of proportion. When we hear, as we did last night from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, that "great staple industries" are being ruined by bounties, it gives us pause. But when we find that the great staple industry supplies us with something between 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. of the great staple, and that we are to mulct ourselves in millions to save this tiny fraction, it gives us pause again. It has been shown us ad nauseam that sugar is not now the natural industry of the West Indies. The Commission has so reported

739
and has suggested alternatives. In the face of knowledge, evidence, and sense we are being driven to make a great sacrifice to gain a great loss. Surely some sense of proportion is wanting. In the same month we are bleeding to death the East Indies, which form our greatest possession, and for the West Indies, which form our smallest, we are bleeding ourselves when our blood can ill be spared.
Now as to the effect on this country. Sir Henry Norman's calculation of ½d. per £ increase would mean £6,000,000 lost to this country. This the President of the Board of Trade amiably, but quite conjecturally, denies. I will not go into the enormous sums of capital and labour connected with it, which are dependent on cheap sugar, a cheapness that at present at any rate, depends on foreign bounties. We were told last night that the divine Cobden,—I say divine in the sense that the dead Roman Emperors were called divine—wished only for the "natural price," whatever that may mean; careless as he was as to whether it was more or less the consumer had to pay. Well, Cobden is dead and our times are other than his! I would only ask the House, did ever any man out of Wonderland, whether in Cobden's time or any other, did over a customer threaten and bluster and bully a shopkeeper in order to force his prices up? Did ever a man haggle to pay more? Did ever human being remove his custom from a store on the ground that the goods were not nasty, but by far too cheap?
A point much dwelt upon both by the President and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was as to the advantages gained in this country by the abolition of bounties, the right hon. Gentleman read a somewhat musty letter from a Mr. Keiller, a jam-maker, dated 1889, which has been raked up from the archives of the Board of Trade to grace this occasion. Mr. Keiller favoured the abolition of bounties, and the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the jam-makers of 1889 "knew better and saw farther than the jam-makers of to-day." Why so, Sir? Was 1889 the Augustan age of English jam-makers? Is it not probable that the jam-makers of to-day, who are unanimous against this Bill, may understand their own jam-making best? So, Sir, if the Bill will not save the West Indies, if the Bill will damage consumers in this country, is it brought in
740
to further the principle of free trade? I never know now-a-days whether to mention the word free trade is profane or whether it is improper. This unhappy Bill puts us all in vexatious positions. The lines of cleavage, nowadays, are somewhat tortuous and zigzag. Anyhow, last year considerable capital was made in support of this Bill, as constituting a sort of encyclical address to all nations, in support of the true doctrine. The Colonial Secretary himself "speaking as a convinced free trader," listened with some alarm to the arguments of the hon. Member for South Shields, a statement in itself which has found a new humour only six months after, and he also observed—
"You will find within the last few years when the new school of economists have started into existence—talk of the new economists—the new economy is not found on this side of the House, it is found on that, but until the last few years no economist has ever denied bounties absolutely contradict the principles of free trade."
Well, Sir, the whirligig of time brings its revenges.
Now, coming to the vexatious position of this Bill I want to make a suggestion as to the solution of it, and I will in doing so be as short as I can. It seems to me that in strict economic principle, the Opposition and, indeed, all free traders, condemns the Sugar Bounties Convention, because in a sense it protects the 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. of our sugar supply, which is provided by the West Indian colonies, and indirectly increases the price of the food of the people and raw material. From another point of view, but on equally strict economical principle, they admit that the Bill is aimed against the whole principle of protection as practised on the Continent. They therefore find themselves in the position of the lady who lived with the lady and could not live without her. They find themselves on contrary grounds, bound to support it and bound to reject it. The real solution, I venture to think, Sir, is to be found in the reflection that there is no such thing as political principle, but only political conviction, which must, to be rightly directed, be governed by what is wrongly called opportunism, in a bad sense, but what is essentially realism in a good sense; that is to say, the clear perception of hard facts as they vary from question to question, from year to year, from generation

741
to generation, the ultimate test being the proper prosperity of the country in which you live during the period in which you live in it. It is true, of course, that in the philosophy of politics there are such fundamental ideas as justice and liberty which dominate politics and policy, but these belong rather to the philosopher's study than to the circus of the House of Commons. In the constantly shifting world of politics and business these theories must be made relative to facts. It follows, then, that foreign sugar bounties stand or fall on their own merits, and not as a part of political philosophy.
The Convention, therefore, fails as an eirenicon of free trade. Take the three possible motives of the Bill, not one in any way justifies it. 1. It will not save the West Indies nor benefit them; 2. It will heavily penalise the people of this country; 3. It will not advance the principles of free trade, even if those principles were worth advancing. But further, Sir, if we apply some such practical method as the one I endeavoured to indicate to the present Bill, what do we find are likely to be the results which may flow from its provisions. We abnegate a considerable portion of our commercial freedom and place it in the hands of our commercial rivals. By the original plan of countervailing duties our freedom would have been much more largely preserved, but under this Bill w e are helpless. We prepare the ground for the most delicate and discomfortable complications with every foreign Power in the world, whether included in the Convention or not. We run the risk of offending our colonies both sentimentally, commercially and politically. We hamper to a large extent any plan of preferential tariffs and retaliation which many hon. Gentlemen desire. We deliberately—according to the President of the Board of Trade—we deliberately raise the price of sugar to the English consumer in order to benefit producers who are now able to sell to us below the cost of production, because the difference is now paid by foreign taxpayers on our behalf. Sir, I ask the House is the game worth the candle? Is it worth while to sacrifice our liberty, to tie our hands, to let our natural competitors control our national markets, to lessen our wealth, to increase our taxation,
742
to rebuff our colonies and to invite complications abroad. All for the sake of a possible, but purely conjectural, modification in the fluctuations of the price of sugar.
The President of the Board of Trade is pleased, is indeed bound, to carry an optimistic soul. The future of sugar smiles rosily towards him. But, whatever the future sugar monopolists may be, the right hon. Gentleman has no monopoly of inspired conjecture. We all have an equal freehold in the unknown. And some of us, looking to the higher prices and less employment which must almost inevitably follow from this Bill, find the outlook less engaging. It is hardly the moment, perhaps, to make a commitment of opinion when the whole world is being inquired into and convictions are notoriously unsettled. But surely we may seek for caution. We have seen that two of the most important powers concerned, France and Austria, have seen cause to reconsider their position, and from to-day's news it seems likely that the reconsideration will last a very long time. Might we not with honour—which they seem not to have forfeited—and with the caution which safeguards their security, might we not also follow their wise example? The politics of England and of the British Empire are hardly floating on a calm sea under a sky of blue. A proper prudence implies no injury to pride. I respectfully supplicate the Government to pause again, and yet again, before they embark upon a heedless and undesired venture, in which the way is surely perilous and uncertain, and the port they make for is far-off, unknown, and hostile.
MR. JAMES REID: I wish to say a few words on behalf of the sugar refiners of this country. I may say I am not engaged in sugar refining myself, but on the other hand I happen to represent a constituency which contains one third of the sugar houses still left in this country. The House will hardly be surprised if I make it my standpoint from which to say that which I wish to say. The hon. Member for Devonport referred mostly to the two sugar houses in London—Messrs. Tate and Messrs. Lyle. Now no sugar refiners in the Kingdom have been more anxious than those two to get me to do all I can to get this Convention Bill carried. Yet no two firms have been

743
more prosperous. When the head of the firm of Lyle's gave up his interest in the firm he did it on the offer to his partner either to pay out and he would remain in the firm, or to be paid out, and go. His partner elected to pay out, and so he retired. I hope, therefore, the hon. Member for Devonport will be a little mere cautious when dealing with the prosperity of those two firms. The hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk put the matter very clearly. These two firms have a great advantage in that they each possess specialties: Messrs. Tate have cubes, and Messrs. Lyle have syrups, and it is largely owing to those specialties that they are so prosperous. I am sure we all wish them continued prosperity. In my opinion the bounty system is rotten to the core, and engenders illegitimate and bastard trading. No man who gets his materials under cost price has a right to compete with others. It is a rotten system of trade, which though it cannot last for ever may last long enough to drive legitimate trade out of the market; and then we shall be at the mercy of the men who come into the market on the back of bounties, who receive bounties, and who then will certainly not be so foolish as to give out of their bounties what they give now. If this system is carried to its logical conclusion, may not confectionery also come into this country bounty-fed. Cobden said that the natural price ought to be the value of every article, but bounty-fed sugar does not come in at the natural price. It is well known that cane sugar and beet sugar can be produced at about the same price. The working men throughout the kingdom are against bounties to a man, and many thousands express the opinion that the bounties ought to be put an end to. Such a thing would increase the labour in various trades. Think of the various trades outside the sugar houses in which labour would be increased; think of the immense consumption of coal, which the sugar houses in this country are responsible for. Those engaged inside the sugar houses are infinitely less in number than those who ought to he engaged outside in trades allied to the sugar trade. This bounty-fed sugar is not fair trading. Sugar refiners in this country want a fair field and no favour; they want their own material at its natural value, if not it
744
may be that British sugar may go to the wall.
As to prohibition versus countervailing duties, I think prohibition is better; and I am not without hope, whatever little differences may exist in this country, that British diplomacy may bring them to an end. In fact, it is hoped in high official circles that the whole thing may come to an end before September. The hon. Member for Launceston said that a majority of the sugar refiners are antiquated, or words to that effect, and he excepted only these two houses in London who are working on specialties; but he said the other refineries were "fire traps." He also said that in 1864 there were sixty houses, a statement the correctness of which I doubt, that now there are only fifteen doing as much work as the said sixty. Surely this is the reductio ad absurdum, as it proves that the fifteen which survive have been kept up-to-date. As a matter of fact all modern sugar houses are fireproof—at least I speak for my own constituency, and I am authorised to say that there is no foundation in fact for the hon. Gentleman's statement. And I claim for my constituency that they possess as much enterprise and versatility of method as their southern fellow-subjects; indeed. Scotchmen are generally credited with possessing a larger share.
MR. ROBSON: The hon. Member who has just addressed the House has laid down a great principle. Throughout the debate I have been trying to discover the economic principle which underlay all the arguments of the various hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member says no man who gets his goods at less than cost has a right to compete with others. I wonder whether the hon. Member or any of his family have ever purchased the goods of a bankrupt. A man who buys a bankrupt stock gets it at less than cost price if he is lucky, and sells it at less than cost price if he is fair. But that has never been considered unfair trading. Now when this Convention was put before the House it was justified by the President of the Board of Trade as an achievement for free trade. What a distance we have got from that in the speeches of to-day and yesterday. Those who have defended the Convention have

745
not professed to do so on the groin of free trade. We have had in support of this Convention speeches which display protection in its most reactionary and mouldy form. The hon. Member for Peebles also laid down in the speech he delivered a short time ago what he regarded as a principle. He said he was connected with trade and spoke feelingly, and he did speak feelingly when he referred to the enormous profits made by the confectioners, which he seemed to think were almost immoral; and then he went on to say that the only persons who prospered under the modern conditions of the sugar trade were those who could buy their goods cheap. This is put before the House as a commercial hardship, which it is the duty of this House to remedy; that there are certain firms who are able to buy large stocks when they are cheap, and sell, I suppose, as dear as they can. That is described as unfair competition. Are we going to adopt the some principle with domestic legislation and foreign affairs?
For open protection we have to go to the speeches of members of the Government, to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. This policy of protection is approved not only by the Parliamentary Secretary, but also by the eminent fiscal inquirer, the Prime Minister. I venture to say the Prime Minister's sympathy and desires are just as protectionist as those of his colleagues. Let me make a few observations on that speech, which merits the attention of the House, because it shows the distance we have traversed since the last debate in November. The hon. Member endeavoured to harrow the feelings of the House by describing what would happen to the shipping trade. He told us if we had not the bounties we should not have ships bringing sugar over in a night and carrying back a return cargo in a night, but that they would bring sugar thousands of miles and take a return cargo back thousands of miles. The result of that is that you not only have dear food, but you must do more work for it. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to mention another fact, which he thought would have a great effect on his argument. He said there had been a reduction of 50 per cent. in the number of men engaged in the sugar trade, and the hon. Gentleman left it to be inferred by the
746
House that this was a hardship which legislation ought to remedy. The hon. Member's speech suggested in the latter part an answer to that. He said that bounties had not cheapened sugar. Although, perhaps, the number of men employed has been reduced, there is by no means a corresponding reduction in the trade. A careful examination of the figures will show that the reduction in the number of tons refined is not great, but there has been an improvement in the quality. There is certainly now a better output in the sugar trade than there was in some of the years preceding the application of the bounties. That, I think, accounts for the reduction in the number of men employed. The hon. Member opposite suggested that the lot of 50 per cent. of the men dismissed from their work was a very hard one, and he asked what comfort is it to those men to hear that employment has increased in Dundee. It may not be much comfort; on the contrary, it is a misfortune to men in any trade when competition reduces the number employed, but we have not to consider the interests of any particular trade, but the interests of the whole community, and it is a comfort to say, if we hear that 50 per cent. of the men employed have suffered from the competition, that every man employed in other trades to a still larger degree is benefited by the same circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the silk trade, and pointed out that whereas Coventry used to manufacture silks, bicycles were now made largely in that town. But why does Coventry not go on making silks? Because we can buy them cheaper elsewhere, and we have to pay for them by the manufacture and export of other goods. Therefore it pays us to make goods for export in order to pay for cheap silks rather than, make silks at profits smaller than we can obtain in other industrial spheres. That is why we have parted with some of our silk trade, and we are acting upon the same principle as when anyone goes to his office or chambers to make a profit in order to get money to buy his own clothes and boots. It is better for a man to devote his skill and energy to the trade in which he can make the most money, so that he may be able to supply his wants in other directions. That is

747
the principle upon which England has parted with so many of her minor trades, with results beneficial to her general prosperity.
The hon. Gentleman opposite has shown that any observations made in direct conflict with foreign and domestic trades are sure to meet with approval on the front Ministerial Bench. We have to realise not only that the Government are inclined to make an attack upon the food of the people, but they are making a deliberate attack upon the foreign trade of this country. They are attacking it because they know not what they do, but they are attacking it all the same. The hon. Member spoke of the cartels which the President of the Board of Trade said were practically being destroyed by the operation of this Convention. The right hon. Gentleman had the prudence not to enter too much into argument or explanation upon that point. He said the Convention would make cartels difficult or impossible. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade went on to explain how cartels had been made impossible. I use the word "cartel," but one might better use the word trust or syndicate. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to describe how this had been made more difficult. My contention is that that which enables a syndicate to export at a lower price than it sells to the consumer is a protective duty. By this Convention you put a surtax of 2s. 6d. per cwt. on sugar. If a country forms a syndicate for a cartel, they can charge the consumer 2s. 6d. a cwt. more than they would otherwise be able to charge, and they can get the benefit of the protective tax. That enables them to sell their produce abroad at a lower price than to the home consumer, so that the old cartel which prevailed in Germany enabled the producer to give dearer sugar to the home market and cheaper sugar to the English market. The Parliamentary Secretary says that is made more difficult, but it is not made impossible because there is still a surtax, and to that extent a syndicate is still feasible, and to the same extent there may be an export at less than cost price. Although the operation of cartels is not made impossible, they are in some measure restricted. The Parliamentary
748
Secretary and his Government have enabled the German producer to make a new kind of cartel. They have enabled the German producer to make a cartel which aims not at giving England cheaper sugar, but at giving her dearer sugar.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The cartel to which the hon. and learned Member refers is only possible on account of the monopoly, and the Convention kills the monopoly and does not create it.
MR. ROBSON: Let us see what is happening now. At the end of July last two telegrams appeared in the Times on this point. The first pointed out that the sugar producers in the various countries which were parties to the Convention had combined, and they had formed an international cartel which otherwise would never have been possible. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] The hon. Member asks "Why?" It was not possible before to get all these producers to combine, because England was then free to buy from those who did not form part of the cartel. Depend upon it if combination, apart from this Convention, had been possible between Germany and France, we should have had it; but it was not possible until the Colonial Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made it possible. They made this new international cartel not merely possible but inevitable, because they put us under the disadvantage of not being able to buy from anyone except the members of this cartel. Therefore this Commission is under the control of the sugar-producers of the Continent. We have assisted the formation of this organisation, giving it assistance of the most invaluable kind by binding ourselves not to buy from their rivals. If anyone does not join in the Convention, but persists in the enormity of sending us bounty-fed sugar, we shall have to refuse to buy it. Foreign countries enter this Convention with perfect security, because before they were afraid of the competition which keeps so many men from

749
entering into combinations. All that is now put on one side, and combination is made easy. We have now refused to treat with anyone except those who belong to this combination. We have now got a new international cartel not to make our sugar cheaper, for that would be totally contrary to the gospel of scarcity put forward by this Ministry, but to make our sugar dearer. The telegram I referred to stated that it was proposed to raise the price of sugar in the English market by about two francs. Another telegram said it had been proposed to countervail the bounty-fed sugar from Russia. That has apparently been accepted by the Commission. The telegram went on to say that the Commission had hung up its resolution with regard to a countervailing duty on sugar from Russia, and it stated that Russia had joined this new international cartel. I have no doubt we shall have from the Colonial Secretary some official diplomatic reason as to why the Commission has allowed the final steps taken against Russia. The business reason is obvious enough, and Russia has joined the new cartel. Her assistance was valuable, and there is no reason why she should remain outside. This is an illustration of the extent to which the Commission is dominated by the foreign producer, and we have put ourselves almost entirely into their hands. Under these new circumstances, are we not entitled to ask hon. Members opposite who have received this Convention as a free trade proposal to reconsider their position?
It was pointed out that it actually forbade a colonial preference. So far as retaliation is concerned, the Convention put on some air of financial orthodoxy by putting countervailing duties in the background and putting forward prohibition—prohibition being justified by the analogy of diseased cattle and things of that sort. Now those flimsy pretences which prevailed when the Convention was first put before the House avail no longer. The Government are unmasking their guns. This Convention is a deliberate step in their new policy of founding the Empire on the artificial scarcity and dearness of the food supply. When the Convention was first put before us the Colonial Secretary justified it on grounds of Imperialism. Now we know what his Imperialism means. We have had various types of Imperialism in the history of
750
mankind. We have had the military empire; we have had the colonial and commercial empire founded upon consent; and now we are to have an empire founded upon theories of scarcity. We are to have a sort of starvation Imperialism. I would ask hon. Members opposite who believe in free trade whether they are prepared to join the banners of that new Imperialism, or whether they would not rather take the opportunity of at once deserting them? This Convention does not profess to add anything to the revenue of the country. It has no practical object except to raise prices. Its only object is artificial dealing. That which was first introduced and justified as an exception is an exception no longer. Dear sugar must now takes its place with dear bread and dear meat as the third pillar of the new protectionist Imperialism of the Colonial Secretary. There seemed to be an idea that we were entitled to take almost any measure in order to retaliate on those aggressive invasions of our free trade by foreign countries. It seems to be thought that free trade has no power of resistance, and that the free traders of England were incapable of retaliation without assistance from legislation. But is it really a fact that free trade is so entirely without the power of retaliation? We know that protection is sometimes a dangerous method of retaliation by the instances which have been given in this debate. It deprives us of our right and power to protect our own market. The German sends over to this country goods artificially cheap. The English free trader accepts all the financial advantages which those cheap goods give him. He will take these advantages lying down if he cannot get them in any other fashion. And having got these financial advantages he promptly proceeds to retaliate upon the German with cheap jam. That is the retaliation of free trade. The first penalty which the German jam manufacturer pays for his own economic stupidity is his exclusion from neutral markets. But that is not all. He very soon finds that his own market for confectionery and sugar preserves is invaded, as the result of the bounty he gives on commodities exported to another country. Is not that a sufficient retaliation? The German manufacturer of sugar preserves thinks it is more than enough, and as he suffers from

751
this painful retaliation of free trade in his own markets, who is it that comes along to heal his wounds and soothe his sorrows? Why! It is the Colonial Secretary in his Sugar Convention. The right hon. Gentleman says to the Germans—"We will protect you against the results of your own stupidity by this Sugar Convention!" I commend that to the hon. Member for the Toxteth Division, who says that he is supporting the Convention on the ground that it is to destroy bounties founded on a vicious principle. Undoubtedly if the nations of the Continent would agree to accept free trade we should be very glad indeed to see these bounties abolished. Otherwise the bounties ought to be retained as an object lesson in free trade. There is no better lesson in free trade than the money which the German nation has to pay for these bounties.
I desire to draw attention to a point which does not seem to have been quite fully dealt with, although the hon. Member for Dundee touched upon it in some measure, and that is the hearing of this Convention on the most-favoured-nation clause. There can be no doubt that this Convention is an infringement of that clause. That clause in nearly all the treaties in which it is to be found—there are nearly fifty of them—forbids any party to the treaty horn prohibiting the goods of the other party from free access to its market. America endeavoured some years ago to limit the construction of that clause in a way that would make it almost valueless. It sought to make a treaty with some small island in the Pacific, by which it should give particular advantages to the other party, and the other party should give particular advantages to it. It claimed under that treaty special advantages and concessions which were not to be shared by England, who claimed to be entitled to them under the most-favoured-nation clause. England strenuously resisted that contention. It was resisted by Lord Granville, and it has been resisted ever since. Our argument has always been for an unconditional interpretation of that clause. Our contention has always been that in any advantage which either party in such a treaty gives to any outside nation, the other party in the treaty is entitled to share. The Government have accepted the American contention in relation to this Convention. They are
752
now saying with regard, for instance, to Russia, that they are entitled to prohibit the goods of Russia because they have a special reason for that, although the most-favoured-nation clause is in Russia's treaty with us. It is a very serious matter for this country, because we have surrendered our contention for the unconditional construction of the clause. We would not be able to renew that argument. Indeed, there is no point of view, commercial, international, and diplomatic, from which the Convention is not an unmitigated mischief, and I hope the House will decide to back out of it altogether.
SIR EDGAR VINCENT: In the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields, to which I listened with pleasure, he referred to the action of cartels. It seems to me that some hon. Gentlemen in this House lose their heads when they have to discuss the question of cartels. I venture to think that some of this alarm is somewhat exaggerated, for so far as I am acquainted with it the principal action of these combinations has resulted in selling to this country sugar under its cost price, and buying from this country certain ships at considerably above their value. I would venture to ask the House to keep all its coolness in considering the result of their action, and not to lose confidence in the virtue of free and open competition. I feel that I owe an apology to the House for taking part in this debate. When I observe the serene calmness with which some hon. Gentlemen state what will be the price of sugar during the next ten years, it appears to me that I have strayed into some conclave of supernatural beings, and that an ordinary man with some experience of these matters can hardly venture to express an opinion. The President of the Board of Trade has vouchsafed us a glimpse into the future. That kind of fore-knowledge and prescience, though of great value here, is of even greater value in another region, and if the right hon. Gentleman would transfer his talents we should lose but he might undoubtedly amass in the course of a very short time a most gigantic fortune. I venture to say that a large number of hon. Members in this House will agree to this proposition: that a proper policy for this country to adopt in regard to sugar is difficult and

753
intricate; and if this view is correct it appears to me to follow that we should regret that action was not preceded by full discussion, directed to ascertain what the result would be of our entering into this Sugar Convention. I go so far as to say that in this case inquiry should have preceded action; and by inquiry I mean full and open discussion before an impartial tribunal—an examination under which evidence could be sifted, tested, discussed, and if necessary rebutted. In matters of this kind I am old-fashioned enough to wish to know the precise results which would follow any course of action before committing the country to engagements of an entirely novel, and of an extremely complicated character.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies stated last November that a Consideration of this question involved two sides, the moral and the material. I altogether agree with that view, but it appears to me that an unjustifiable, corollary is frequently attached to it—viz., that there is a necessary contradiction between the considerations on each side. I altogether dissent from the opinion, which is really largely held, that it is only necessary to prove that a given policy is bad business in order to be convinced that it it high policy. Viewed on larger lines, what is the state of the case in the plainest possible terms? We are asked to intervene in the interests of certain producers of sugar, and with that end in view to raise the price at which they can sell sugar in this country. Now, I think it is admitted that it is impossible to raise the price of sugar to the rate at which the West n lies can sell it, without at the same time raising the price of sugar sent to us by foreign countries. Remember, that these foreign countries give us more than 90 per cent. of our consumption. It appears to me to be admitted by the supporters of the Bill that the main object of it is to raise the level of prices to that at which the West Indian producers can sell their goods, but under the system of the Bill it is impossible to achieve that without largely increasing the price which we will have to pay to foreign countries In 1902 this country obtained 31,500,000 cwt. of sugar; we paid £15,000,000, and of this £1,000,000 went to the colonies and £14,000,000 went abroad. Now, under the Conven-
754
tion what will be the case? For the identical quantity of sugar we shall have, to pay, according to the best calculation, not £15,000,000, but £22,000,000, and of the additional £7,000,000 which this country will pay £6,500,000 will go to foreign countries and only £500,000 will go to our fellow subjects in the colonies. I will not deny that that proportion may gradually change; that the amount supplied by the colonies may become larger, and the amount supplied by foreign Powers become somewhat smaller. But the change will be gradual, and will be only partial in its effects, so that the permanent result will be an increase of the price we pay, leaving a larger proportion of the money to go abroad, and only a smaller proportion of the money to go to the colonies.
Is that good business? Is the Convention to be justified as a specimen of protection, or a specimen of free trade? I will not deduce any argument from the quarter from which the initiative of the Convention arose, or, if I may use the term, from the port from which the vessel hails; nor will I refer to the speech which we heard last night from the Secretary to the Board of Trade, which appeared to me to be a purely protectionist deliverance. I shall judge the policy solely by its anticipated, its avowed and probable results; and I say that this is a measure destined to advance a particular interest as opposed to the general interest. It is framed in order to give an advantage to the producer at the cost of the consumer, and so far as I understand it, it is absolutely analogous in its results to those Acts which abroad are supported by protectionist arguments, and which are aided by protectionist funds. In so far as it differs from the usual Acts of protectionist countries, it appears to me to differ in this, that the trade to be protected is unusually small, and the sacrifice to be made is unusually great. I confess that I ant somewhat surprised to see the very able and skilful advocates of protection in this House supporting this measure; because it appears to me to put their favourite device in an altogether unfavourable light. I almost feel a suspicion that they desire to press this Bill through in order to have on

755
the Statute-book something compared to which even preferential tariffs will be advantageous. Now, the Convention has also received a certain amount of support because it is supposed to have about it a spice or flavour of retaliation. It is intended to put an end to the nefarious practices of certain foreign countries. But even from this point of view, I rather doubt whether it deserves any enthusiastic support; because while intelligent retaliation—if there is such a thing—must be directed against those who have done us some injury, this is directed against those whose only fault has been to sell us their produce and their goods at too cheap a rate. And while retaliation is necessarily intended to apply some pressure against some foreign countries, this Bill gets these foreign countries out of a great difficulty, and, to use the expression of the President of the Board of Trade, relieves them of a very heavy yoke. It will thus be seen that while the Convention has many of the disadvantages both of protection and retaliation, it does not carry with it any but the smallest of their pretended benefits. The Bill, is indeed, a bad example of a bad school.
There is one other plea on which the policy of the Convention may be defended. It may be said that bounties are opposed to the strict theory of free trade, and I can understand an enthusiastic doctrinaire, thoroughly imbued with a kind of religious fervour for free trade, setting forth on a crusade, and laying about him to destroy all those who do not accept his faith in its fullest spirit. But can that argument be used by those who, before this Bill receives the final sanction of this House, already taunt free traders with their adherence to old shibboleths, and who appeal from principles and from theory to immediate practical trade advantage. Immediate practical trade advantage in the present instance is certainly against the policy of the Bill, and so it does not he with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to appeal to general theory in which they do not believe, and which they are doing their utmost to destroy. Again, there is another argument which has been used—viz., that apart from its probable effect in raising the price of sugar, the result of the Convention will
756
be to steady the price. But surely if that were the sole object, it is not beyond the ingenuity of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to invent some system which would only affect the price when it fell below a certain level, and not raise the price both when sugar is dear and when it is cheap. I am opposed to this Convention on a wider ground—viz., that it is the first instance within my knowledge in which the action of the British Government has been employed to render dearer an article of general consumption. I thoroughly distrust the intervention of the Government in matters of this kind, merely because some producer or some manufacturer goes to the Government and complains of what he terms "unfair competition." I do not know what definition can be given of the term "unfair competition." I thoroughly distrust the intervention of the Government in matters of this kind to rectify the price and to remedy what is merely a private grievance at the public expense. I am against the Convention, because it appears to me to raise the price of food to the people without bringing any countervailing advantage to His Majesty's Treasury. I am convinced that this House ought not to tolerate any measure which increases the cost of food, except to the extent necessary for the purpose of revenue; and I believe that this Convention was entered into without full knowledge on the part of the country, and without, perhaps, full knowledge on the part of its authors as to its probable commercial effect. I hope, therefore, that all those who, in common with myself, fear a return of this country to protection, both on moral and material grounds, will see in this Convention an example of the kind of legislation, and the kind of negotiation which we must expect if protection and fair trade are to be the guiding principles of our policy.
MR. LAWRENCEsaid several hon. Members had referred to this as a new question, and as if, forsooth, it had not been before the country for something like forty years. The fact is, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke has been for a long time serving the interests of his country abroad, and therefore he has come back fresh with the old ideas which were entertained when he

757
left these shores. He has not kept in touch with the movement of public opinion in regard to this very burning question. I was very much struck with the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who on the strength of a telegram on which he based half his speech with reference to an informal conference at Brussels, told the House that the Convention would render the cartel system twice as bad as it was before. The fact is, that what the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to was a meeting of producers, who, having on hand something like 1,500,000 tons of sugar for which they could not get a market, were trying to do something to raise the value of the commodity of which they had such a large stock. The hon. and learned Gentleman has really only found a mare's nest, which might perhaps be worthy of being put before a common jury. Hon. Members have harped upon the suggestion that this Convention is going to recreate a monopoly. If ever there was a monopoly it exists at present, and this Convention is, in Canning's phrase, an effort to call in the new world to redress the balance of the old. No cartel, syndicate, or system that is capable of being formed in Europe with varying tongues and nationalities, can be otherwise than doomed to emphatic failure when the new world and the, cane-producing countries are called into their proper output, It is perfectly obvious that under the Convention the produce of cane would enter into a fair competition with the cultivation of beet; and the cane growers would not enter into the same conference with the beet producers. We are told that the price of sugar will go up enormously, but I desire to point out how impossible that is when the consuming world has the temperate and tropical zones to draw upon.
Another argument is that this Convention will do the West Indies no good. I would ask business men, is it not extraordinary that for no less than a generation the sugar production of the West Indies although submitted to the keenest competition still survives. What industry on the face of the globe could have withstood such competition for so many years and yet still be in the condition the West Indian sugar industry is now in? It is perfectly certain that the West Indies, with their natural advantages,
758
only want a fair opportunity in order to grow sugar as well and cheaply as any part of the temperate zone. It is absurd to think that a region with such natural advantages can, if not handicapped by artificial restrictions, fail to succeed. Stress has been laid upon the fact that the West Indies only produce a small percentage of the sugar imported into this country. Whose fault is that? Time was when most of our sugar came from the tropics, and it is entirely owing to artificial circumstances that the present proportion is so low. I would remind the House moreover that beet sugar from the earliest stages of its existence has been subject to bounty-feeding arrangements and rose to the position it now occupies entirely owing to artificial treatment. It is an interesting and important fact that whether in the tropics or in Europe the production of sugar per acre, whether beet or cane, is about the same, and the labour is practically the same. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that those two sources of supply will continue, under proper and legitimate competition, satisfactorily to supply the wants of the world. It was entirely owing to the over production caused by the present artificial system that prices got to the absurd and abnormal condition of last year. It is quite unfair and unbusiness like to quote a special artificial figure, such as that of last year, and say that the people of England, especially the working classes, will criticise any action which allows the important supply of sugar to be produced under legitimate and fair circumstances. Speaking for my own constituents, whom I have known intimately now for seventeen years, I am perfectly prepared to say that they will always be as they have always been, cordially responsive whenever I invited them to be just to the colonies. We are asking for no preference, but simply that England shall be just to the colonies of which she is the trustee. Those colonies are held in the hollow of the hand of the mother country, which enjoys the benefit, with which she has no intention of parting, of the two great harbours of St. Lucia and Jamaica, which command the approach to the future Panama Canal. The mother country may fairly be called upon to discharge her high duty, and although she has been tardy hitherto

759
in recognising the claims upon her, I feel that new ideas have of late years arisen, and that the time is coining when she will not be backward in discharging the obligations of her high position. It is quite a mistake for the House to think this is a measure promoted in the interest of capitalists. If the Members of the House had been with me in Jamaica in February last and stood by when certain black workmen were informed that the cultivation of sugar was going to cease in the district where they lived, they would have recognised that it was not a question of capitalists but of the daily bread of those who are, equally with all members of the Empire, British subjects.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed to Question [28th July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I was pointing out, however imperfectly, the conditions and circumstances under which this Bill is brought forward. So far as the West Indies are concerned, it is not demanded merely for the capitalists but for the masses of the people. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen taxed the planters with having no spirit, enterprise or machinery. If he had even for half-an-hour borne the burden and the heat of the day of carrying on the great sugar industry with which the planters are intrusted, and had had to carry on that industry with the competition and the handicap of these bounties, varying from 25s. to, in the case
  760
  of the Argentine, I think, £7 a ton, the value of a ton of sugar varying from £5 to £10, I think even the right hon. Gentleman would have felt it was no wonder that the planters might have lost spirit and in some measure enterprise. It could hardly be expected that they could find up-to-date machinery. But whether or not in the future the present planters will be able to face the new circumstances in which they will find themselves, I appeal on behalf of the black labourers, equally our fellow subjects, that sugar shall not be allowed to go out of cultivation, and that even if planters here and there have to give way it will be a loon to the black labourers up and down the Islands that these acres should be kept in sugar cultivation. There are some well meaning Unionists, who probably never spent £5 on a speculative undertaking, who have advocated that these Islands should throw up one of the great staple industries of the world in order to undertake the speculative cultivation of fruit. I should like to know how many of those who have grown fruit would not exchange that cultivation for the great industry of sugar, upon which staple you might sit for a week or a month, and on which you are not dependent upon the special circumstances attending the growing of a perishable crop like fruit. I have but imperfect patience with those Unionists, like the right hon. Member for Cambridge, who pointed to Egypt and Java and asked why should the West Indies fail where they had succeeded. The blacks in Java, I have heard, are little better than slaves, and certainly no better than prædial serfs. The Dutch will not allow the blacks there to engage in any of the higher trades, but compel them to cultivate the soil. And as for Egypt, is that a comparison for an intelligent person to make with the West Indies; a country which, under its system of irrigation, can turn out four crops a year; which has no mountainous districts. We in the West Indies have large mountainous districts, and great droughts, and for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to come down here and talk this colossal nonsense makes those who do know something about the subject feel righteously indignant.
  The hon. Member for Exeter seems to think it is unnecessary even

  761
  to grant this district justice because it is so small. Is justice to be confined only to the counting of heads? Are we to measure it by what it has to cost us? Several hon. Gentlemen think that if we are to be just we must be just at the cheapest price, and the cheapest way to deal with this matter is to give doles. We know what doles in England are. They pauperise those who receive and they do not redound to the credit of those who give them. I repudiate such churlish justice. If you wish to keep a poor relation from you give him a dole. But these Islands are not destined by Providence to be poor relations. Give them a fair chance and they will be as they were before—jewels in the British Crown. But if they are neglected and there is an utter lack of sympathy and a disregard for them in the United Kingdom, I can assure the House that, however reluctantly, their hearts will be drawn towards the United States, of which they geographically form part. They go to the United States now because they have not free access to our markets, and it is absurd to say they have when we allow a protective wall to rise up and keep them off. We are driving them to the United States. It they are not a part of the United States the time will soon come when the trade of these Islands will not be allowed to enter into the ports of the United States. Even now they only go there under a 40 per cent. duty, but with that they could compete with France under countervailing duties; but in a short time those ports will be closed, and in as much as these Islands form part of this great Empire, they are entitled ask for that fairness of treatment which one British subject can claim from another. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen gave some faltering and imperfect excuse for the reason why he voted £250,000 last November for these Islands. What are the facts of the case? The West Indian Islands had some reason to think that in the Brussels Convention the Government would consider their interests. As a matter of fact, when the Convention met the other Governments said they could not allow this Convention to come into force until they had given their local industries twelve
  762
  months notice, and His Majesty's Government sacrificed these Islands. Then they came forward and said, "As we have sacrificed you, we will give you something in order that you may hold over for a little while;" and although the dole in that way may have done some good it only added to the liability of the planters. It was loaned to the planters at 6 per cent., and money lent at such a price at best is but doubtful advantage to the borrower.
  Right hon. Gentlemen have said we must have new methods. There will be new methods, and there may be new men, but it this Bill passes there will be an incentive to the cultivation of sugar which, for thirty or forty years there never has been. Some hon. Members have touched on the question as to how far this Convention is in accordance with the principles of free trade. I think we had better give up the term of free trade. [Loud OPPOSITION laughter.] Hon. Members opposite who laugh know perfectly well they never have had free trade. The hon. Member for South Shields said this was the thin end of the wedge of the abolition of free trade. I should like to know when we have had free trade, and also when we should have it. I think one hon. Member was more correct when he said this Convention was the first step to anything like free trade since the French Treaty of l860. There never will be free trade unless by negotiation; and as this Convention produces an agreement between various countries and various classes upon the subject of the abolition of the bounties I think it is the first step towards free trade. Mr. Speaker, I have finished. I would only add that I regret that there should have been any need for tins Convention whatever. I think it is an anomaly that we should have to get the European Powers in conclave and to say to them, "We intend to carry out our fiscal system, and we hope you will allow us to do so." I hope the day is rapidly coming when we shall think and act for ourselves; when we shall act entirely with regard to our own interests, independent of what foreign Powers may think of us. They will be perfectly convinced that we shall do what is just to them, and the sooner we think and act for ourselves the better it will be for the people of this country.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down objects to the kind of free trade we have because, I suppose, he does not think it goes far enough. But some of us would rather have one-sided free trade than no free trade at all, because under it we are at least able to buy in the cheapest market. We would of course infinitely rather have free trade all round, but if those to whom we sell are indifferent to the importance of being able to buy on the best terms possible, that is a matter for them to consider and not for us. The hon. Gentleman expressed a decided preference for independence on the part of His Majesty's Government, and said we ought to act for ourselves; but one of the criticisms we have to make to this Convention is, that if we accept it a foreign Commission will act for us, and we shall have hardly any voice in the matter. I am against this Convention because it is a one-sided bargain. The foreigner is to have all the gain and we are to have all the loss. I do not think in these negotiations the interests of the United Kingdom have been adequately safeguarded. I know that at Brussels, when the negotiations were proceeding, the British refiners and the West Indian sugar planters were represented, and it was only right they should be adequately represented. But who was it that voiced the claim of the toiling millions of sugar consumers in this country? I am against this Convention because those millions are deprived of the inalienable right to buy their sugar in the cheapest market. It is an incontrovertible fact that cheap sugar has been of great advantage to this country because it has conduced to the health of the people. And I am strongly in favour of leaving the foreigner to make his own arrangements for the abolition of these bounties. I think he will be likely to abolish them without our assistance or encouragement when he gets tired of paying our sugar bill. In the matter of sugar the foreigner's interest is opposed to ours. He is the seller and we are the buyers, but unfortunately his views have prevailed throughout with these negotiations rather than the views of this country. As I had
  764
  the honour to say in November last, if a man chooses to sell goods to "A" below cost and to recoup himself by overcharging "B," it is for "B" to put a stop to the transaction rather than "A." We are in the position of "A" on this occasion, and the foreigner is in the position of "B." There may be some hard cases amongst the sugar refiners on the one hand or the sugar planters on the other, but those cases this House would be glad I am sure to deal with and remedy on their merits.
  It has been said that the West Indies are largely dependent on the sugar crop. In my opinion they are far too dependent upon it. If growing sugar does not pay there are other crops to which the planters can turn their attention There is another great staple which could be grown in the West Indies, and that is cotton, for which the climate is well suited, and I can vouch for it that the cotton so grown, would at present prices pay well, and be warmly welcomed by Lancashire, where the spinners are hungering for larger supplies. If we hold aloof from this Convention it will still be open to the other signatory powers to adhere to it—and if that is done the sugar bounties will go and we shall have a free hand. But the fact is, this Convention is not merely to abolish bounties or a portion of them. This Convention does much more, inasmuch as it allows a foreign Commission to have a finger in our pie, in the pie of our colonies, and in the pie of our foreign relations. It is obvious, as the Member for Oldham said this afternoon, that the consumer under this convention will not be so valuable a customer for other commodities in the home market. Whatever the amount of the increase in the price of sugar may be, that amount will be abstracted from the pockets of the consumers of this country, and pro tanto the home trade will be crippled in its purchasing power. In many trades this will be a heavy burden, besides the particular industries which depend on low-priced sugar. I noticed the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary to the Board of Trade both quoted in their speeches an opinion given by the firm of Keiller many years ago, and although it was pointed out that that opinion was contrary to a

  765
  later opinion given by the same firm, both the right hon. and the hon. Gentleman seemed to consider the older opinion of this particular firm was the wiser opinion of the two. I hope they will apply the same test in another direction. I wish they would apply that test to the Colonial Secretary himself. If they considered in his case that the older opinion was the wiser one, then neither countervailing duties nor prohibition nor preferential duties would have a shadow of a chance of acceptance, because the right hon. Gentleman when he was President of the Board of Trade, said:
  "To impose countervailing duties in order to neutralise the indirect sugar bounties would he to take the first step in reversing oar Free Trade policy, which was adopted on the clearest ground of argument, and has conferred immense advantages on the industrial classes of this country.
  "Industrial Classes."
  I hope the Secretary to the Board of Trade will commend the earlier opinion of the Colonial Secretary which I have just read. I believe that what the Colonial Secretary then said is absolutely true: that in adopting a system of countervailing duties we should be taking the first step towards the reversal of the policy of free trade. That step, however, was taken a year ago at Brussels and now we are threatened with another step, viz., Preferential Tariffs and Retaliatory duties which we hold to be certainly pointing in the direction of protection. I, for one, am against a policy of protection in this country, because it confers on an individual the right to make a legal raid on the Public purse to his own advantage. I do not know why the Government is making such a dead set on the food of the people. A tax on sugar was imposed not so long ago, which increased the price by a halfpenny a 1b., and now we are to have a further tax imposed by this Convention; and, in addition, we are threatened with a heavy corn tax. But the yield of the sugar tax imposed two years ago went into the Exchequer, whereas not a penny of this new tax will find its way there.
  It is impossible for us to estimate the far-reaching consequences and complications of the penal or prohibitive clauses of this Convention. It may be said we shall have the control of its application, but, as a matter of fact, we shall be in a very small minority in this Conven-
  766
  tion, and shall be liable to be out-voted on every occasion. This prohibition of sugar imports from certain countries may involve us in a tariff war with Russia and the United States of America, at the bidding of this Commission, however much we may desire to maintain good relations with those countries. If there be an enemy of this country on the Commission he may force us to pick a quarrel with nations with whom we otherwise should be on friendly terms. The newspapers only this morning give us an illustration of the result of the intervention of tins Convention for we read that a crisis has arisen between Austria and Hungary. Only this very day The Times says—
  "The situation has become sufficiently strained to necessitate the intervention of the Emperor."
  All because of the meddling of this Commission in Brussels; because one of these two countries does not take the same view exactly that the Brussels Commission takes. I think it is infinitely safer and wiser for us to keep the control of our own fiscal arrangements in our own hands. I think that, so far from drawing the colonies closer to the mother country, this legislation will be much more likely to have a disruptive tendency. Some time ago the late Lord Pirbright who, as we know, had the strongest possible sympathy with the sugar trade, used some very strong language in respect to this particular question. He said:—
  "What business is it of ours to pull chestnuts out of the fire for France? We give no surtax, and we bind ourselves on behalf of our Crown colonies never to give preferential treatment for the benefit of their sugar. Therefore the interference of our delegates, presumably with the knowledge and consent of the Cabinet, in a matter which in no way concerned them, was not only gratuitous but absurd and most dangerous."
  I think this blowing hot and cold with regard to preferential duties must puzzle our colonies and must create in them most unfortunate impressions, and many explanations will be necessary to account for these apparent contradictions. The task of making those explanations would deter any ordinary man, but I do not think the Colonial Secretary will be deterred from an undertaking of tins kind by any such considerations. We are constantly being urged to place the present Government in a position to drive a bargain with foreign nations

  767
  —in regard to that aspect of the case I suppose we shall hear a good deal during the coming months. Members of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have said again and again during the last few weeks that we were handicapped because we had no power of negotiating—that was the word he used—but we must be very cautious in handing over to the Government the power to drive a bargain when we see the poor use they have made of it in this Convention, where they gave away so much and got so little in return.
  MR. DUKE: This debate has had one distinct advantage. It has made clear to the country that the Party sitting opposite has made up its mind to cast its vote in favour of a system of bounties.
  MR. LOUGH: Against a surtax.
  MR. DUKE: I am not sure that they will be so delighted with the prospect when they come to consider it as a naked proposition, because for forty years the Party opposite, in common with the Party sitting on this side, has offered a resolute and determined opposition to bounties. There was no more resolute opponent of bounties than Mr. Gladstone. From 1862 till the end of his life Mr. Gladstone did all in his power to put an end to the system of bounties, and as recently as 1881 he said, speaking of the argument that "the consumer gets the benefit "—
  "I do not think that any benefit founded on inequality and injustice can bring good even to the consumer."
  Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House do not seem quite so cheerful, after hearing the views of Mr. Gladstone. It certainly does seem a little remarkable that after forty years of devoted and studied effort by both great Parties to get rid of a system as obnoxious to free trade as it is to the prosperity of this country, that one Party should turn on the other and condemn in terms of obloquy, personal censure and reproach those efforts which have at last led to success that which has been the policy of both Pal ties. For my part I should like to know what such conduct means; and I suppose it means that within a year or a few months there is a general election coming on, and that it will be convenient for the hon. Gentle-
  768
  men opposite then to say to any workman of this country who does not know that he is being deceived—[OPPOSITION laughter.] I will conclude my sentence and hon. Members will know whether it is what they intended to say—"The Government who have got rid of these bounties, which it has been our common policy to get rid of, have placed a burden of £7,000,000 upon you." Is that what hon. Gentlemen opposite intend to tell the people of the country who do not know? It seems to me that it is neither fair nor wise to tell people who do not know that which is not true. Now if there is an authority whom hon. Gentlemen used to respect next to Mr. Gladstone it is Lord Farrer, I do not know whether they still respect him or have changed their policy and their predilections; but Lord Farrer six years ago said to the Cobden Club—
  "We must admit to the fullest degree that sugar bounties are an abomination."
  Hon. Members opposite do not think so now; they think now that bounties are a great public benefit. They argue now that bounties ought to be continued because sometimes they may make sugar a little cheaper.
  Lord Farrer said—
  "We must not because they make sugar a little cheaper in this country say they ought to be continued,"
  And he added some other words I should like to read—
  "If Mr. Chamberlain were able in any fair way to get foreign nations to do away with their bounties we ought to wish him Godspeed."
  The right hon. Gentleman's destination so far as it depends on the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, seems to be in a rather different direction; but the great majority of the country and of this House do wish him God-speed. It is not only Lord Farrel; there is another authority.
  MR. LOUGH: Give us Cobden.
  MR. DUKE: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's remark.
  MR. LOUGH: I expected Cobden.
  MR. DUKE: I do not know what Mr. Cobden's views on the sugar bounties are, or were, because in his time they had not been invented.
  MR. LOUGH: Oh, yes, they had.
  MR. DUKE: The hon. Gentleman is not serious. There were advantages given to British refiners who exported sugar. But Cobden was so much a patriotic Englishman that I think he would have taken the line Lord Farrer took in the words I have read. Now I am going to give the hon. Gentleman a more recent authority, on the suggestion that the proposal of the Government would put a burden on the people. The right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire, speaking with his great experience and weight in financial questions, and referring directly to the assumption that this Convention will raise the price of sugar—
  "There are a great many people, and I believe the best judges, who think that that is very doubtful."
  The first objection which was raised to the Convention which the Government has mitered into, with, of course, the sanction of Parliament, which sanction was given only a few months ago, and which sanction the hon. Member has the courage now to ask the House to revoke, is that the Convention deprives us of some of our freedom of action. I have not the courage to follow the hon. Member in his readiness to recant a pledge of this House taken so recently as November last year. In my view of the matter the credit of a country depends on the sincerity with which it adheres to its pledges. I do not know by what means the common consent of Europe can be brought into operation, and kept in operation, unless by some such conference as that which is to take place under this Act. It is said that we have parted with our independence. For my part I do not believe it. We are no more fettered than an individual is who makes a bargain and feels bound to keep it. The Government of this country is asking this House now to adhere to the decision it came to last November and say we will be content to take sugar at its natural price. What possible hardship is there in that? I believe hon. Members have entirely misunderstood the doctrine of free trade. I have heard a right hon. Gentleman of great experience say that the first principle of free trade was the exchange of commodities at their natural price. Well, under this Bill we are
  770
  to get sugar at its natural price for five years, and it is the consent to that result which is said to destroy our independence. I do not propose to examine further that part of the matter. It has been said that it is not worth while at this time of day to take any further risks because, as far as England is concerned, the sugar refining industry has been killed It has also been said that the sugar bounties have practically killed that industry. I sit for a constituency which had a large practical interest in sugar refining, and I should be glad to hear any hon. Member go down to that place and satisfy my constituency that it is better for them that there should not be refineries in their midst. My mind has probably taken a colour from the fact that where I was brought up-we had that industry, and we saw it killed before our eyes by this process of bounties. We protested in vain against it, and my constituents, at any rate, are firm, and I hope tolerably unanimous, in the resolve that it is worth while to put an end to bounties. The hon. Member says the refineries are better off now than they were in former times. It is Unite true there are two refineries doing a trade greater than sixty refineries once did. But why should the benefit be limited to two refineries? These are not matters for laughter to people in the provinces who have lost their livelihood in the past by the destruction of the refineries. Sugar to the value of £15,000,000 a year is imported into this country. Almost the whole value of sugar is a value in labour. Why should not the labour of our country get its fair share of that £15,000,000? I submit it would be to the public benefit that it should.
  The hon. Member for Launceston has taunted the sugar refiners with being incapable, as he taunted the West Indian planters with being lazy. I do not believe the British men of commerce who had their money in refineries were so incapable that they could not conduct that industry on fair conditions. But they have not had a chance. How could they go on in the market with the certainty that when any touch of prosperity comes the system of bounties will be applied in such a way as to kill their industry? Men who have lost their money might look for something better than the taunts and jeers which have been launched

  771
  against them from speakers on the other side of the House. I invite hon. Members to go to Bristol or Plymouth and repeat these taunts. Then in regard to the West Indies, that which Napoleon could not do to deprive this country of the profit and the honour of the possession of the West Indies, this bounty system has done. It has brought the West Indies to a state of ruin. But there is left the possibility of recovery, and for my part, whatever the political effect and to whatever extent the ignorant may be deceived by the phantom millions of threatened burden, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who has taken up this question. He may not get immediate profit from it, but there will be profit to the State, and sooner or later our people in the West Indies and our sugar growing colonies will find that the heart of the country is warm to them and true, and repudiates the unworthy taunt that they are suffering the penalty of incompetence and laziness. I should like to come to close quarters for one moment with the hon. Members who say that the British consumer receives the bounty, and to give two or three figures which, to my mind, prove conclusively that that statement is incorrect. The cost price of sugar is admitted to be £8 10s. per ton. The value of the bounties is admitted to be about £5 per ton. Sugar can be sold in this country at a profit at £10 or £10 10s. a ton, whether it comes from the West Indies or from Europe. If the British consumer has been receiving the bounty, the price upon cost and profit being £10 10s., the price to the British consumer, deducting the bounty, will be £5 10s. Instead of that, the average price for the past ten years has been £10 10s. I ask whether that does not prove to demonstration that the true effect of bounties has been not to give real advantage in prices, but to introduce now and then for hostile purposes a price so low that there could not be competition, in order subsequently to drive up the price and to recover the difference which had been lost upon the fictitious price of £6 by getting £12, £15, or £25 a ton, and so brought to the pocket of the foreign manufacturer not only his bounty, but any little sacrifice he had incidentally made for the purpose of striking his rival. I have taken up a considerable amount of time, but so much of the
  772
  discussion, even from this side of the House, having been directed against the proposals of the Government, I hope it may not be thought improper that a Member who takes a distinct view on this subject in favour of the Bill before the House should express it. I hope this Bill will be Confirmed by as large a majority as confirmed the Resolution last year.
  MR. HELME: The policy now before the House has been urged on the ground that it is our national duty to deal with the necessities of those who have suffered in the West Indies. The wider patriotism included in that is not the monopoly of one side of the House. We are prepared to look carefully at the position as it arises, but we cannot agree that only the alteration of the system which has obtained for some time can settle this matter. We have interests at home as well as abroad to consider, and it is right that we should take into account the everyday life of the teeming millions of our people who are dependent for a comfortable daily existence upon a low level of prices for the necessaries of life. We ought, therefore, to look very carefully at the economic arguments which underlie the proposal now before us. This question of the increased cost of living may be a small matter to some people, but when we come face to face with the daily life of the people, and find out what a difference the advance of even ½d. or 1d. makes in the marketing power of the poor, we feel that great efforts should be made to meet the necessities of the West Indies in some other way. Only a few shillings per week can be earned by some of our people; but take the artisan, making 20s. or 25s. a week, subtract the cost of living, and there are but a very few shillings left to provide the clothing and luxuries, if such they can be called, of the family. Upon those few shillings depends the amount which circulates in the home trade of the country, and if you infringe upon them by abstracting a further sum, the home industries of the country must suffer. This scheme of the Government will strike a severe blow at the home trade as it now exists. We have also to remember that the export trade of the country will be affected. The two combined make up

  773
  the welfare of the whole, and the subsidiary industries which had been developed will be thereby seriously affected. We ought in this House to have every regard for these things. Hitherto we have held the key of our ports with regard to imports to be allowed to enter free; now it is proposed to hand the key over to other people. I think the House of Commons ought to hesitate before it agrees to do so. Our present attitude is challenged, but when raised al few months ago we objected to the proposed policy. We have now a further constitutional opportunity of endeavouring to prevent the consummation of that policy, and it is right, that we should use every means in our power to secure to this House only, the maintenance of the control of the conditions under which the food of the people should be permitted to come to these shores, and endeavour to prevent legislation, which we believe to be inimical to the interests of the masses of the people.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At the commencement of this debate there was an attempt to put forward the contention that the House of Commons was already deeply committed on this subject, and that it would be unusual, almost improper and indecent for us to express an opinion contrary to the Bill now before the House. I think that contention has been pretty well abandoned. The House is entitled to deal as it pleases with this legislation brought forward by the Government, and those of us at any rate who opposed the Resolution at the end of last year are perfectly entitled to make a continuous protest against a policy which we object to from beginning to end. There are three points of view, as it seems to me, from which we may look at this matter. There is the question of the policy involved in this Convention; there is the question of the conduct of the Government in initiating and furthering that policy; and there is the question of the machinery by which it is proposed that the policy should be carried out. The abstract question of the merits or the demerits of bounties is not the question at issue at all. Saving the presence of the hon. Member for Plymouth, no One on this side of the House advocates bounties any more than he does ("Oh, oh"); so that all the warmth which he infused into his
  774
  speech, and all the charming little insinuations made against us, that we were saying things we did not believe in order to gull our ignorant countrymen, and that we were supporting a system of bounties which was contrary to the free trade principles we profess, were out of place and without foundation. Most people, at any rate, are agreed that bounties are to be deprecated, and the only people whose opinion to that effect I cannot quite understand are those who seek safety in protective duties of any kind. But we are not tainted with that heresy. We regard bounties as a burden to the State which resorts to this method of feeding and fostering industries, as an injury to the domestic consumer in the country where they are imposed, as an unsettling factor in the trade of the world, and as one of the most injurious quack nostrums with which the philosophy of protection has afflicted modern States. But, Sir, we believe that the system carries with it the seeds of its own dissolution, and, whether this be so or not, we do not see that it is any part of our business as a free trade country to interfere to deliver our neighbours from a system which, however injurious we may think it may be to them, is in no sense aimed against us, but which has benefited both the consumer and manufacturer here alike. I claim for this opinion, which is quite contrary to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, a high authority, for here is what the Prime Minister said no further back than a month ago. On 26th June he said:—
  "If it were not for the fact that in this case the proper investment of capital in the West India Islands, capital belonging to the Empire, was rendered impracticable and dangerous under our existing system, if it was not, in fact, for the case of the West Indies there is no conceivable reason why we should not allow the foreigner to tax himself for the benefit of the British consumer."
  Away, therefore, goes the free trade crusading of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, which he attributes to the Government. "If it were not," says the Prime Minister, within a month and n few days of this time, "for the case of the West Indies, why should we refuse to receive from foreign countries the advantages they give, even though their own subjects suffer from them?" I think that is a more important contribution to

  775
  our deliberations to-day than those quotations which we always expect to hear. I think there ought to be a close time for quotations, or a limit of age. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will agree with me in that. I quite sympathise with him. There ought to be a limit of age in this case, and I think that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Farrer might now be allowed to rest.
  Now, Sir, the preamble of this Convention lays down as desirable two things—first, that the conditions of competition between beet and cane sugar should be equalised, and, second, that the consumption of sugar should be promoted. As to the first of these objects, we are to a very small extent concerned. We are concerned only in the matter of the West India Islands. Let me say we are in the habit of speaking of the West India Islands as being involved in this matter. It is only a small part of the West India Islands. By far the greater part of the West India Islands have either not grown sugar in the past or, finding difficulties and disturbances connected with that trade, have with great ingenuity and enterprise adopted other industries which.are making them just as prosperous as the sugar-growing islands are the reverse. And as to our having any interest in securing equality of conditions between beet and cane sugar, I do not know what difference it makes. Do we perform our individual duty in this matter? I had a letter the other day from an intelligent, but unknown, correspondent who said that he did not see the necessity for all this disturbance of fiscal relations and of international arrangements. He said:—
  "I set myself to work to do my part, and I allow nothing but West Indian cane sugar to be consumed in my house."
  There is a practical man. I should like to go down the Treasury Bench and see whether there is any rule of that sort in the households of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. Does the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth give the whole benefit of his custom to the quarter to which it ought to go? The West Indian sugar industry has no doubt suffered severely; but I doubt if it will be benefited at all by this policy, and for this reason—that we have it laid down by the Royal Commission that inquired into the matter that
  776
  the natural market of the West India Islands is the United States. And look at the effect of this policy upon their interests in the United States. They have hitherto been sheltered by the countervailing duties which the United States imposed against those very bounties; but in so far as the bounties are reduced the countervailing duties will be reduced and the protection to the West Indian producer will suffer.
  But then, Sir, as to the second object of the Convention—namely, the promotion of the consumption of sugar. It is perfectly absurd so far as our people are concerned. From our point of view this is a proposal for raising the price, restricting the supply, and diminishing the consumption of sugar. Let us consider the initiative taken by this country in imposing this policy on sugar-producing States. It is amazing that the British Government should have been so blind to our real interests as to take the initiative. They have been acting under the influence of some dominant will. I am not going to follow the example of the hon. Member for Oldham in the brilliant speech which he made this afternoon, which raised to a height that they had never yet been placed in, the anticipations that all of us have formed as to his future career. The hon. Member had the courage to dot the i's and cross the t's. I am disposed to be more modest, and I merely say the Government have been, in this matter, under the influence of some dominant will. The beginning was made upon India. The Mauritius planters were to be protected in the Indian market, which takes two-thirds of their produce—protected from the bounty-fed sugar of Germany and Austria-Hungary, just as the West Indian planter now is to be protected. What was the lesson to he learned from that experience, which is quite recent? Countervailing duties were advocated on the ground that bounties were ruining the sugar trade of Mauritius. The arguments were identical with those we are familiar with in the case of the West Indies, but there was more force in them, India being, as I have said, the natural market for as much as three-fourths of their sugar. But what has resulted? The last Report of the Government of the Mauritius shows that in the autumn of last year

  777
  the price of sugar was lower than ever, not with standing the fact that India had given a second dose of countervailing duties with a view to meeting the influence of the cartels and indirect subsidies. And the Governor, in reporting on the subject, says—
  "The staple industry of the Mauritius is passing through a period of crisis which cannot fail to jeopardise enterprises that do not rest on the staple foundation of adequate capital."
  With the failure, the obvious failure, in India, because the object was to raise the price, staring them in the face, this dominant will turned to the European sugar States. Their populations were anxious to get rid of these bounties because they had found how irksome and burdensome they were, and he stimulated their desire, and quickened their action, under the threat of preferential arrangements with our colonies, and succeeded in forming a league pledged to the abolition, or rather to the modification, of the bounties and to penalise sugar from non-contracting countries. I say modification and not the abolition; and here, again, I must criticise the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who spoke as though this Bill and this policy involved an abolition of the bounties. Not at all. On the contrary, while reducing the bounty, it includes a direct recognition and a legitimatising by this country of the surtax, winch is a retrograde step for this country, and which yet leaves those bounties that are supposed to be, and are really, so injurious, in full operation. In defending these arrangements, the settled convictions of the dominant spirit of the Government have been impartially displayed, and it is rather amusing and instructive to follow them. In regard to the Continent, they are free traders, advocates of free interchange and of cheapness. They are complete pro-foreigners, the friends of every country but their own. Or, perhaps, it would be fairer to say that they are a sort of free traders, for the final protocol stipulates for the effectual protection of the home markets of the producing countries, and declares this to be one of the objects of the high contracting parties.
  Then we turn for light as to the views and motives of the Government to the
  778
  self-governing colonies. They strenuously advocate their right to give bounties if they please, and they decline to ratify the Convention unless this right of theirs is recognised. So that it is not bounties, it is only foreign bounties that are objected to. Then let us proceed to the Crown colonies. There they consent to do away with the bounties, India excepted, which is left to its own freedom. Another feature that rather staggers one in their attitude as reflected in the final protocol is this—that it says that during the continuance of the Convention no preference will be granted in the United Kingdom to colonial sugar as against sugar of the contracting States. What becomes, then, of the attitude of the Government towards the new proposals of the Colonial Secretary that we have heard of? He has told us that the giving of preferential duties to the colonies as against other countries is essential if we are to preserve the British Empire, but here he is himself a party to an instrument by which we renounce the idea of giving any preference in the United kingdom to colonial sugar as against foreign sugar. If it is the view that the giving of a preference is a good thing, why should it not be extended to sugar as well as to other commodities, and if, on the other hand, the Government renounce it in this instance, why should they be so devoted to it and think it so absolutely essential in regard to other commodities? But, to complete the review of this Protean championship, we have the words of comfort and assurance in which the proposals are commended to the people of this country. If prices go up, it may be to the extent of £5 a ton we were told, the West Indies will be set on their feet and a great Imperial duty will have been performed. But they do not expect now that the price will go up. What, then, becomes of the benefit to the West Indies? Besides this, if these arrangements end in our imposing a duty on any kind of foreign sugar, the Colonial Secretary knows that, quite irrespective of amount, the price of sugar will be raised, because here is what the right hon. Gentleman said only five years ago. He said—
  "To impose any duty on any condition with regard to sugar at the Custom House, to raise questions as to the country of origin,"

  779
  the very thing we are undertaking to do here—
  "The bonding, warehousing, and delay would undoubtedly, I am informed on the best authority, impose an extra expense which would be something considerable, and which would have to be taken into consideration in fixing the price of sugar."
  And then he goes on to say, a rather surprising sentiment at the present moment—
  "We should avoid, if possible, meddling with a trade of 1,500,000 tons in order to benefit a trade of only one-eighth the amount."
  Therefore, if we analyse the advocacy of this Convention, a very strange document and a very strange policy, we find that it is justified on free trade grounds and on protectionist grounds—from a pro-bounty point of view and from an anti-bounty point of view—with the expectation that sugar will rise and with the expectation that it will not rise. The Colonies and India are to he free to accept or reject the Convention. Therefore they are to stand on the line of fiscal independence. But the Government will not, under any circumstances, punish bounty-fed sugar from our colonies, and that is on the line of Imperial fiscal union. And while the self-governing colonies are not to be ostracised if they give bounties the Crown colonies are on no account to receive a preference. Such an ollapodrida of arguments, theories, and objects probably never was produced before. I wonder whether these arguments will be submitted to the inquiry which is now in process for the purpose of classification and arrangement. Classification and arrangement would appear to be very much required, and this might be an opportunity.
  Preferential treatment, we are told, is the only way of keeping the Empire together, and yet we are now expressly to agree to prohibit it! Our flesh has been made to creep from the terrible and alarming consequences of the dumping development, but the latest Ministerial theory is that the price will not be affected. And then, amid all the talk about tariffs and countervailing duties, conies the intimation that our ports are to be closed against foreign bounty-fed sugar—down comes the portcullis with a bang and a rattle and extinguishes all these fine-drawn theor es
  780
  and paradoxes. The President of the Board of Trade said that the penal clause would be put in force against four countries only. I do not know on what ground he drew the line at four, but four great countries are a very considerable element in themselves, if it does not go beyond four. This is pretty well as a-result for a free trade country, and for a country which proclaims to the world its adherence to the doctrine of the open door. As to the method of enforcing this Convention, Article VII. says that the high contracting parties agree to establish a permanent Commission, charged with supervising the execution of the provisions of the Convention. There are eleven delegates, only one of whom is British, and the others represent countries with interests and habits different from ours, and with a different commercial policy—as yet. The Bill provides for a permanent bureau representing this majority of foreign nations. The bureau, like the present Cabinet, is appointed to collect and arrange information, and to classify it, but, unlike the present Cabinet, it is to publish the information affecting the sugar law and practices in different countries. This bureau will tell us which countries we are to punish or taboo, and when we receive the notification of this we must act within two months. His Majesty the King in Council, with all pomp and dignity, must act immediately at the bidding of this bureau in Brussels, or a breach of the treaty ensues! This is what the President of the Board of Trade said gave us legislative and fiscal freedom! Now there can be no objection of principle to any arrangement by which the Powers may decide to co-operate for their mutual benefit, so long as the matter is in the hands of a judicial body of status and authority, and provided the terms of reference to it are consistent with the fixed, known, and approved policy of this country. But this tribunal satisfies neither of these provisions. We give practically a blank power of attorney, in the dark, which may lead to mischief-making with other States which we shall be helpless to prevent, a power superior to Parliament in regard to our own fiscal and commercial affairs.

  781
  State after State may come forward and complain that we are infringing treaties that we have concluded with them. Russia has done so already. Is it wise for us, who are still free trade, to place this power in the hands of a body, representing States preponderatingly protectionist, especially at a time when threats of commercial war are being fulminated? We shall cut a poor figure if we are obliged to allow ourselves to be used at the behest, and it may be for the convenience, of other Powers as the exponent of an obsolete form of commercial practice. Do the proceedings of this bureau, as far as we can follow them, justify confidence? Some of the contracting States have considered that they are not in a condition to comply with the terms of the Convention. The first of these is Austria-Hungary, where there is a contingent law which gives a monoply, practically, of the market to certain bodies. That is held to be inconsistent with the Convention; but, the bureau says, although it is inconsistent with the Convention, vet there probably will be a law passed modifying it before long, and therefore it is not an urgent matter. But surely they are sanguine men who anticipate anything that may be done by the Austrian Reichsrath under present circumstances. Then in France the system of refining is said to be objectionable, and again the matter is held up because it is not urgent. The French Government may modify their plans. What effect will this condition of things have on contracts entered into dining the next month or two before the Convention comes into force, and when it is; not possible that these Powers can take the necessary steps. Then we have Spin, which has signed, but not ratified, and Sweden, I believe, also. Then Russia has declared that she does not impose anything of the nature of bounties, and it was accordingly dealt with, as we might expect, by the bureau. But, Russia having availed herself of the good offices of Germany, it has been arranged that the matter should be put on this footing, that the United States' countervailing duties should be accepted as the value. The President of the Board of Trade said that after all it did not much matter, because we had no large dealings with Russia, that the sugar imports from Russia were small;
  782
  but I am informed on very good authority that, although it is true that the direct imports from Russia are less than 1,000 tons, vet at a moderate estimate 100,000 or 150,000 tons of Russian sugar was imported last year from Dantzig and Hamburg, which under the new system will necessarily be classified as Russian sugar. One sees here what ground arises for misunderstandings and friction between the great Powers when this Convention is brought into force. Outside of the West Indian planters, the West Indian Association of London, and the refiners, I do not believe that the Convention has a friend in the country. The interests of the community appear to me to be trifled with in this Convention, a community which requires and ought to have cheap and abundant food. The interests also of great and thriving industries are affected, and that is, sufficient ground for our opposition; and, also, why should we give away or compromise our freedom in our own commercial affairs, or place our fiscal and our constitutional rights, as it were, in a Commission—and such a Commission! These considerations, in my opinion, in view of the chaotic state of things among the signatory Powers and the failure of the Commission to carry out the preliminaries of their task, ought to prevail with the House and make it refuse to proceed wit h this Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, in the speech to which we have just listened there was one sentence which, indeed, I think introduced the only new idea I have heard in the whole course of this debate, and which has for me a singular fascination. The right hon. Gentleman suggested in connection with certain quotations an hon. friend of mine made, I think, from Mr. Gladstone and from Lord Farrer, that there should be in this House, as there is in regard to criminal matters in France, a proscription with regard to such offences, and, as I understood him, that no one should be entitled, without breach of the Rules and Orders of the House, to quote any other Member of the House with regard to any speech delivered more than ten years ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the

  783
  Opposition is well aware that I am a friend of reciprocity. I can assure him that I will absolutely refrain from ever quoting from any period dating back more than the ten years to which he has referred, if he will pay me a similar compliment. I am afraid that that is the only sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to which I am able to give a cordial assent; and especially I differ from the statement with which he commenced, which was to the effect that the House and the Party opposite would be perfectly justified in refusing their assent to a Convention which has already been ratified. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has been in office, and very likely will be in office again. What would he do supposing he came into office to-morrow and found this Convention in force? I give him the credit of believing that he would say, "However much we differ from this Convention, however much we doubt its merits, yet, inasmuch as it has been ratified, and ratified after a Resolution of the House of Commons, we are bound to accept it in pursuance of that long tradition which has maintained continuity in our foreign policy;" and I would go further and say that, if he adopted any other course, he would be perpetrating an absolutely unique act in the whole history of British diplomacy, and doing a thing which all foreign countries would be justified in considering.an act of bad faith.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is not a question of what a Minister would do or would not do. It is a question of what the House of Commons would do. If the House of Commons has to complete this transaction, I claim that the House of Commons has full power over that Bill.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not in the least doubt the powers of the House of Commons; and, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I do not doubt its patriotism.and discretion. But I claim that, if there is one thing more established than another in our foreign policy, it is that, right or wrong, a treaty with a foreign Power once ratified shall be observed by the Powers ratifying it. I refuse to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is
  784
  going now to make any new precedent. Of course, it is quite open to the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of protesting against the Bill, and, so long as he is quite sure he will not be in a majority, he may even vote against it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman forgets the fact that the ratification was subject to the approval of the House of Commons. What is the meaning, or what is the use of that, unless the House of Commons acts upon it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I have not forgotten so elementary a fact as that, and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I think in the time of his own Government a treaty made by them was so far disapproved of by the House of Commons that its ratification was not insisted upon. But here we have taken the opinion of the House of Commons. We took it last year, and we obtained their assent by Resolution. We obtained the assent of the House of Commons, we received the mandate of the House, and we ratified accordingly. The situation, therefore, is as I have stated it. But some of the followers of the right hon. Gentleman used the very far-fetched argument that the Bill we have introduced is not the same Bill we indicated when we took the Resolution of the House of Commons. It was, I think, suggested by the hon. Member for West Islington that, in fact, the present Bill deals with the question of penalising the countries that give bounties by prohibition, whereas we said that we were going to do it by countervailing duties. That is an entire mistake, and not in any way justified by the facts of the case. When we introduced the Resolution we explained that we found ourselves bound by the Convention to introduce legislation giving us power to penalise the non-contracting States found to give bounties. Whether we penalise them by prohibition or by countervailing duties is a matter of choice, and it remains a matter of choice in the Bill we present to-night. In that Bill power is given to the Government to prohibit. It is stated—I forget the exact words—that the object may equally be obtained by some other means, but in that case the further sanction of Parliament will have to be

  785
  obtained. This is the position. If the Bill passes we shall be able to prohibit. If we do not want to prohibit, and do want to establish countervailing duties, we shall have to come to the House of Commons again for their sanction. Is it not rather curious, and a sign of a certain unreality about this debate, that at this time of day we have had hon. Gentlemen arguing as though, if we had introduced countervailing duties, it would have been a totally different thing, and they might even have supported us. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That is all very well, but we were told distinctly that prohibition was much worse than countervailing duties by one of the speakers in this debate to-night. The hon. Member for Dundee said he would prefer countervailing duties to prohibition. I do wish for once the Opposition would agree. I beg the Opposition to understand that we, at any rate, diversify our proceedings. We do agree sometimes. But yon never agree. What did an even more representative member of the Opposition than the hon. Member for Dundee say on the last occasion? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said that all would prefer prohibition to countervailing duties. What I wish to say is that we have reserved a choice. We think prohibition s quite sufficient, and the roost convenient form of dealing with the present situation. We believe we shall only have to deal with so infinitesimal a production of sugar that prohibition will be the simplest way of carrying out the obligations, but if it should turn out, owing to some change in the situation, that countervailing duties should appear to us, as to the hon. Member for Dundee, to be more desirable we shall not hesitate to take the opinion of the House of Commons on the question.
  Some hon. Members, in the course of this debate, have been much exercised as to another point. I do not think the exact effect of the Convention has been studied, or at all events understood, by all the speakers who have addressed us in this debate. They are exercised as to the position of the contracting States—that is to say, the States that have joined the Convention—and they ask what is the course to be followed supposing Austria-Hungary, for instance, refuses to accept the decision of the Bureau or Commission in regard to its legislation. Many hon. Members appear to think that thereupon
  786
  we shall be bound at once to prohibit the whole of the Austria-Hungary sugar. Nothing of the kind. They have altogether exaggerated the position of this Commission of inquiry. If the Commission were to report against Austria-Hungary and Austria-Hungary were not to accept their report, then it would be necessary to call a new conference, and in the new conference the new situation would be considered, and it would be perfectly absurd to pronounce beforehand what the result would be. That is tine result with regard to all the contracting States—with regard to all those who come into the Convention, and they include all the large exporting States of the world. If any one of them were to break the conditions or withdraw from the Convention, that would involve a new conference. It would be a new circumstance altogether. The business of the Commission, which has been described in the imaginative language of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as a sort of Middle Ages Vehmgericht, with power of life and death over the subjects brought before it, is to decide whether or not a particular State gives a bounty. Hon Members opposite complain that we are only one upon the Commission. But, curiously enough, every other Power is only one, Do they expect that if this business is to be done at all we could have a Commission on which we were in the majority? Our interests are not in any way antagonistic to those of other Powers. ("Oh, oh.") Not in this respect. It is perfectly absurd to say that those other Powers have different interests from ours. All our interests are the same, and they are to see that bounties are not given. It is a question of fact which this Commission has to decide, and the accusation which is made by hon. Gentlemen with reference to this is that ten of the members would dishonestly, and against the facts, and in some recondite interest—I cannot conceive whose, it would certainly not be their own—declare that a particular State gave a bounty when, as a matter of fact, it did not.
  But then another point was raised which touches me nearly, because it was again, I think, my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn who taunted me with having neglected the interests of the colonies—both the self-governing colonies and the

  787
  Crown colonies. So far as regards the Crown colonies, we have assented to a provision which for five years binds us to give no preference to these colonies. If he thinks that is a blot in the Bill I am inclined to agree with him. But it was assented to by His Majesty's Government, because we were told that it was only upon those terms that we could obtain what we believed in other respects to be a great advantage—a great act of justice to our colonies. But I hope when the five years expire that clause, at all events, will come up for reconsideration. Then there is the position of the self-governing colonies; and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who is really so industrious in these matters that it is difficult to believe he can have overlooked the facts in this case, seems to think that the action of the colonies in refusing to join this Convention is a condemnation of the Convention. I should have thought he would have seen that the self-governing colonies could not be expected to join, that they had nothing whatever to gain by joining, and that the interests which have led us to join did not in the slightest degree affect them. We have declared, and made our ratification conditional upon our declaration, that in no circumstances will we penalise our self-governing colonies. In these circumstances, what possible object have they in joining this Convention? So far as it goes it ties their hands to a slight extent. They have no advantage to gain. They decline to join, and nobody in his senses, I imagine, ever expected that they would join.
  Another point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields. He, like several other speakers who preceded him, appears to be in great distress lest some new cartel, some portentous instrument of torture for British subjects in British colonies, should be the result of this Convention: and he bases all that on a telegram he has seen in The Times, which states that a number of gentlemen, representative more or less of international sugar industries, met the other day and were unable to come to any conclusion. The hon. and learned Member did not read the telegram quite correctly. He thought they had come to no conclusion; but, as a matter of fact, they found—as every one would imagine they would find—that an international
  788
  cartel was a much more difficult thing to arrange than a national one, and, so far as my information goes, there is not the slightest probability that they will succeed in their endeavour. But leaving that matter, may I point out to the hon. and learned Member that the power of creating such an international cartel remains precisely the same whether or not this Bill passes? The hon. Gentleman says no, because by the Convention you have excluded a number of competing States. In other words, you have created a monopoly which will, therefore, be much more able to establish a syndicate or trust than if you had left yourself a free market. Again, I make allowance for the impossibility of hon. Gentlemen, who are very busily engaged, acquainting themselves with the details of a very complicated subject. But what is the fact? We have included in this so-called monopoly every exporting State of the slightest importance, and we have every reason to believe that of the States which are outside some will come in. But assuming every one of them remains out then the total exports of the whole of the States remaining out is less than 50,000 tons of sugar, or 1-125th part of the world's produce. How can the power-or policy of a syndicate, trust, or monopoly be altered in any way without having regard to the gigantic production of sugar throughout the world? In a business of millions, the only difference is that you exclude 50,000 tons.
  Mr. LOUGH: That does not include the United States.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman interrupts very freely. As I have a good deal to say he will excuse me if I do not always reply to him. But in this case I will reply to him. The United States does not export at all. Then the hon. and learned Member for South Shields made a reference also to the most-favoured-nation clause. I have no time to discuss the value of the most-favoured-nation clause. But, curiously enough, while hon. Members opposite are reproaching us for submitting our fiscal arrangements to foreign countries, they seem to forget that the most-favoured-nation clause is the clause which allows foreign nations to settle the tariff that shall be

  789
  imposed on British goods. Yet the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to regard the most-favoured-nation clause as the real stand-by of our British commerce. The hon. and learned Member also said, if I understood him rightly, that the United States accepts the view that the most-favoured-nation clause should be observed in its strictest interpretation, and that it is inconsistent with retaliatory duties. I can only say that if that be the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman it is absolutely, entirely, and profoundly inaccurate.
  MR. ROBSON: I do not desire to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, especially after what he has said about other interruptions. The United States have always contended that the most-favoured-nation clause is conditional, and we have always contended that it is unconditional. In making that statement—which was the one I did make—I am absolutely and entirely accurate.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I see I misunderstood what he said. Now that I know what he did say I will answer him. He says that in the past we have maintained the unconditional character of the most-favoured-nation clause. He is quite right in stating that he United States have taken a totally different view. The United States say, in the first place, that it is quite consistent with retaliatory duties against bounties; aid when we are threatened with the discontent and dissatisfaction of foreign countries, let it be remembered that the United States have put on retaliatory duties against bounties; and whatever other countries may have thought of it, not a single one of them has taken hostile or serious notice of it. I think therefore we may dismiss altogether the idea that when we have followed the example of the United States we shall raise a hornet's nest about our ears, and that a number of countries with which we are in amicable relations will immediately proceed to take all kinds of retaliatory proceedings against us. Then, in our own case, when India put on retaliatory duties, as she did two or three years age, there again she did so without any re-
  790
  taliation being directed against her by any of the countries of Europe.
  Now, Sir, the Bill before the House has been described in most extravagant language by the speakers who are opposed to it. Among a few of the adjectives which have been used, I find "clumsy," "blundering," "ridiculous," "flagitious," and "nefarious." If I may humbly venture to give a piece of advice to those who are opposed to me, I would say that although we are on the eve of a great economic fight it would be well for all of them, whatever view they may take, to keep as cool as possible, and as long as possible; and I should advise my hon. friends on this side of the House, and. if I may say so, my hon. friends on the other, not to exhaust their vocabulary of violent adjectives, and not to turn an economic fight into w. personal fight. I am told that all the logic is on their side; let them be content, and do not let theta add to it abuse. Now, what is this Bill which has been spoken of in the terms to which I have referred? This Bill has secured, or will secure, for this country what for forty years every economist, every representative man of both Parties, until within the last few years, has considered to be a desirable object to attain, and it will secure it with the least possible recourse to any method which has ever been by any one condemned. There is to be the threat of penalties, but that threat, under the circumstances, with all the chief exporting countries bound under the Convention, is not likely to be put in force except to so insignificant an extent that I do not believe Lord Farrer himself would object to it. That is the object of this Bill, which has been really extravagantly represented by speakers on the other side. That object was the avowed object of everybody who has spoken on the subject tip to a very recent period. Now it is said that those who have joined in advocating this Bill, and perhaps I especially, have travelled very widely away from the principles of free trade. That may or may not be the case, but in reference to that I regard this debate as very useful and suggestive; and I venture to submit to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some of my hon. friends on this side, that, if we have travelled in any way from the strict orthodoxy to which they

  791
  profess to belong, they have travelled still further and in an opposite direction. Undoubtedly, I recognise that the gulf between us is widening, and I am not altogether surprised that Lord Rosebery should have said, with reference to this matter, that if there was a division of opinion it would be a diagonal division. I say hon. Members have gone very much farther than the economists whose doctrines they profess to support.
  We have heard something in regard to dumping. We had an interesting speech to-day, which has earned an unusual compliment as being paid by the Leader of the Opposition to the Member for Oldham. Regarding that speech, I join in the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman opposite made use of as to its exhaustive, amusing, and instructive character. It was exhaustive, it was amusing, it was instructive! It certainly was exhaustive, for it went, I think, into every detail of this debate, and everything that it touched it adorned. But that was not all. In the same speech my hon. friend, who has complained on many occasions that he is gagged in this House, has apparently so few opportunities of addressing it, and especially in regard to the fiscal question and of the tariff reform—my hon. friend found the opportunity which he desired, and in the course of his speeech he touched on that wider scheme which he attributes to me, but which I do not in the least recognise as my own. I do not recognise, as described by him, my scheme. I really do not know whether to congratulate my hon. friend on the ability of his speech or to condole with him in the painful position in which he finds himself. I remember my hon. friend at the time he came into Parliament, and I did the best I could then to secure his entrance into this Assembly—I remember how, in the heyday of his enthusiasm, he was going to give his ready and cordial support to his own Party, and to his own Government. (An HON. MEMBER, What about yourself—who has changed most? and loud cries of "Order"!"] I am not going to bandy words with the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am sorry, but it is clear that all those expectations of my hon. friend have been disappointed. One by one his fond delusions have vanished. First he discovered that the Prime Minister
  792
  was unworthy of his confidence. Then came the Secretary for War, who was also found unworthy. Next it was the Foreign Secretary; then it was the President of the Board of Trade; and then, after all that—it is with deep regret I have to say it—he came to the Colonial Secretary. But my hon. friend has still one hope—he clings to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, I hope that the confidence of my hon. friend will not be again misplaced; but I warn my right hon. friend not to place too much faith in the valued and continued confidence of my hon. friend. Sir, my hon. friend said that this Bill was a model and an example of the great machinery which hereafter might be introduced to the country. He said that in the sugar bounties—and I agree with him—we have a great champion example of dumping in excelsis. I do not know of a better example of unfair competition by dumping below cost price to the detriment of a British industry, than this. Yes, and that is why I hold that this debate is so instructive and so useful. Dumping is good; if it is good for one trade it is good for another. Therefore we come to this—all dumping is good. Very well; I am glad to have something to go upon. A part of the Government inquiry is now con eluded. But then we were told that we had come upon a new theory, which was being utilised. But what was the theory? That in an old country like ours, where we have no virgin soil, no untouched mines, the primary industry is expected to give place to more complicated business. Well, whatever any one may say, no one will deny to my hon. friend the pleasure which he will anticipate when he goes to the great centres of industry and expounds his theory. He will go to Bradford, the center of the woollen trade; to Oldham, in the midst of the cotton industry; he will go to some other place. [Cries of "Birmingham"]—Oh! Birmingham; there the trades and businesses are rather complicated—he will go to Barrow, for instance, a centre of the iron trade; to Belfast, the centre of the linen industry, and, addressing a meeting of the working classes, he will say, let us suppose, "You belong to an old country. Here your primary industries must disappear." [Cries of "No."] "Their place will be taken by more complicated trades, and for you, gentlemen, I am afraid there is but little

  793
  hope. But never mind, this great Empire will still remain firmly founded and inviolate on jam am I pickles." That is the new economic doctrine, irrefragable, my hon. friend says, and triumphant. Well, it may be irrefragable; but I wait for the result of that meeting to which I have referred to know whether it will be triumphant.
  I am almost afraid of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to go back twenty years. Why, twenty years ago there was absolutely no doubt whatever about the evils of dumping, of sugar bounties, and of all bounties. It is true the Leader of the Opposition is a survival from that time, but it is not the case with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen. He said if goods are dumped buy them, that is your business, he could not see that any injury could be done; but my point is that twenty years ago there was absolute and universal concurrence of opinion that bounties ought to be got rid of. Reference has been made to a memorandum written by Lord Farrer, and from this hon. Gentlemen have quoted passages that serve their purpose, and very rightly omit passages that do not serve their purpose. This memorandum states in so many words that the Government advocated abolition by all reasonable means, and the Royal Commission, to which reference has also been made, reported against retaliatory duties, though it should be remembered that the chairman, a gentleman of great colonial experience, reported in the minority against the findings of his colleagues. The Commission was divided; but still I give the Opposition the advantage of the statement that the Royal Commission, with Sir D. Barbour, a great Indian financier, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, were against retaliatory duties. That may be; but all desired the abolition of bounties, and that is where they stopped and the Government stopped in 1881. We were anxious to effect the abolition of the duties, but we were not prepared to take the only step which would secure that abolition. There is a passage I should like to quote from Lord Farrer's memorandum. Among many reasons against retaliatory duties, he says—
  "It may well be doubted whether any threat of retaliatory duties might not have the reverse effect of that expected. Any threat to
  794
  treat these bounties as subjects for retaliatory duties would lead to the belief that they were specially beneficial to the country granting them and injurious to us, a belief which might strengthen foreign Governments in the desire to maintain them. On the other hand if they recognise that they are favourable to this, country at the expense of tine foreign country—"
  Yes, but that is the point.
  "we are far more likely to induce foreign countries to abolish them."
  That is what we have been doing. Acting on this theory, assuming the way to, get the abolition of bounties was not to protest against them, but to allow foreign countries to see how foolish we thought them and how injurious they were to them, in the hope of their voluntary abandonment we have gone on for twenty years, but foreign countries have never made the slightest approach to, abandonment. They have increased them year by year, and it was only under threat of a policy of retaliation they at once gave in and gave us all we had been struggling for for forty years. Now what did the theory in this paragraph proceed upon? I only refer to it because it has been repeated again and again. It proceeds on the assumption that the foreigner is a fool; it proceeds on the assumption that foreigners do not know what is good for them, that they are proceeding ignorantly in a course which will undoubtedly lead to their ruin, and that if we only wait long enough they will find this out and change their ways. That is not very consistent. When hon. Gentlemen opposite undertake to explain that the bounties have nothing to do with the ruin of refiners or the failure of people in the West Indies, they say that the real explanation is the superior science of foreign countries. It is the Charlottenburg argument. If we can only establish a school in this country like the school in Germany, which has educated all these scientific Germans to such a height that they entirely surpass our own people, then all will be well. But does the science of the French, Germans, and other Powers concerned stop the political economy? Are they so wise in their methods of business, so admirable in their applications of science, and such idiots in regard to the larger considerations of political economy that any one can instruct them better—that the schoolboy can teach them the A B C of the science of which apparently they

  795
  have not the slightest conception? To my mind that is a ridiculous supposition. I believe the Germans and the French are clever people, and I have an idea that they do understand their interests, and that they do know enough of political economy not to be carried away by all the dogmas which hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish us to accept.
  What has been the result of the bounties to Germany, for instance? Has the system ruined Germany? No, it has paid Germany well. What has happened? An enormous development of trade, and not only of the growth of beet, by which hundreds of thousands of people have been employed on the land, but all the trades which are connected with the growth of beet, the machinery trade, the mechanical production of these; trades are benefited in like measure. That is the present immediate result of paying the bounties in Germany. I think, therefore, people might find that the Germans are not so foolish as some hon. Gentlemen suppose, and that on the whole they have already done very well. But that is not all. They are looking forward to greater success. What is the ultimate object of a bounty? It is to secure a monopoly. Was the bounty in process of securing a monopoly? Yes, it was. If you look at the Returns you will find that the increase of the importation of sugar into this country from Germany and Austria has been perfectly enormous, and that we were on the rapid road to a condition of things in which Germany and Austria alone, without any international cartel such as that which frightens the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields, would have been able to regulate the price of sugar in this country. Do you suppose they would not have taken advantage of that? Do you suppose the working people of this country are such fools as not to know that it would be worth almost any present sacrifice to prevent the creation of a monopoly of which ultimately they will be all victims? That is one reason, and it is a very good reason, why the old economists were opposed to "dumping." But there is another reason. We were reminded in one of the most admirable
  796
  speeches delivered in the course of the debate this evening by my hon. and learned friend the senior Member for Plymouth of Mr. Gladstone's words, and I say the older economists would have been ashamed of three-quarters of the arguments that have been put forth on the other side of the House. They never sought the interest of the majority, if it involved an injustice to the minority. We have heard a good deal of talk about principle. Justice is a principle. Free trade and the dogmas of free trade are a policy. You may change your policy with the change of circumstances; but principles—such a principle as that of justice—ought to be eternal. Hon. Gentlemen laugh at that. They are new economists, new Liberals. I suppose they would have laughed at Mr. Gladstone speaking from this place as he often did on so many questions. He appealed not to sordid interests, but to the high principle of justice.
  Putting justice aside altogether, what is the interest of the community in this matter? I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought a great deal more of the Confectioners' Alliance, and of all that may mean, than they have of the interests of the community. We have heard a good deal more of jam during this debate than we have of the working man. The interest of the community, in my opinion, is to have sugar as continuously as possible at the lowest price at which it can be produced without loss. I do not go beyond that. I believe that the abolition of bounties will secure greater stability. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see that. They ask why. I will tell them why. The instability in sugar, the extraordinary variations of price to which they themselves have made reference are due to differences in supply and demand. If you are dependent upon Austria-Hungary and Germany and there came a bad season, and accordingly the beet crop was a failure, there is no limit to the price you would have to pay. Well, what is the remedy for that? More varied sources of supply; to have a supply on which you can depend, from the West Indies, from Java, from all parts of the world. That will tend, at any rate, towards stability of price. At the present moment beet is placed at an unnatural advantage with respect to cane sugar, and we want to

  797
  re-establish equality, and I believe that that will lead to stability, and in the long run to equality, of price. Our Bill, then, I say, will secure that, and I think that any temporary cheapness with which we have been favoured from tune to time will have been very dearly purchased indeed if it is followed by such a monopoly as we can fairly anticipate in any other circumstances. My hon. friend the Member for Exeter taunted my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade with what he called the gift of prophecy, and he recommended, as I understood—I do not think it was quite in good taste—he recommended that he should take this gift to the share market. Well, I think the accusation is unfair, and the suggestion is not kindly. The accusation is unfair because, as far as I know, and I have listened to the whole of this debate, my right hon. friend has made no prophecies at all. He has said that, in his opinion, the average price is not likely to be raised, but as to making a confident prediction, that has been left to hon. Members opposite. They, indeed, have been very free with such prophecy. I think the hon. Member for West Islington predicted that the cost of this Bill would be greater than the cost of the South African War. (Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear!] Well, that is a good prediction while you are about it. Now, Sir, really let us come to common sense. The removal of the bounty is to raise the price of sugar to such an extent that we shall be involved in an expenditure equal to that of the South African war—that is the proposition. Now, what are the facts, what is the common sense—I call that poetry? Well, these are the facts. After the signature of the Convention, after it was known that the bounties would be abolished, the average price of sugar for the year after the signature was 25s. 5d. per ton less than the average price before; and I am told that at the present time in the market you can buy as much sugar as you like after 1st September—after the Convention is in full force—for £9 a ton. In those circumstances it does not seem to me common sense to talk of an addition to the cost of sugar of £5 or £10 or £15 a ton.
  I must say one or two words about he different interests concerned. We have heard a great deal, as I have said,
  798
  about the jam trade. The hon. Member for West Islington gave us really a most picturesque description of the brilliant fortunes of this interest. He told us of the millions that had been expended upon it, of the large fortunes that were being made, and of the numbers of working people who were being employed. Well, I suppose the people who are engaged in these industries and who have spent these millions are what are called capitalists. If so, why is the hon. Gentleman so severe on the sugar capitalists?
  Mr. LOUGH: I am not at all severe.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg pardon the hon. Member went on to sneer at Sir Nevile Lubbock, whom he named, and others whom he called sugar capitalists. For the life of me I cannot see that a sugar capitalist is a bit better or a bit worse than a jam capitalist. [Mr. LOUGH: Hear, hear!] Well, so far we are agreed. Well, what is the jam industry? I am not going to deal with persons, but with industries. The jam industry, which has been spoken of in such dithyrambic language by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is a protected industry of the worst kind—a protected industry according to the hypothesis of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mind, I am not quite certain that I accept that hypothesis, but according to it the jam industry is a protected industry which could not live unless it could buy sugar below cost price, and that sugar is only provided for it by the bounty system of foreign nations. Now, if I am to compare industries, I say that the West Indian industry, which asks only for free trade and fair trade, is after all more deserving of consideration than the jam industry, which lives on bounties and on the ruin of other trades in this country. But I do not accept the hypothesis. I do not believe that the jam trade is in the slightest danger. I take this as proved. We were told by someone to-night—the hon. Member for Devonport, I think—that there had been during the past fifteen years wild deviations of price in sugar, between 5s. 9d. and 28s. per hundredweight. Well, but if the 5s. 9d., which is the lowest price, is necessary for the jam industry, what did it do when the price was 28s? The removal of the bounties cannot conceivably make up a mere fraction of the difference between 5s. 9d. and 28s.; and

  799
  yet the jam industry has survived that enormous deviation. If, as we believe, the average price of sugar remains about the same, the jam industry has nothing to fear from this legislation. But I go a step further. I ask hon. Members who support the jam industry. What would their clients say if a bounty were put upon foreign jam? It seems to me that, if we had not taken these steps and shown foreign nations that we will not stand bounties, that we will retaliate against them and take all the steps necessary to prevent them, the policy of bounties would have had a great development. I cannot conceive why the Germans, French, and Austrians, who have put on bounties to secure to themselves the sugar industry, which is a primary industry, should not also put on bounties to secure the jam industry, which is a secondary industry. One thing is clear, that if they had done so, according to the arguments which hon. Gentlemen are using, the jam industry would have had no right to complain. They, at any rate, have no call upon us. They repudiate any retaliation against bounties, and if now or hereafter these trades suffer in any degree—and I think it is not impossible that they may suffer—at all events we know that on their own showing no Parliament will be called upon to legislate in their favour.
  As to the position of the alternative industry—that of refining. We have had a great deal of technical description from gentlemen not engaged in that industry who profess to he thoroughly acquainted with its course. We have been told that the refining industry is very prosperous. Let us test that. According to the Memorandum from which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been quoting, in 1864 the refinement was 330,000 tons. In 1881 it was 640,000 tons. That is so say, in those 17 years, in which there were no bounties or only insignificant bounties, and during which trade might be said to have taken its normal course, the increase of the refinery interests in this country was proportional to the consumption of sugar. Then the bounties were increased. What has happened since 1881? Between 1881 and 1901 the industry has been practically stationary. The hon. Member for Devonport put it at 540,000 tons.
  Mr. KEARLEY: I excluded 120,000 tons of brewers' invert sugar. The quantity is about 650,000 tons.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not matter to my argument. I thought the hon. Gentleman deliberately excluded invert sugar as not being relevant.
  Mr. ALEXANDER CROSS: The hon. Member must know that invert sugar is not produced at sugar refineries, but by other processes.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: For the present argument I am prepared to take any figure which hon. Members agree to give me. I say that while sugar refining in the first seventeen years nearly doubled in amount, in the next twenty years it remained practically stationary. Is that satisfactory? It is a most curious thing—and I call attention to it, because it will come up for frequent discussion hereafter—that hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be satisfied with a stationary position for industries in this country. They pay no regard whatever to comparative statistics. If we find that other countries have been increasing rapidly while we have remained stationary, the fact that we have not declined is all that can be expected, they say. I differ from them. In the case of sugar refining, while we have been stationary, what has happened in other countries? In 1881 they exported to this country 139,000 tons. In 1901 they exported to this country 919,000 tons, or about seven times as much as in 1881, while our refineries were stationary. Then we are told that under free trade everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. What might have been if we had dealt with the refining of this amount of sugar, or of the average increase which had been going on before the growth of bounties. Why, it would have given employment to so many workmen that all the jam, pickles and blacking in the world could not hold their own beside it. What might have been still may be, and still will be, if I rightly judge the opinion of the country.
  I now come to the position of the West Indies, and I will deal with it very briefly. The Leader of the Opposition said that they were thriving. Really, it is almost insulting to many of these islands to say that. By hook or by crook, by the help of doles from this House, by the exertions made, some of them were just balancing revenue and expenditure and dragging on a living, it

  801
  is true; but if the right hon. Gentleman calls that thriving, he has a very moderate view of what prosperity means. I go to the Royal Commission, and here they were unanimous. They pointed out that if everything had been done—and we have done everything that they recommended—and if the production of sugar ceased in the West Indies, the situation would be perilous in the highest degree, and that the islands must go back to barbarism. There is no other employment, no means of obtaining money for exports in the case of many of them. We should have them on our hands, and when hon. Members complain of the doles for which I have been compelled to ask, any Minister representing the colonies when this unfortunate fact occurred would have to come here and ask for millions where I have asked for hundreds of thousands of pounds. The hon. Member for Launceston said it would be better to give £2,000,000 than do this. Will he give the £2,000,000? No, whenever I ask for the most moderate sum it is given by the hon. Member and others in the most grudging way. If they could get the £2,000,000, the hon. Member for Launceston would say it was a temporary expedient, and the Colonial Secretary would have to come again and again to keep the islands alive. It is also said that these islands only supply us with 46,000 tons of sugar. What has that to do with it? They supply this amount because, owing to the peculiar situation of the United States, they can send the greater portion of their produce there with greater advantage. But as soon as the supply of Porto Rico and other places increase, and when the reciprocity treaty with Cuba is concluded, the West Indies will have no market at all except this country. If we had only treated them fairly, there is no earthly reason why they should not have been supplying us with the greater part of our demand. It is nonsense to talk of them as an insignificant part of our supply. These islands are so situated by nature that they are specially capable of growing an admirable and cheap supply of sugar; and if we had only given them fair justice I believe their output at the present time would have been a thousand millions of tons. It is said that there is no advantage to them in this Bill; either you will advance the
  802
  price of sugar and the working man will suffer, or you will not, and the West Indies will not enjoy any advantage. But there is a third alternative—no increase in the average price of sugar, but the additional stability and certainty which you give to trade will benefit the West Indies. The right hon. Member for the Cambridge University said—
  "When I hear of the failure of an industry I think it is due to want of experience, care, or ability."
  The right hon. Gentleman is very hard on those who have failed. I am not certain it is always, in the case of industrial occupations, due to lack of enterprise, care, or ability. It is due more to want of capital and want of security. I speak from experience. During the last eight years I have been trying to induce capitalists to go into this business, but it is perfectly absurd to expect any capitalist to put money into an undertaking in the present state of affairs when he knows that there is an immense bounty which can be expended up to the last farthing in order to ruin his industry.
  I have listened in the course of the debate to a good many attacks on myself, and I do mind a little the sneers addressed to me because I am alleged to have a great interest in the colonies. The hon. Member for Oldham said that I cared six times more for British subjects in the colonies than I did for British subjects at home. It seems to me that an Englishman may care for his own immediate country and yet care for the rest of the Empire. I do not think that the government of our colonies will be made easier in future if an idea gets abroad that we who are the governors of the colonies—I mean the House of Commons—are in any way indifferent to their interests. I think that the progress of a community, however small or however large its prosperity, must always be based on community of interest and community of sacrifice, What I believe to be true of districts, of States, or of nations, I believe to be equally true of an Empire, and when I find that any part of the Empire, whether it is a colony or whether it is part of the United Kingdom, suffering from an evident and palpable injustice, I think we ought to remedy that injustice even

  803
  at some sacrifice to ourselves. Now, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask the House to agree to the Second Beading of this Bill. I ask them to do so because, in the first place, to reject this Bill would be to perpetrate what would rightly be considered an act of bad faith on the part of this Government; in the second place, because I believe this Bill will secure free trade in sugar and increase the sources of our supply of that most necessary part of the food of the people; and, in the third place, because it will protect
  us from the possibility of a monopoly and enable us continuously to obtain sugar at a fair price from all the markets of the world. In the last place, I recommend it to this House because I believe it is a tardy act of justice to our own colonies and to a great British industry.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 224; Noes, 114. (Division List, No. 195.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James, Tynte

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Agnew, sir Andrew Noel

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, Jno.(Kent, Faversham

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tr. Haml'ts

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Doughty, George

  Keswick, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bigwood, James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bill, Charles

  Fergusson, RtHn Sir J.(Manc'r

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowe, Francis William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Bull, William James

  Flower, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Butcher, John George

  Foster, Philip. S(Warwick, S. W

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Garfit, William

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh W.

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  M'killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin and N'rn

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hon W.F.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E (Wigt'n

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r Haml'ts

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gore, Hn G.R C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Chapman, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Clare. Octavius Leigh

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hain, Edward

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'd)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hay, hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Percy, Earl

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. (Sheffield

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Smith, HC. (North'mb, Tyneside

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Rasch, Major Federic Carne

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E.R.(Bath)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Reid, James (Greenock

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Stock, James Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxford Univ

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  NOES.

  Allen Chas, P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Asher, Alexander

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc

  Newnes, Sir George

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Burns, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Burt, Thomas

  Hobhouse C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Rea, Russell

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Caldwell, James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rigg, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jacoby. James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea

  Runciman, Walter

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Crooks, William

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lambert, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Levy, Maurice

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Dunn, Sir William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Toulmin, George

  806

  807

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Weir, James Galloway

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R

  TELLEES FOR THE NOES—

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddersf'd

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PUBLIC BUILDINGS EXPENSES [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to make further provision for defraying the expenses of the purchase of Land and Buildings, and the construction of Buildings and Works, in connection with certain Public Departments, and to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums not exceeding in the whole £1,790,000 for such purposes, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow for the purpose of providing money for sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or for the repayment of sums so issued, by means of Terminable Annuities for such period not exceeding thirty years from the dates of borrowing, such Annuities to be paid out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works, and if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Elliot.)
  MR. WHITLEYthought the Committee were entitled to a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury, as a sum of even £1,700,000 required some explanation before being granted. It would be greatly to the convenience of Members if such Resolutions as that now before the Committee could be placed on the Paper, as it was impossible, when they were read from the Chair, fully to grasp their nature. He should certainly oppose the Resolution, unless a full statement were made as to the purposes for which this money was required, the buildings to which it was to be allocated, how it stood in relation to sums previously voted for similar purposes, and whether it was the completing sum for the schemes for which it was required.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,)agreed that it would be more convenient to have the actual Bill under discussion, but the usual procedure of the House of Commons had to he followed. The sum asked for was for supplementing and carrying forward schemes of building which had been authorised for a long time, and which were founded in great part on the Report of the Committee of 1897. The schemes comprised the new War Office Buildings, the Great George Street site, a Science and Art building in Kensington, increased accommodation for the Admiralty, and the addition of a new wing to the British Museum.
  MR. DALZIELsaid the hon. Member had really missed his hon. friend's point. In a proposal of this kind it would assist hon. Members very much if the Resolution had been printed. There were no rules to prevent hon. Members having this notice on the Paper, and if that had been done the Committee would have been saved the exhaustive process of extracting the information which, up to the present, they had not yet obtained. He wished to point out that the Resolution that had been read from the Chair was different from the one on the Notice Paper, therefore they were discussing a Resolution which was not before the Committee, and that was not proper courtesy to the Committee of the House of Commons This was not the period of the session nor the time of day when £1,500 000 should be asked for without a notice being placed upon the Paper. Why was this proposal not brought forward at the beginning of the session, at a period when proper consideration could have been given to it, instead of bringing it in after midnight in the hope that it would be rushed through without discussion? He wished to 'inform the Government that in regard to all their Bills from now forward that he intended to protest against this mode of procedure.

  809
  He wished to know what the original estimate was so far as these public buildings were concerned. There was an estimate when the original proposal was brought forward, and he wished to know whether that estimate had been exceeded. The hon. Member had stated that more offices and land were required, but he never told them whether these were new proposals and they were left to guess. It was not enough to say "Let us have this Bill, and then you can discuss the measure at a later stage." What opportunity were they likely to have to secure an adequate discussion of this Bill? It was their duty upon this and upon every other question brought forward to protest against measures being taken after midnight, more especially when they had no information given them upon which to form a definite judgment. He protested against this sum of money being asked for without any estimate being laid before them.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if there were other new works which were about to be commenced, and he also wished to know whether there would be a schedule to the Bill which would set out the various sums required.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid there would be a schedule which would enable the hon. Member to see at a glance all the particulars he had asked for. With regard to the introduction of this Resolution all he could say was that he had followed the invariable practice of the House of Commons.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there were one or two other questions he should like to ask. He understood that some of the items were in future tobe put into the ordinary Vote of the year. He thought that in regard to some of those extra items a certain amount might go into the ordinary Estimates. He did not think they ought to pass this Resolution without any reason being given for this excess of expenditure. If this expenditure had been put in the ordinary Estimates it could very easily have been explained, but as it was a new Bill for expenditure
  810
  on works sanctioned under former Bills surely they ought to know why the previous amounts had proved to be insufficient, and why they were now asked to pass this Resolution. He wished to know why they were going to borrow all this money, and why they were asked to sanction the borrowing of it without any statement as to its necessity. Personally he had a great objection to borrowing a large sum of money instead of paying their way as they went along, and when £1,500,000 was required over and above their ordinary income he thought they ought to have some explanation.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid he thought it would be much more convenient to consider all those points when the schedule and the scheme were before the Committee. Hon. Members could then judge of the propriety of the measures which the Government were taking. He thought this was hardly the place to raise the question of the advisability of putting this expenditure upon the Estimates. That was rather a large question, and he thought hon. Members would agree with him that it would be rather out of place to go into that question now.
  MR. WHITLEYasked why it was necessary after midnight, and within two weeks of the end of the session, to introduce a Bill involving the expenditure of £1,790,000. The House of Commons was not being treated properly by the Government when a Bill of this kind was thrown at it after 12 o'clock on a night so near the close of the session. They seemed to think that they had only to come down and ask £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, and that the House should vote it without consideration. Unless the hon. Gentleman explained why the Bill was not introduced two months earlier, it would be the duty of the Committee to carry on the discussion.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there would be no objection to pass a Resolution for a reasonable sum for schemes already approved by the House, but he understood the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the money was for works they Lad never heard of before. He thought the Committer ought to have more light in regard to the new schemes.
  MR. H. J. WILSONsaid there was something more in this than met the eye. They ought to have a clear and definite statement of the purposes for which the money was wanted.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said they were only asking leave to bring in the Bill. When the Bill was brought in hon. Members Would see whether the money was to be spent properly or not. This was not the stage at which to discuss the details. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no desire to prevent the House from having an opportunity of discussing the matters dealt with in the Bill.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this was the proper occasion on which to ask an explanation of the purposes for which the money was to be granted. Once the money was granted they would be told when the Bill was brought forward that they could only deal with the details of the proposed expenditure. He thought that the Government, when they brought forward a Resolution of this kind, should make a statement to the Committee showing the purposes the money was for.
  MR. DALZIEIsaid the Prime Minister had suggested that this was not the proper time to discuss the matter.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To discuss the details.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that in the ordinary course of things the Committee, he thought, would agree at once to the Resolution, but they were in peculiar circumstances at present. For the rest of the session the smaller portions of the Government business would be discussed after twelve o'clock. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a time to discuss the matter was a most extraordinary one. Their protest was that they were asked to pass this money without their knowing what the sum was, whether it was part of an original sum or of the whole of it, or whether it was a new sum, and without their
  812
  knowing for what particular business the money was wanted. He would advise his hon. friend to take a division on the matter.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he thought that there was some reason for the complaint of hon. Members opposite. The Committee ought to have some detailed explanation before they were asked to consent to the voting of such an enormous sum. They believed that the Government was entirely over-expending itself in public offices. If they were going to put all their civil servants in vast palaces in Whitehall, and to buy up the whole of Westminster, they were committing a tremendous mistake. He would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should accept the Motion for reporting Progress now, and that the hon. Gentleman should issue an explanatory statement showing the total cost of the public offices up to the present moment, and the addition he proposed to make to each office. If he did that he would have no difficulty in getting the Resolution at a subsequent sitting.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid the Government were not departing from the ordinary method of conducting business of this kind. They were only asking leave to bring in the Bill, which would give hon. Members all the information they required, and hon. Members would not be in any way hampered by passing the Resolution.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he had tried three times to get an answer to his very simple question and failed. Why was this Bill not introduced at a reasonable period of the session? There was nothing in the nature of the Bill that could not have been foreseen three months ago. He thought therefore, that it was only reasonable that they should enforce their protest, and he begged to move that the Deputy-Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would point out to the hon. Gentleman that he was responsible for the business of the House, and not the Secretary to the Treasury. He could only do his best to arrange the business in the most convenient way. The reason why the Bill had not been brought in earlier was that the session had been very fully occupied.

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shackleton, David James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, Wm, (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lough, Thomas

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Norman, Henry

  Mr. Dalziel and Mr.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rea, Russell

  Whitley.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durhant)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Durlingt'n

  Ark wright, John Stanhope

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn Sir H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hamilton, RtHn Lord G (Midd'x

  Purvis, Robert

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Hare, Thomas, Leigh

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'am

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Russell, T. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bond, Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lyun Regis

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw J.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Keswick, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Lawson, JohnGrant (Yorks, N R

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Lundon, W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxford Univ.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Doughty, George

  Morgan David J (Walthamstow)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Mount, William Arthur

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Original Question again proposed.

  Hon. Members might rest assured that until the Bill was passed the Treasury would have no power to spend the money.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 34; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 196.)
  MR. SOARES (Devonshire, Barnstaple)said he thought the Committee ought to have some information as to what the additional works referred to were to be. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out '£1,790,000,' and insert '£1,290,000.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That '£1,790,000' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he thought the simplest plan would be to
  accept the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, in order to enable further information to be given. It was most important that a clear statement should be made regarding the new works. New sites were apparently to be bought; but the Committee were not informed where they were to be. He would support his hon. friend's Motion.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 116; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 197.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Mr. Soares and Mr.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Warner.

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. WHITLEYsuggested that if the Prime Minister would agree that one stage of the Bill, either the Second Reading or the Committee, should be taken before midnight, the opposition to the present stage would then be withdrawn. Considering the amount of money involved he thought that was not au unreasonable request.
  MR. DALZIELconcurred with the suggestion, and said he thought that such an arrangement would tend to facilitate the subsequent stages of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that no doubt a considerable sum of money was asked for in this matter, and if it was distinctly understood that on other stages there should be no prolonged discussion he would endeavour to arrange for the Committee stage of the Bill to be commenced before twelve o'clock.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT BILL.
  [SECOND READING].
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDreminded the Chief Secretary that on a former occasion when the subject of the Development Grant was under consideration Irish Members expressed their dissatisfaction with the Bill as it stood and their anxiety that an opportunity should be afforded for discussing from time to time the allocation of this money. As the Bill stood the representatives of Ireland would have no effective voice in the matter. He hoped the Chief Secretary, who on the occasion referred to said he was desirous of meeting the wishes of hon. Members in this respect, would now be able to state in what manner he proposed to give the opportunity desired. Whatever method was adopted, however,
  818
  care should be taken to render it impossible for the sum to which Ireland was entitled to be in any year diminished.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he understood that his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended to put this sum on the Estimates in the future, and take it off the Consolidated Fund. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House that assurance, and in that case he would not move his Amendment.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)said that during the discussion upon a former stage of this Bill there appeared to be a very general assent to the suggestion that Ireland should get now forthwith and for ever what was considered to he due to her in respect of the money allocated in England for education. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth himself assented to that proposition, viz., that Ireland should get £185,000. The changes which he intended to propose in Committee would not alter that, and the unexpended balances due to Ireland would remain untouched and unimpaired, and the purposes for which the money taken under the Bill was allocated would appear year by year on the Estimates. In that way Parliament would secure the control of the various items and would be afforded an opportunity of criticising them.
  MR. DOOGANsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman should put the word "Primary" before the word "Education." He thought that the balance left of what had been ear-marked for the Land Bill ought to be devoted to primary education, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give the House that assurance.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked if the money allocated would be spent before it was placed on the Votes.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that it would be put on the Votes before it was allocated and spent. He would not be able to spend any money in future in this respect without bringing in a supplementary estimate.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that a portion of this money would be spent upon the draining of the Bann.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid there were a good many other places in Ireland which required to be drained as well as the Bann. He happened to know something about the Bann, and he should say it was the last place in Ireland that ought to be drained.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he understood that the sum granted to Ireland would be equivalent to the sum granted to England for education. He wished to point out that the sum granted to England was an increasing amount, while the sum granted to Ireland was fixed. He wished to know if the equivalent granted to Ireland would increase in proportion to the sum granted to this country.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the point put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark was discussed when the Resolution was considered. In proposing the grant which had been fixed he thought he had made the best bargain he could for Ireland. The changes which were to he introduced into this Bill were going to be inserted in order that a section of opinion in this House should have an opportunity of expressing their view upon the rival merits of certain schemes. He hoped hon. Members would excuse him from going further into those details at the present moment.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  BANKERS' (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st July] read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [LORDS.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [LORDS.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL. [LORDS.]
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  On the order to go into Committee on this Bill,
  MR. DALZIELsaid that although there was nothing very contentious in this Bill, he thought the Government should be satisfied with the business already done to-night, and that the House should now adjourn. The Bill had just been circulated, and Members had not yet had an opportunity of reading it.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)said the Bill was introduced in the interest of certain Unions which at present were heavily charged, and wished to be relieved of the charge. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his objection.
  MR. DALZIELsaid he would allow the Bill to go through on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman would not put it clown again for a couple of days.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock.