Commons Sitting of 2 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Barnet District Gas and Water Bill. To be read a second time to-morrow.
Felixstowe Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Wimbledon; Mitcham; Jump; Kexbro; Higher Broughton; Forton; Shipley (six); Mossley; Northampton; Aberdeen; Leicester; Scalford; MidKent; Failsworth; Wiltshire; Leintwardine; Goodleigh; St. Helens; Gosport; Bournemouth; Uttoxeter; Corsham; Chippenham (two); Calne; New Kent Road; Bratton; Bath; Kettering; Leeds (three); North Wilts; Sibford; Berwick-upon-Tweed; Anniesland; Dinmael; Abergele; Colwyn Bay (five); Eyam; Preston Patrick; Liverpool; Rochester; Capel Mawr; Llangynhofal; Waen; Malton; Bampton; Parkgate; Royal Leamington Spa; and Salford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, with Appendix, 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented, of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (EARTHENWARE AND CHINA).
  Copy presented, of Amended Special Rules for the Manufacture and Decoration of Earthenware and China, as established in certain Factories and Workshops, by the awards of the Arbitrator, Chester Jones, Esq., dated 19th March, 1902, and 18th February, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTEER BATTERIES (QUICKFIRING GUNS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 25th February; Colonel Pilkington;] to lie upon the Table.
  INDENTURED COOLIE LABOUR.
  Address for "Return of Ordinances now in force in self-governing or Crown Colonies respecting the importation therein of Indentured Coolie Labour from India or elsewhere."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  RAILWAY, ETC., BILLS.
  Copy ordered, "of Report by the Board of Trade upon all the Bills and Provisional Orders of Session 1904 relating to Railways, Canals, Tramways, Harbours and Tidal Waters, and the supply of Electricity, Gas, and Water."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Income-Tax Collection in Scotland and England.
    MR. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has taken any steps to secure that in future years demand notes for the payment of income-tax will not be sent out earlier in Scotland than in England.
    (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The date of the issue of the demand notes does not appear to me to be material, so long as the date on which payment is required is the same in the two countries.

    Post Office Telephone Directory.
    MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he

    1467
    is aware that a charge of 10s. is demanded from subscribers to the Post Office Telephone or from the general public for a copy of the Provincial Directory of the Trunk Lines; and, if so, will he state whether this charge is that sanctioned by the Department in their arrangements with the National Telephone Company, and whether, in the interest of the Revenue and of the subscribers to the Post Office Telephones, an early reduction of such charge can be made; and whether, seeing that the use of the communication under the halfpenny postal rate of an order wanted, is allowed, he will arrange that the word "send" may be placed in the same category.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The charge of 10s. for the complete directory of subscribers to the National Telephone Company is the price fixed by the company for the general supply of such directory; and the Postmaster - General has no power to call upon them to supply copies for the use of Post Office subscribers or the public at a cheaper rate. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I can assure him that the question of allowing such written instructions as "send" in orders for goods by the halfpenny post has been very carefully considered, but I do not see my way to admitting any manuscript additions in such documents beyond those provided for when the privileges of the halfpenny post were recently extended.

    Postal Arrangements at Donard, County Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the fact that the afternoon despatch of letters from Donard, county Wicklow, takes place at 12.40 p.m., and the inward delivery is at two o'clock p.m., he could make arrangements so that the delivery of letters in Donard from Dunlavin should be made before the letters are sent out from Donard to Dunlavin.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will have an inquiry made on the question of arranging for an earlier delivery of letters at Donard, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Increased Postal Facilities at Raheen Mountrath, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-Genera] whether he is in a position to state what is the result of his promised inquiries with respect to the application of the inhabitants of Raheen, Mountrath, Queen's County, for increased postal facilities.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The inquiries in regard to the application of the inhabitants of Raheen, Mountrath, Queen's County, for increased postal facilities are not yet complete, but I hope soon to be able to communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Postmastership of Moynalty, County Meath.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL (Mayo, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is a fact that the postmaster of Moynalty, county Meath, has, through ill-health, resigned his position, and that his wife, who is in every respect eligible owing to her long training and tenancy of the house where the post office has been established, is a candidate; and, if so, whether he will, in view of the feeling in the district, give her application his consideration.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member has apparently been misinformed. The late sub-postmaster of Moynalty was reported for serious irregularities, and his office was declared vacant last month. The Surveyor has been instructed to report on eligible candidates for the office, and the application of the wife of the late sub-postmaster will be considered with those of other candidates.

    Government Grant to School at Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol. E.): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any grant was made by the Education Department about the year 1856, towards the building of the school at Broughton Gifford, Wiltshire.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A building grant of £90 13s. 4d. was paid in 1853.

    Crossing from Westminster Abbey to Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the hon. Member for the Chorley Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the condition of the crossing from Westminster Abbey to the public entrance to the House of Commons; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have a crossing laid down which can be kept clean for the use of pedestrians and Members entering the House.
    (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) There is a granite-pitched crossing at the point mentioned. In wet weather, the traffic from the macadam on either side necessitates constant attention to this crossing in order to keep it clean. It is now very frequently swept, but during wet weather steps will be taken to have it swept more frequently than usual.

    Royal Naval Reserve.
    MR. THORNTON: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the possibility of so enlarging the Royal Naval Reserve as to include those officers who, although not at present occupied on the sea, nevertheless possess valuable experience.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Under the Royal Naval Reserves Act, 1859, power was obtained to enter 30,000 men "by voluntary entry from among seafaring men and others who may be deemed suitable for the services in which such volunteers may be employed," and it is under this authority that arrangements have been made to enter stokers and engine-room artificers in the Reserve who are not seafaring men. The Naval Forces Act of 1903 abolished the limit of 30,000 imposed by the first-named Act, and the Admiralty have now authority, subject to the voting of the Supply by Parliament, to enter in the Royal Naval Reserves such number of men of the various classes as may be required for His Majesty's Navy.

    Appointment of Nurses from Dublin Children's Hospital to Workhouse Infirmaries.
    MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
    1470
    tenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will sanction the appointment to workhouse infirmaries of nurses who hold certificates from the Children's Hospital in Dublin.
    (Answered, by Mr. Wyndham.) The Children's Hospital in Temple Street is regarded by the Board to be competent to certify nurses as qualified within the meaning of Article 2 (b) of the Nursing Order, provided such nurse has received not less than three months training in some recognised general hospital where adult patients are treated. The Board has not yet been asked to recognise the Children's Hospital in Harcourt Street as a training school for nurses.

    Irish Agricultural Department.
    MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what is the meaning of the word personal as applied in the printed Estimates to the salaries of certain officers of the Irish Agricultural Department; whether he can furnish particulars of the names and official titles of all officers of the Department who are in the possession of personal salaries, showing in each case the number of years served towards pension, and indicating, in any case where these officers' salaries are in excess of those included in the original Estimates approved by the Treasury for their respective posts, the amount of such excess, and explaining the circumstances under which the original Estimate has been exceeded.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The term personal salary means that the salary specified is personal to the present holder of the office, and that on the occurrence of a vacancy the amount will be reconsidered. The officers of the Department in receipt of such salaries, with their length of service, are—Mr. Cantrell, Chief Clerk, 36 years; Mr. Porter, Agricultural Inspector, 16 years; Mr. Green, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, 14 years; Mr. Barrett, Professor of Physics, 30 years; Mr. Hartley, Professor of Chemistry, 25 years. The amounts of the several salaries, and the normal scales attached to the post hold by each of the officers in question, are given in the printed Estimates for 1903–4. It is not possible to

    1471
    explain within the limits of an answer to a Question the circumstances in which the personal salaries were respectively given.

    Railway Service at Ballinrobe.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the last train out of Ballinrobe leaves that town at 2 o'clock p.m. and the last trains into it arrives at 4.30 p.m.; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the train service so arranged as to enable passengers to catch the night mail to Dublin without the loss of time and money which they have heretofore sustained, and to have a connection with the 4.40 p.m. train from Broadstone as at present exists on the lines leading to Westport and Ballina.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The facts appear to be as stated. No specific representations on the subject have been made to the new Department; if made they will be considered.

    Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway Guarantee.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the ratepayers of the barony of Kilmaine, in the county Mayo, are taxed annually at a rate of from 3d. to 6d. in the £; that when this line of railway was being built the Midland Great Western Railway Company, who are now working the line, gave evidence to show that when it would be in working order it would cost the ratepayers nothing; that the shareholders are guaranteed 5 per cent. on £71,640; and that the railway company are entitled to half gross receipts, and to work the line on the other half; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the traffic has increased within the past few years, he will take steps to remove the payment of the guarantee from these people.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The railway referred to is presumably the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway. It is worked by the Midland Great Western Railway Company for 50 per
    1472
    cent. of the gross receipts. In addition to that working charge there are general charges, directors' and auditors' fees, etc., amounting to about £240 per annum. The surplus revenue to meet the dividend of 5 per cent. on the guaranteed share capital of £71,640 (equal to £3,582 per annum) in the year to 31st October, 1902, was £1,242 13s. 10d., which was a slight improvement on preceding years. This left the sum of £2,339 6s. 2d. to be paid by the guaranteeing area, namely, the barony of Kilmain, and the parish of Ballyovey, in the barony of Carra. One-half of that amount (£1,169 13s. 1d.) was recouped to the guaranteeing area by the Treasury under The Tramways and Public Companies Act, 1883. The net or residual charge would represent 5¼d. in the £ on the valuation of the area charged, namely, £55;435. As the traffic improves (and there has been an improvement since 1893, when the surplus revenue was £730 and the net charge against the guaranteeing area £1,426) relief is afforded to the ratepayers. The guarantee is imposed by statute and cannot be removed without legislation.

    Warders in Tullamore Prison.
    MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the intern warders of Tullamore Prison have to sleep in a damp room without fire or heating pipes; that the dampness has been caused by the stoppage of rain-water on the roof; that these warders are locked up in this room at 10 o'clock each night until roll-call the next morning without any means of communication with the governor or chief warder in case of emergency; that the same warders are compelled to sleep in a room in the invalid ward when they are off duty, both before and after night duty, thereby depriving them of the comfort of the beds they had to procure at their own expense when joining the service; that the officer on night duty has to perform nine hours' duty, viz., from 9.45 p.m. till 6.45 a.m. on the following morning, having during that time to mark tell-tale clock every fifteen minutes and fire two furnaces during that period without any relief or the means of preparing food; and, if so, whether he

    1473
    will make inquiries into these matters with a view to having them remedied.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am making inquiry into the several matters alleged in the Question.

    Promotion of Irish Assistant Teachers to Principalships.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rules of the National Board of Education ordain that assistant teachers of long and efficient service are entitled to special consideration on their appointment to principalships, and in last May an assistant of nine years' good service was appointed principal of Berrings National School, Roll No. 4,186, Circuit 20, Section 3, and is still receiving the same salary as formerly; and if so, will he state why the rules of the Education Board are not complied with in the case of this teacher.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The rules provide that the cases of assistants highly classed under the rules hitherto in force, but not receiving full class salary, may be specially considered on their promotion to principalships. The principal of Berrings Male National School was appointed on 1st May, 1903; he had been previously an assistant. He was not "highly classed" under the rules hitherto in force, ranking only in second class, and his case was not specially considered on his promotion to the principalship of Berrings National School. The Commissioners, however, made an Order in June, 1903, to the effect that assistants appointed to principalships after the 1st April, 1903, may have their cases considered after one year's service as principal upon a favourable report from inspector, and the teacher in question will be eligible to receive the benefit of this Order.

    Army Enlistments—False Teeth and Varicose Veins.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a person wearing false teeth and suffering
    1474
    from varicose veins is eligible for enlistment in the Army.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary ArnollForster.) This is purely a medical question and a matter of degree, depending on the number of sound teeth and the extent of the varicose veins.

    Army Pensions—Case of Private Michael Sharkey.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Michael Sharkey, late of the 41st Regiment, who went through the Crimean War and was disabled by a wound in the left hand, being discharged on a pension of only 10d. a day; whether he is aware that, in consequence of absence in America, this pension was stopped from 1st October, 1863, to October, 1869; and, if so, whether, as he is now one of the few Crimean veterans surviving, this man's pension will be increased and some portion of the deferred pension granted to him by way of annuity.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member has apparently not been fully informed of the facts connected with this case. This man went to the United States of America without permission in 1863, and his pension was consequently forfeited under Article 1214 of the Pay Warrant for the period from the 1st October, 1863, to the 30th September, 1868. On appeal he was however, granted arrears from the 4th January, 1867, but further arrears were refused as he had been in prison for "grand larceny" from the 4th October, 1864, to the 3rd January, 1867, and he could not satisfactorily account for his absence for the period preceding his imprisonment. In July, 1902, in consideration of his having been wounded in the Crimea, he was awarded a special pension of 1s. 6d. a day. This pension, which he is now drawing, cannot be further increased,

    Cost of Foreign Armies
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the cost of the armies of France, Germany, Russia, and the United

    1475
    States, and the numbers on the active lists, respectively, for the last ascertainable year.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures are as follows:—

    Army Estimates.

    Peace Establishments. Active Army (all ranks).

    £

    France, 1904

    27,053,196

    602,120

    Germany, 1903–4

    31,880,455

    600,000

    Russia, 1903

    36,647,089

    1,124,037

    United States, 1903–4

    24,383,469

    67,438

    In the case of France a number of items, such as coast fortifications, which are of a military nature, are provided for in the Naval Budget, and so also in the case of Germany, though to a less extent. The German Estimates make no provision for pensions, which are included in a separate budget and amount to about £5,000,000 a year.

    Indentured and Free Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, while the system of indentured Chinese labour is in force in the Transvaal Colony, measures will be taken to prevent the introduction of free Chinese labour.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Measures are already in force under the Peace Preservation Ordinance by which the introduction of free Chinese labour can be restricted by withholding permits.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Treasury Expenditure.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give a Return setting forth the total expenditure of the Treasury in each year for the past twenty years, showing under sub-heads the totals each year under the different Departments of the public service.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,.): Perhaps the lion-Gentleman will allow me to answer this Question. The total amount of the Exchequer issues, showing the services to which they are allocated, are given in the Finance Accounts published every year about the end of June. These volumes are available for reference, and will, I think, give the hon. Member all the information he requires.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: My object in putting the Question was to get the information in a handy form for reference.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I think the hon. Member, if he refers to the Army and Navy Estimates, will get the information he requires from some Returns which have already been issued this year.

    Sugar Imports from Cuba
    MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what was the quantity and the value of sugar received in this country from Cuba during 1903.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): 448,682 cwts., valued at £215,647.

    Sugar Consumption on the Continent.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any fall in retail prices or increase in consumption of sugar has taken place in France, Germany, Holland, or Belgium, as a result of the Brussels Convention between 1st September, 1903, and 1st March, 1904,. as compared with, the corresponding period in 1902–3.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Comparisons of consumption of sugar during periods so short as those specified in the Question are apt to be misleading, but such figures as I have seen point to an increase of consumption in Germany, France, and Belgium. In Germany and France the retail price of sugar at the beginning of the present year was lower than at the beginning of 1903. If further information is required I must ask for longer notice.

    Confectionery Imports.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity and value of confectionery and other sugared goods imported into this country during 1903.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: 1,444,78V cwts., valued at £2,691,875. Of this, sweetened condensed milk accounted for 874,608 cwts. and £1,665,809.

    London County Council Trams—Liability for Accidents.
    MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Parker versus the London County Council, in which the plaintiff claimed damages for injuries caused by the council's tramears, and to the fact that responsibility was repudiated by the London County Council under The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893; and, if so, whether he will initiate legislation to prevent the pleading of this Act in cases of injuries caused to the public by tramears and other conveyances owned by the London County Council and similar bodies.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk): I think that there has been some misapprehension as to the effect of the decision in the case referred to. As I understand the matter, the Court decided, not that the London County Council were not responsible for injuries caused to the public by their tramears, but that any proceedings in respect of the act, neglect, or default causing the injury must be commenced within six months. This is in accordance with the general rule, which, under Section 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, is applicable to persons acting in the execution of any Statute, duty, or authority, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for making an exception to it.
    MR. HORNER: Arising out of the Answer I hope I may be permitted to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is within his knowledge that the London County Council kept up the correspondence in this matter until it was too late for the injured man to bring an action.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am not aware of that, but I think it very unlikely that the local authority would proceed in that manner.
    MR. HORNER: It actually occurred in this case.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of the conduct of the London County Council as defendant in an action cannot be raised.
    MR. HORNER: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the concluding part of my Question as to whether he intends to initiate legislation in order to prevent this kind of abuse.
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that Question was answered.

    British Agriculture—Co-operative Credit Societies.
    MR.YERBURGH: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the desirability of providing the small farmers and agricultural labourers of Great Britain with the means of obtaining cheap credit for productive purposes, and seeing that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, following the example of Continental countries, advances small sums of money to co-operative credit societies working on the Raiffeisen system, he will consider the advisability of recommending the Government to adopt a similar policy for England, Scotland, and Wales in those cases where the requisite funds for cooperative credit societies cannot be obtained from private sources.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: As my hon. friend is aware, the Department of Agriculture in Ireland is in a position to dispose of a large sum of money in such manner as may seem to it most likely to benefit the agricultural and educational interests under its charge; while the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in England has no such fund. The number of co-operative credit societies in England is not as large as in Ireland but, if the co-operative movement in England should hereafter attain

    1479
    similar proportions, my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would give careful consideration to any proposals for assistance which would not involve a serious charge or risk to the Exchequer.

    Kerry Roads.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that roads, now alleged to have been illegally constructed by the late grand juries, are at present maintained at the public expense; and whether, seeing that no representations were made to the grand juries to reconstruct these roads to meet the requirements of the Statute of William IV., he will state why this demand has been made on the Kerry County Council with reference to the road at Lickeen, county Kerry.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I am informed that some roads were constructed by the grand jury of a less width than 16 feet, notwithstanding the provision of the Grand Jury Act, 1836, and that such roads have been maintained at the public expense. It is doubtful whether it would now be competent for an auditor to disallow expenditure upon such roads. Prior to the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 auditors were not empowered to question the legality of presentments made by the grand jury and duly fiated by the Judge of Assize. The road at Lickeen was not constructed or repaired by the grand jury, and in these circumstances it is now obligatory upon the auditor to see that the provisions of the law are observed.
    MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if any general directions would be given to the auditors to prevent these surcharges being made.
    MR. WYNDHAM: No; the auditors are appointed to examine accounts, and to give general directions to persons discharging that duty would be a mistake. They are bound to do their duty according to law, but there is a discretion vested in the Local Government Board to remit any surcharge on equitable grounds.

    Head Constable Moore, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the nature of the temporary duty which Head Constable Moore is discharging in Greencastle, county Antrim; and whether he can state why Head Constable Moore is not receiving the extra allowance due for temporary duty.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Head Constable Moore was sent to Greencastle in August last as a temporary measure owing to the condition of party feeling in the district. He performs the duties ordinarily performed by head constables. He has not received extra remuneration, but if he is entitled to it, it will be paid. The hon. Member is aware that my attention was directed by Questions put last August† to certain occurrences at Greencastle. The transfer of the Head Constable to the district at that time was an act done in the interests of all parties in the district. If the district continues peaceable, as it is at present, he will in due course be withdrawn.

    Antrim County Council.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many salaried officials are employed by the Antrim County Council, and what the total salary list of that body amounts to; and whether he can state the religious denominations of the officials, and what proportion of the total salary list is paid to Roman Catholic officials.
    MR. MACVEAGH: May I also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of salaried officials in the employment of the Down County Council, and the religious denominations to which they belong; the total amount of salaries paid; and the proportion paid to Roman Catholic officials.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Information in respect to the emoluments of the secretary of each county council in Ireland
    † See (4) Debates, cxxvi., 1448.

    1481
    and of the officials employed in his office will be found in a Return laid on the Table last session [No. 152]. I see grave objections to the Government instituting an investigation into the religious denominations of persons appointed by elected bodies. We have no power to compel such bodies to give the information. If, however, it were given in the case of counties Antrim and Down such a course might lead to a request for similar investigation in respect of other counties, and so foment a spirit of sectarian bitterness which all must desire to see allayed.

    Galbraith Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the property of the late John Samuel Galbraith are being sued for rent and arrears; and whether, as he has promised to direct the Estates Commissioners' attention to this estate with a view to its purchase as a congested estate, he will urge the Commissioners to at once take steps to approach the landlord in this matter with a view to sale.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I undertook to bring the suggestion in the hon. Member's previous Question of the 15th ultimo† under the notice of the Commissioners. That was done, and I am informed that they have received no application for the purchase of the estate from the owner. If such an application be made it will have consideration.

    Captain Musters' Estate, County Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland in what state the sale of the estate of Captain J. G. Musters, consisting of a number of townlands in Ihe parish of Clonguish, county Long-lord, now stands; whether any objections to the sale have been made; if so, by whom; and when it is proposed to vest the property in the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: One hundred and two applications for advances on this estate were received. In all these, with
    † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1334.
    1482
    the exception of six, the sales have been completed. In four of the six excepted cases questions arose as to boundaries and turbary, which have been recently disposed of. The advances have been sanctioned and the holdings can be at once vested. The remaining two are awaiting inspection.

    States Butter.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of States Butter, called American Ladles, with the view of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland taking action to prevent it being made up and sold as Irish Firkin Butter; also, whether he will inquire if this stuff is made of glucose and dextrine, and, if so, will the importation of it be stopped.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The attention of the Department was directed to this substance in August last. It was ascertained that a quantity had been consigned to a Limerick trader not as butter, but as "American Butter Grease." No evidence was obtainable that the substance was placed on the market as Irish butter. The Department is giving special attention to the matter, and if evidence of illegal sales is forthcoming vigorous action will be taken.
    MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to have some of this stuff analysed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That has been done already.

    Alleged Perjury at Ballinrobe Petty Sessions.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL (Mayo, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Allen Bell, Rosident Magistrate, stationed at Ballinrobe, county Mayo, reported to the Irish Executive the grave conduct of two policemen who gave false evidence at the Ballinrobe Petty Sessions; and, if so, on what date was the communication received from him.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have already stated that the papers in this case have been laid before the Attorney-General,

    1483
    and when further information, which has been called for, is forthcoming a decision will be taken by Government. I think the hon. Member will see, therefore, that it is most undesirable, at the present stage, to answer Questions which cover only a small part of the ground and deal with a matter on which a decision is pending.
    MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: When may we expect a reply?
    MR. WYNDHAM: At an early date. Naturally the Government are unwilling that this charge should be kept hanging over the heads of these men.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must decline to add anything to my Answer.
    MR. MACVEAGHrose to put another Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has answered the Question on the Paper and distinctly declines to say anything further.
    MR. MACVEAGH: He has not answered the litter part of the Question.

    Macroom Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Local Government Board inquiry into a labourers' cottage scheme for additional half-acres recently held in the Macroom Rural District, one of the councillors for the Candroma electoral division, Mr. Michael Lucey, appeared before the inspector on Monday, 22nd, and requested that his evidence in favour of the scheme should be heard, stating that he had received no official notification of the inquiry, and could not, owing to illness, attend on the first day of the proceedings; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds the inspector refused the evidence of Mr. Lucey at this inquiry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: It has been found necessary to communicate this Question to the inspector for report. Perhaps
    1484
    the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat it on Monday next.

    Irish Railway Employees—Pensions.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there is not any special provision whereby employees on guaranteed light railways in Ireland may become entitled to pensions after long and efficient service, he can hold out any immediate hope that these public servants will have their interests in this matter considered in a Government Bill.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Employees on such railways are in the same position as officials on other railways and commercial undertakings. There are no special reasons for differentiating in favour of the former, and I cannot therefore hold out any hope in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.
    In reply to a further Question, Mr. WYNDHAM said the matter was entirely one for the railway companies and he had no right to interfere.

    Belfast Constabulary.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland whether he can state how many sergeants in the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast have been retired on pension through the age limit during the past three years, and to what religious denominations they belonged; how many have been retained in the Force, although over the age limit, and the religious denominations to which they belong; and whether the system prevailing in Belfast is universal in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no age limit in Belfast or elsewhere in Ireland. The conditions of service in the Force are regulated by the Statute 46 and 47 Vict., cap. 14. A Return is in preparation showing the number and religions of sergeants who have been required to retire during the past three years upon the completion of twenty-five years' service, and will be communicated to the hon. Member in the course of the afternoon.

    Mrs. Bruce Pryce's Estate, County Kildare
    MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware

    1485
    that the tenants of Mrs. Bruce Pryce on her estate at Rheban, county Kildare, have served originating notices to fix fair rents for the first term for hearing before the County Court Judge at the ensuing April sessions at Kildare; that the landlord has served notice to transfer to the Land Commission and the order to transfer will be made as of course; that Maurice Walsh, a tenant on this estate, served an originating notice so far back as the 8th of February, 1903; that on Vesey's estate notices were served on the 27th January, 1903, and no lists for hearing these cases have been published up to the present; and, if so, whether, in view of the effect on the tenants of the delay in having a fair rent fixed, he can state when a sub-commission will sit for the hearing of cases in county Kildare in the Athy Union.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The fair rent applications from the Bruce Pryce Estate have not yet been transferred from the Civil Bill Court to the Land Commission. Applications lodged with the Commission from this district prior to the close of last year, will be listed for hearing in the course of the present month or early in April.

    South African War—Death Roll
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of officers and men killed, the number who died of wounds, and the number who died from enteric fever and other diseases during the war in South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The figures are as follows—

    Officers

    Warrant, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men.

    Killed or died of wounds

    719

    6,863.

    Deaths from Enteric fever

    183

    7,807.

    Deaths from other diseases

    223

    4,926.

    The statistics do not show the killed separately from those who died of
    1486
    wounds, and the compilation of the figures would involve considerable labour.
    MR. EUGENE WASONinquired how many of those who died of enteric had undergone the process of inoculation.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that he had not that information.

    Somaliland Expenditure.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War under what authority he proposes to pay the expenses of the war in, Somaliland after the 31st of March, for which no provision is made in the Army Estimates.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I would remind the hon. Member of the remarks on the subject in my Memorandum on Army Estimates, 1904–5. Pending an additional Estimate (should such be necessary) the expenditure in question will be met temporarily out of Army Votes generally for 1904–5.

    South African Natives and Chinese Mine Labour.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg, to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before sanctioning the Ordinance for the importation of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal, he will cause further inquiry to be made as to the effect of such importation on the minds of the native tribes of South Africa, and the complications which may ensue, and communicate the results of such inquiry to this House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I do not see my way to giving the pledge required by the hon. and gallant Member.
    MAJOR SEELY: That does not appear to be an Answer to my Question.

    Transvaal Labour Ordinance—Sale of Intoxicants and Opium to Chinese.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal law prohibiting the sale of intoxicants to natives will apply to imported Chinese labourers; and whether

    1487
    the regulations to be framed under the Transvaal Imported Labour Ordinance will prohibit the supply of opium to those labourers.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Law to which the hon. Member refers prohibits the supply of intoxicants to coloured persons, except as regards Kaffir beer for the use of natives employed at the mines, and I am communicating with Lord Milner as to the corresponding arrangements to be made in the case of Chinese. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I am advised that Chinese labourers are not addicted to the excessive use of opium, but the necessity for providing against such abuse will not be lost sight of.

    Labour Ordinances—Hours of Labour and Pay.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any labour Ordinance of any importance now in force in any Crown colony in which the maximum number of hours of labour per day for the indentured labourer and the minimum rate of wages to be paid him are not provided for in the Ordinance itself.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not been able to assure myself within the short notice given of the facts. It is perhaps sufficient to state that the contract into which the labourer will enter will contain the hours of labour and the rate of wages agreed upon. The contract is fully safeguarded in the interests of the Chinese, not merely by his own intelligence but by a Protector to be appointed in China by the Chinese Government.
    MR. WHITLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what wages have been agreed upon?
    MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.

    British Indians and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his statement in his telegram to Lord Milner of 16th January, that the provisions of the draft Ordinance for the importation of indentured labour, if applied to British Indians, would
    1488
    probably be objected to by the Indian Government, is based upon any correspondence; and, if so, whether he will lay this correspondence upon the Table of the House.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The statement in the telegram in question was based, not upon any correspondence, but upon the fact that communications have been proceeding between the Transvaal Government, the Colonial Office, the Indian Office, and the Indian Government with a view of arriving at an agreement with regard to the status of the Indian traders, licensed and unlicensed, carrying on business in the Transvaal now and before the war; and that pending the settlement of this matter the Indian Government is disposed to object to the introduction of Indian coolies into the Transvaal. As those negotiations are still proceeding I do not propose to lay Papers at present.

    Sunday Trains on Irish Railways
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have for some time discontinued the Sunday trains between Limerick and Tralee, which were continually run by the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company; whether he has received a resolution of the traders and others in Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, complaining of such action: and whether, seeing that by the amalgamation of the latter company with the former the public were guaranteed equal facilities to those heretofore enjoyed by them, he will, in view of the loss and inconvenience o the public caused by the discontinuance of these trains, take steps to have them continued.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received from the hon. Member a copy of the resolution to which he refers. I am inviting the observations of the railway company in the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member on receiving the company's reply.

    Cork Post Office—Overtime for American Mails.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the whole dual

    1489
    staff of the Cork Post Office, with four or five exceptions, has suffered to an extent varying from 1d. to 4d. per hour by the abolition of the special rate for overtime for the disposal of the American mail matter, he will increase the minimum rate to 1s. per hour, in view of the importance attached to the acceleration of those mails; and whether steps will be taken, without delay, to compensate those officers who have suffered by the late reduction.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I have called for a further report on the matter to which the hon. Member refers, and I will give him a reply as soon as possible.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the noble Lord say why this special rat of pay for overtime has been abolished?
    LORD STANLEY: It arises out of a general readjustment based on the recommendations, I believe, of the Tweedmouth Committee. I am making further inquiries into the matter.

    Marine Insurance Bill.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state whether the Marine Insurance Bill will be re-introduced at an early date.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I hope the Bill to which my hon. friend refers, and in which I know he takes the greatest interest, will be introduced at an early date.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: Will it be first brought in in this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I believe that is the arrangement.

    Alien Immigration Bill.
    MR. TREVELYAN Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is probable that the Alien Immigration Bill will be introduced before Easter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope this Bill will be introduced before Easter, but the House knows that our pressing necessity at the present moment is Supply, and I can give no absolute pledge on the subject.

    Parliament and the Press.
    MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of arranging to supply Blue-books and other State Papers, issued by Command or by public departments, simultaneously to Parliament and to the Press.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I point out, with regard to the mysterious document to which I have already made reference on two successive days, that we are still without that document, although it appeared in the newspapers on Monday morning?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the fact to which the right hon. Gentleman calls my attention, and of which I was not aware, is most regrettable. I do not know what is the cause of it. The House knows that when the Press gets hold of a document it has very exceptional facilities for rapidly putting it before the public, and no machinery we can construct, will, I think, be able to compete with them. But I think every effort ought to be made in order that documents may be in the hands of Members or, at the very least, in the Vote Office before they are available for the Press for publication.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman hardly goes back far enough. He says the Press "got hold" of this document.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Someone must have given the document to the Press. The point at which to stop these proceedings is surely the point where the communication is made by the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not talking about that particular document.

    1491
    I did, it is true, refer to that, but in my general observations I was referring to a rule which I think, as far as possible, ought to be applied to all documents. As regards that particular document, I think it is a very serious thing that it should not have been in the hands of Members. I was not in London last week. I was communicated with as to whether there was any objection to publication. I said "No."
    MR. BUCHANAN: Would the difficulty not be got over by arranging that the Press shall only obtain the documents when printed for the use of Members?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Inasmuch as the copy furnished to the Press is always printed, would it take more than a few more hours to strike off the 700 copies required for Members?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the matter is quite so simple as my hon. friend supposes, but I am quite willing to do my best.
    MR. PIRIE: Was this mysterious document submitted to the members of the Cabinet before being given to the Press?
    MR SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite customary for the Press to get advance copies of public documents long before they are in the hands of Members?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. This is now becoming a debate.

    Irish Bills.
    MR JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will immediately introduce the promised measure dealing with labourers in Ireland, so as to afford ample time for the consideration of its provisions by those specially interested in the matter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR.: Both the Bills to which the hon. Gentleman refers will,
    1492
    I hope, be introduced at a very early date.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May we hope they may be introduced next week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope so.

    The Parliamentary Session.
    MR. GALLOWAY (Manchester, S.W.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proposed alteration in the Parliamentary Session; and if he will give facilities for a discussion upon the subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think anything but good would ensue upon a discussion of this question by the House, and I hope my hon. friend will be successful in the ballot. There are two points to be considered in connection with this matter—one is the great difficulty of rearranging the session in view of the legal end of the financial year and the necessity of getting through the greater part of Supply after the financial year. The second difficulty which has always influenced me in throwing cold water on the proposal is that, while I am quite sure it would be easy to make the session begin earlier, I am not quite sure it would be easy to make it end earlier.

  NEW WRTT.
  New Writ for the county of Dorset (Eastern Division), in the room of the Hon. Humphry Napier Sturt, now Baron Alington, called up to the House of Peers.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir JAMES FERGUSSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure; and Sir Thomas Esmonde to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including

1493
Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures.
Sir JAMES FERGUSSON further reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolution:—"That any member of the Chairmen's Panel be and he is hereby empowered to ask any other member of the Chairmen's Panel to take his place in case of necessity."
Reports to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILL.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend The Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894," presented by Mr. Gretton; supported by Mr. Butcher, Mr. Cameron, Sir Ernest Flower, Sir Came Rasch, Mr. Shackleton, and Mr. Soames; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee:
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

SUPPLY.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,691,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONinquired if a general discussion would be allowed on the Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the practice has been to allow a general discussion on
  1494
  Vote A and Vote 1, and it is by arrangement only that such discussions are allowed on other Votes. I, therefore, think that in this case a general discussion will be permissible.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said that in continuation of the protest he made on Vote A he intended to move a reduction of the present Vote, which was the first in which they were confronted with a large increase of money for naval expenditure. He thought he was justified from the point of view of the Irish taxpayers in making a practical protest by moving a reduction.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On a point of order I wish to move an Amendment, and I should like to know if a reduction moved by the hon. Gentleman for East Clare will have the effect of excluding me from an opportunity of drawing attention to an earlier item in the Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If a reduction is moved of the whole sum it will not be possible then to move a reduction of an item.
  MR. WHITLEY: Would it be possible for the Government to put the closure on the Motion, and thus deprive hon. Members of an opportunity of discussing details of the Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he had no desire to prevent hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway indulging in any criticisms they might deem necessary in regard to the policy of the Government, and, therefore, he would content himself with moving a reduction of Item A by the sum of £281,692. He thought it was most unjust and unfair from the point of view of the Irish taxpayer that, without any reference whatever to the capacity of Ireland to meet these great increases of expenditure, these additions to the Estimates should be put down. He did not complain in the slightest degree of the Secretary to the Treasury or of the officials in charge of the Admiralty making what arrangements they considered to be necessary for the efficiency

  1495
  of the Fleet as far as England was concerned, and he held that an Irish Member had very little right in that House to object to any expenditure—naval or otherwise—of the money of the British taxpayer. The Government was entitled to do exactly as it liked with its own taxation. They could increase the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates year by year if they chose, but the Irish taxpayers objected—and it was an objection against which no reasonable argument could be advanced—that it was unfair to insist on their paying whether their country was prosperous or not. They ought not to be called upon, whether they liked or not, to pay their share of any increased expenditure which might be deemed necessary by the British Government. That raised at once the whole question of Ireland's position towards Great Britain under the Act of Union, which abolished the Irish Parliament. They were told at the time of the Union that the amalgamation of the Irish and British Legislatures would have most beneficial results so far as Ireland was concerned; they were told that under the Union they would enjoy benefits and advantages which they could never obtain under an Irish Parliament. But those who opposed the Union very wisely predicted that that result very likely would not be achieved, but that, on the contrary, the result of the union of the Irish and British Parliaments would be that Ireland, from a financial point of view, would suffer considerably. He ventured to assert most respectfully that no Member on either side of the House could deny that the effect of the Union down to the present day had been that the Irish taxpayer had been called upon to spend enormous sums for purposes which would never have arisen at all had Ireland remained a self-governing country with a Parliament of her own—had been called upon to spend enormous sums of money for purposes which had been brought about owing to the action of England and Scotland, and through no fault of the Irish people themselves. He knew he was bound to confine himself to the Navy Estimates on that particular occasion; otherwise, he thought he would have been able to trace, year by year, during the last century, action on the
  1496
  part of successive Governments which had entailed the expenditure of enormous sums by Ireland owing to the arrangements under the Union from which Ireland had derived no benefit whatever. He would not refer, even briefly, to the South African War which had just been concluded. It was, however, a notorious fact that Ireland had no interest in that war, that the Irish people were passionately opposed to it, and whether they were right or wrong in the estimation o Englishmen, the fact remained that the voices and the votes of Ireland in that House were raised in opposition to it, and that they disclaimed all participation in it. Yet the Irish people had been called upon to pay a very large and unfair proportion of the 250,000,000 or so of money which the war had cost the taxpayers of these countries.
  These Naval Estimates were simply a continuation of the old policy towards Ireland of making Irish people share an increased expenditure whether they desired to do so or not, and his object in rising that day was to ask—though he supposed it would be perfectly futile for him to do so—that in the future some arrangement might be made, while the present system of Irish Government lasted, whereby increased expenditure which was initiated by England alone should be borne by England alone, and that the Irish taxpayers should be relieved from this enormous tax upon their slender resources. He knew perfectly well that a great many Members would come at once to the conclusion that in objecting to the increase of those Estimates he, and those of his colleagues who joined him in the objection, were simply actuated by the motive of delaying the transaction of business. There were, he believed, some Members who went so far as to say that their object was simply to waste the time of Parliament. Well, they had to put up with those misrepresentations, and he said there, as sincerely and truly as ever any man had made a declaration in that House, that he was objecting to that increase because he believed it was monstrously unjust and unfair to ask Irish taxpayers for an increase of even one shilling of money under the Vote. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury

  1497
  if he could tell him how much of that money would—directly or indirectly—benefit the Irish people. The number of Irishmen in the Fleet was extremely small, and, as regarded the cost of the Coast Guard Service, that service was, in Ireland, also a comparatively small one. It would, therefore, be impossible to suggest that Ireland participated to any extent in the benefit of the expenditure of this money. An increase was apparent in all the Votes contained in the Estimates, and in connection with everyone of them he ventured to assert that the Irish people got no return whatever for the expenditure. It was perfectly futile for the Secretary to the Treasury or any other hon. Member representing the Government to tell him that they had in return for that great expenditure the satisfaction of knowing that they were protected and safeguarded all round their coasts by the British Fleet.
  He did not know whether this country was in danger or not; he did not know whether the standard set up—the two-Power standard which had been set up for our Fleet to render it able to cope with the fleets of any other two nations in the world—was justified by circumstances or not. This country might be in danger, and it might be considered necessary to spend even more money than it was now proposed to spend for its protection; but, however that might be, no one could seriously urge that it was necessary for the welfare and security of Ireland, with its population of 4,500,000, to spend year after year increasingly large sums of money for the upkeep of the greatest and largest Fleet in the world. They in Ireland were in no danger; their foreign trade had unfortunately almost vanished. A hundred years ago there was a considerable trade throughout Ireland, but one of the results of the destruction of the separate Irish Government had undoubtedly been the disappearance of the foreign trade of Ireland, and it was, therefore, absurd to say that any theory of national security or well-being could justify a demand on the Irish people to spend millions of their money for a Fleet from which they derived absolutely no advantage whatever. He said seriously it would only be fair and reasonable to arrive at some arrangement in regard to Ireland whereby, if it were necessary that
  1498
  they should pay some share of the cost, the amount should be fixed and not exceeded year after year. That was done in the case of the Colonies, and he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, without going into details, to say whether, supposing our naval expenditure continued growing year by year, the demand upon the Colonies would increase in proportion. They knew very well that it would not; that a sum had been fixed to cover a certain period of years, and that whether the expenditure on the British Navy was larger or smaller that given sum only would have to be paid. The ease of Ireland, however, was quite different from that of the Colonies. The Irish people were poorer, their resources were much slighter in every way than the resources of the Colonies. They certainly were not so wealthy, and it was, therefore, most unnecessary to call upon them to pay this enormously huge sum of money, increasing as it was, year by year. The whole position of Ireland in reference to Great Britain in this matter was most unjust and unfair, and he would go even further and would say that, in his opinion, it was a downright mean thing for a great and wealthy Government like the present one to insist upon the Irish people, whose poverty was perfectly well known, sharing to the fullest extent the burden of this expenditure. He might cite another point. Some years ago a Royal Commission sat to consider the relative positions of Ireland and Great Britain in the matter of taxation, and it was on record that that Commission reported that the Irish people were contributing several millions a year more than they ought in fairness to pay for national purposes. That could not be gainsaid in any way, and yet the demands upon the Irish taxpayer were being increased year after year. The Irish people found the greatest possible difficulty in providing for themselves the ordinary necessaries of life, and yet, without the slightest reference to their deplorable condition, the representatives of the wealthy English nation came there and without any hesitation insisted that they should consent to the increased naval expenditure. The Irish people had no sympathy whatever with this braggart policy which had been adopted by the present Government, the result of which they saw in the expenditure of those

  1499
  enormous sums of money. If the Government considered these things were necessary, if they considered that the wealth of the country should be sunk in shipbuilding and gunmaking, it was their business, and no one had any right to interfere with their opinion or their decision to spend their own money as lavishly and as generously as they chose upon their Fleet. They might make that Fleet four times its present size, they might fill their dockyards with work and employ thousands more men than they did at the present day; but they had no right to ask the people of Ireland, who were not threatened by any danger from any Power in the wide world, to keep pace with them in that expenditure, which was creating alarm by reason of its very magnitude.
  He had asked a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that day with a view to securing a Return which would give in a handy and intelligible form information showing to the taxpayer of this country, and of Ireland as well, what had been the growth of naval expenditure during the last twenty years. This year there was a further increase, next year there would be another, and doubtless in the year following the same thing would happen, and so the thing would go on until there was as much spent on the Army and Navy as was at present spent on all the Departments put together. That was the road so ruin. One day there would be a rude awakening, and the masses of the people would see that national safety did not exist in this rivalry between nations as to expenditure. Personally he did not care if it did lead England to disaster, as in many ways she deserved it. She could make her Navy as large as she liked, but she ought to do it with her own money, and not force Ireland to pay whether she liked it or not. As an illustration of the manner in which Ireland was treated he instanced the Coastguards. He had no objection to Coastguards as such; they were picturesque-looking individuals, and with their flags and guns they served to break the monotony of the coast. But so far as Ireland was concerned far too much money was spent on the service. What was the use of the expenditure? When had the Irish coast been attacked? When had these men made any practical return for the
  1500
  money expended on them? The days of smuggling had long gone by, and the Coastguards apparently had nothing to do except to fire big guns at nothing at all in the sea. Along the Irish coasts there existed some of the poorest and most miserable populations in the whole world; the people were huddled together without sufficient land to live upon and with their fisheries undeveloped. Side by side with these poverty stricken people would be found a Coastguard station, the cost of whose upkeep, if spent in improving harbours or buying boats, might greatly relieve the lot of these poor people. The contrast was really too great. He could not expect English Members, who probably represented constituencies in which there was no real poverty, to enter into his view on this matter, but if they came from districts in Ireland they would readily agree that there was much to complain of in the enormous expenditure from which the Irish people derived no benefit whatever. He was perfectly aware that no attention whatever would be paid to anything Irish representatives might say. It was true that they did not share the Englishman's enthusiasm for the Navy and the Empire. As a matter of fact, many of their constituents had never even seen a man-of-war, and they could not be said to be unreasonable in objecting to enormous increases in the Votes from which they would derive no practical benefit whatever. A system by which Ireland made a reasonable fixed payment might work, but the present system under which she had to pay more and more every year simply perpetuated illfeeling, dissatisfaction, and disloyalty. It was well known that Ireland had no sympathy with the policy which necessitated the expenditure of £42,000,000 on the Navy and £25,000,000 or £30,000,000 on the Army; she was outside it in every way except that she was compelled to bear her full share of the cost; but as long as that position continued there would remain to her representatives the consolation, poor though it might be, of protesting vigorously and repeatedly against an impost which was unfair and mean to the last degree. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Wages, &c, of Officers,

  1501
  Seamen, and Boys) be reduced by £281,692."—(Mr. William Redmond.)
  SIR JOHN GORST, who was very indistinctly heard, referred to the method by which the Admiralty now selected the young officers for the Navy. He heartily supported the principle of the scheme. Without committing himself to every detail, he believed the plan adopted was an admirable one, and he hoped it would be successful. There were two methods of selecting officers—that adopted by the Admiralty of taking the boys at a very early age, and becoming responsible for their entire education, and the system adopted by all other civilised nations of taking the young officer at seventeen or eighteen years of age from the ordinary civil population and then beginning special training. The system of the Admiralty was not necessarily to be condemned because it was unique. He believed the British naval officer, all round, to be the best in the world, but whether that was in consequence or in spite of the method of training was a point upon which differences of opinion might exist. One of the chief disadvantages of the present system was that the young boys were deprived of the immense advantage of being brought up, and educated amongst the ordinary youth of the country. They had not got the ideas which they would get in association with other boys, and that was no doubt a very great disadvantage. Another disadvantage was that when a boy was twelve years of age, it was difficult to say whether he would make a good naval officer or not. Again they could not tell when he arrived at the age of seventeen or eighteen years whether he might not have developed an earnest desire for some other profession. It was a great misfortune for a grown-up young man to be obliged to follow a profession to which he had not a natural bent. Having made their choice he thought the Admiralty were carrying it out in the best way they could, and he cordially wished their plan success. He hoped they would never send these young boys to anything approaching a competitive examination, for it did them a most pernicious injury to cram them. If the system adopted was to be given a fair chance they must make up their minds not to have a competitive
  1502
  examination. He also wished to point out that to test the success of the scheme would require a considerable number of years. His hon. friend behind him seemed to think that the scheme had succeeded already. He agreed that it would not be difficult to get a great number of boys to join the Navy, but it would be at least twenty or thirty years before they could tell whether the naval officer produced by this sort of training would be an improvement. One objection he had always made was that the plan of taking boys at twelve years of age had been tried and been found wanting. The plan of taking them at seventeen or eighteen years of age had not been tried, but he did not think the age of fifteen or sixteen years as an alternative was a satisfactory compromise.
  With regard to school management, when the Admiralty undertook to manage a school they should be very careful to see that it was really a good one. If public schools were never going to be better than they were now, then the Admiralty would be right in saying that they must have a school of their own. He was not sure that the Admiralty would be able to maintain the school as well as the public schools were now maintained. He would suggest that the Admiralty should have this school examined by the Department of the Board of Education, and that the reports of that inspection and examination should from time to time be laid on the Table of the House. He thought that would be a safeguard for the Admiralty itself, and a guarantee that the large amount of money asked for would be usefully and properly expended. Instead of taking a much larger number of boys at the age of eighteen it might be better to have some system by which the wastage could be supplied from the outside. That had been done in former days in the Admiralty, and in that way they had a great check upon the efficiency of the system. Those were points which he desired to urge upon the Government last year, but he did not get the opportunity. He wished the Admiralty to consider this as a matter of education, and not as a matter of naval policy, and if they did he thought it possible that some system of the kind might improve and assist the plan which the Admiralty had adopted

  1503
  and in the carrying out of which he had no desire to do anything hut give them the most cordial support.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid there could be no doubt that expenditure upon the present scale of the Navy Estimates pressed very hardly upon this country as well as upon Ireland. Knowing as he did the importance of having a sufficiently strong Navy, he had never found any difficulty in supporting the Navy Estimates, and, despite their growth, which had been almost alarmingly rapid, he should not oppose any part of the expenditure upon the Navy which was now being asked for. Years ago he said in this House that he thought the expenditure upon the Navy would ultimately rise to £40,000,000, but he did not think it would have arrived so soon. With regard to the information upon which they granted the money that was asked for, he thought that information was in some respects somewhat slender. It was, indeed, almost impossible that it should be otherwise, because they all knew that there were items in naval expenditure as in other Departments which could not well be discussed in public. They took a very serious responsibility upon themselves in voting an expenditure which increased at so rapid a rate unless they were certain that means could not be devised by which the House could be more fully taken into the confidence of the Admiralty. They could not consider the Navy Estimates without bearing in mind what was being spent annually upon naval works. The naval works at Rosyth would cost over £5,000,000. He gave that as an example of the expenditure they were asked to sanction without having any real knowledge of what it was for. If one had to defend that expenditure in the country it could be justified fully only upon the ground that it was necessary to have properly equipped dockyards situated in the cheapest centre of production. In order to continue this great annual outlay upon the Navy it was necessary that the Government should take the country along with them as well as the House of Commons. It was stated by Lord Goschen in introducing the Navy Estimates in 1899 that a Supplementary Estimate was needed because a large sum had been taken from a special fund in
  1504
  Russia for Navy purposes. It might not be always possible to give the grounds for which money was asked for the Navy. What he felt in regard to the Vote for new construction was that sufficient cause had not been made out for raising it to the figure at which it stood. It might not be possible to do that in public. The consideration which he wished specially to put before the hon. Gentleman was one which had been already referred to, and that was whether it would not be possible to appoint a Committee of the House with power to sit in secret session, as the Foreign Relations Committee did in America, and whether fuller information could not be imparted to those Members of the House who were most qualified, irrespective of Party, to serve on such a Committee. He believed if the Navy Estimates had the support of a Committee of that kind there would be much less disposition, either in the House or the country, to cavil at the details of this great expenditure with which the country was burdened. He would always be, as he had always been, in favour of voting the fullest provision for the requirements of the Fleet, and he submitted the suggestion as to whether it was not possible to take the House of Commons more into the confidence of the Admiralty, hoping that it might be seriously considered. He believed the suggestion could be worked out without any great difficulty.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he knew some of the hardships involved in the new principle of entering boys at twelve years of age, because it shut out those of a class who, prior to the introduction of the new scheme, had an opportunity of entering the Navy. That would apply to the engineer class of officers most particularly. He did not in the least suggest snobbery, but there could be no doubt that little opportunity would be given to certain people to gain admittance in future to the higher ranks of the Navy. He did not suppose in these democratic days anyone would attempt to argue that all the best brain was reserved for a few. In the United States and other countries very many of the best men came from the most humble beginnings. He thought it would be shutting out a great element of strength to absolutely close the doors

  1505
  to some of those who had had an opportunity hitherto of access. He desired to raise a question affecting training. They were told by the Secretary to the Admiralty that the training of the Navy in the future was bound to be scientific, mainly concerning gunnery and the care of machinery, and that all boys as soon as they went into training ships would have their attention directed to those matters. It occurred to him that there would be a great need in future for schoolmasters to prepare the minds of the lads for the higher examinations they would have to pass at a later period for the posts of petty and warrant officers, and so on. Of course in the old days the seamanship instructor was a great man on the ship, when promotion was dependent almost entirely on good seamanship. That had entirely disappeared and a new state of affairs bad come into existence, and a scientific knowledge would be needed even among the lower deck to enable them to make that scientific progression expected of them in gunnery, torpedo work, signalling, and so on. At the present moment he understood that no schoolmaster was carried on any ship afloat. He would suggest that the Admiralty should consider the desirability of introducing into all sea-going ships carrying, say, a crew of 200 or more, a schoolmaster, who should be carefully selected. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman a Question in regard to a matter which was referred to in the First Lord's Statement. He referred to the assimilation of the scale of the Marines to the scale approved for the Army both with regard to pay and allowances. Would that assimilation be extended to separation money? Now there was an undertaking on the part of the Admiralty to equalize the condition of the Marine with that of the soldier because it was held to be practically impossible to have different rates of pay prevailing for these services. What he wanted to know was whether the Admiralty was acting actually on an equality basis if they ignored the claims of the Marine to the separation money which the soldier who was married received when abroad. This was a matter of considerable interest to many, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to give some satisfaction upon it.
  MR. GROVESsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University spoke with authority on all matters relating to education. Whether boys were to take their place in the services or in the ordinary walks of life, any opinion which the right hon. Gentleman gave on then-education deserved attention. He had had experience in his own family of various methods of naval education. One of his boysentered the Navy some ten years ago, and had had a successful career. A second boy who afterwards entered some four or five years later had also been successful. He had a third boy who would soon apply for entrance. His opinion was that the most recent innovation was one which was likely to have considerable advantages in the matter of education, and in the future of the Navy. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wise to leave the education of officers to the age of eighteen, because the earlier they had the environment round the young life the more likely were they to develop their predilection in favour of the career they were going to take. It was possible for the boys themselves, after running through the earlier period of training, if found by the parents to be unfit for the career, or if the boys expressed a definite distaste for it to be withdrawn from the service. He had found in his own experience that it was of the greatest possible advantage to give boys an early naval environment. The fate of the country might depend on the natural inclination of officers for their work and their scientific training, and, if their selection was left to a later period of life, valuable time for training would be wasted which the most recent change in regard to entrance would enable them to improve. It must not be forgotten that under the new system youngsters did not make a selection of the particular branch of the service to which they eventually attached themselves till a later period. They were now to be put through the same curriculum and training up to a certain period, and afterwards it was determined by selection, merit, or efficiency which branch they should enter. He thought this was a considerable gain under the new system. The natural bent was given full play, and that was also a great advantage over the old system.

  1507
  He would take this opportunity of asking the Civil Lord for information on some of the figures in the Estimates. He looked with regret on the fact that we had not provided for an equal number of boys under training who were eventually to become our seamen, as was the case last year. The number had been decreased from 6,200 to 5,000, though there was a provision for 360 boys under training of the artificer class which did not appear last year. There was an increase in the amount of prizes given for shooting, which was a step in the right direction. Our seamen gunners ought to be encouraged more than in the past to acquire the art of good shooting; and money prizes acted as a great incentive to this as well as mere kudos winning. The hon. Member for Clare spoke of the Coastguard gunnery practice as "firing at nothing at all," but was the hon. Member himself not really firing at "nothing at all" in the speech he had just made?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was firing at the hon. Gentleman; and he did not know whether that was firing at nothing at all.
  MR. GROVESsaid the hon. Member for Clare might have been firing at the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but at any rate he could not believe that the hon. Gentleman was firing at him. If so he paid him a very great compliment. The hon. Member had complained that during the autumn manœuvres the Fleet had not made its base in different parts of Ireland, but one portion of the torpedo destroyer fleet had its base at Kingstown and in Dublin harbour; and another portion of the Home Fleet had its base at Bantry Bay, so that the hon. Member would see that Ireland was not altogether neglected. He was quite sure that if the hon. Member would continue to press the matter upon the Civil Lord, it might be arranged that all future naval engagements should take place round the coast of Ireland.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the discussion of the past two days had amply justified the few observations he had made on the subject of finance when he seconded the Resolution then before the House, and endeavoured
  1508
  to impress on the Committee that the present provision of naval force far exceeded the two-Power standard. That contention had been supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of House and emphasised by the right hon. Member for West Bristol. There was no doubt that the general result of the discussion was that the Committee was impressed with the view that at the present moment we had a more than sufficient naval force for any probable eventuality in any naval war in which we might be engaged. He had endeavoured to bring that to the test of any reasonable interpretation of the two-Power standard, and he believed he had shown that we were able to meet any such contingency in any part of the world. While there was in many quarters of the House a disinclination to propose specific decreases either of expenditure, shipbuilding, or men, there was a widespread desire, which came out very clearly in the course of the debate, that a stop should be put to the increases that were now going on, more particularly when hon. Members became aware of the fact that within the four corners of the Estimates there was involved not merely the voting of the specific sums included in the Estimates as initial expenditure, but large increases in future years. He thought the Committee should get some assurance from the Government on this point. We were constantly getting committed to small sums of initial expenditure, like £5,000, £10,000, or £20,000, which might result in an additional expenditure of millions. There was the case of the two dockyards, which would involve, when they were completed, an annual charge of hundreds of thousands of pounds being placed on the Estimates. We could not but fail to recognise that the present times were not only critical but transitional. Critical because of the naval war in the Far East; but surely we might draw the conclusion that being in a position of great naval superiority—and acknowledged to be so—we could fairly offer to hold our hand and rest in peace. Still more was that argument good if we looked at these as transitional times in regard to naval warfare and naval defence. Many disputable points in regard to naval warfare were being put to the test and it

  1509
  would be only prudent to hold our hands, ii possible, with a view to profit by the experience and lessons to be drawn from the war in the Far East. There had been no answer to the contention of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean in regard to the expenditure on battleships. The Admiralty were taking the initial steps which would involve an expenditure of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 on a type of battleship which they themselves acknowledged was not the best available type.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,)said that these ships had been laid down some six weeks ago, and it was not possible to alter them now.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Admiralty might have begun to lay down these ships six weeks ago, but that only shifted the responsibility further back and did not affect his argument. There was another point which he wished to put forcibly to the Admiralty which showed still more the un wisdom of the present expenditure of the Department; and that was, that in all probability the plans for the new and improved type of battleship would be ready in the autumn of this year. If the new type was more powerful than the present and was likely to be adopted not only by ourselves but by foreign Powers, it would have been wisdom, from a financial point of view, for the Admiralty to hold their hands so as to have these new vessels of the best possible improved type. Another point on which the Committee should have some information was the distribution of the Fleet at the present moment. It appeared to him somewhat strange that there should be the enormous naval force there was in certain seas compared with that we held at home. There were squadrons in parts of the world where no other nation had any naval force whatever. Taking the numbers from the Navy List we had thirty-eight vessels on the China Station; in the Mediterranean we had no less than fifty-one vessels of all sorts and kinds. We had been increasing our naval forces in the Mediterranean out of all proportion to any increase going on in the French Navy, which was our most formidable rival in those waters. We
  1510
  had in that sea nearly double the number of vessels contained in the combined Channel and Cruiser Squadrons. That distribution appeared to be somewhat strange, because the naval strength of the country ought to be retained principally in home waters. Then the South Atlantic Squadron, with alternate headquarters at Gibraltar and Sierra Leone, had been constituted. No explanation of that had been given, although it was stated yesterday that that squadron was looked upon with a certain amount of doubt and wonder by many naval authorities. As regarded the East Indian and Pacific Squadrons, they were quite small, but he thought they could be reduced even below their present limits, as no other Power, with the exception of America, had ships in that part of the world. He thought some explanation should be given of the changes that had taken place.
  SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that with reference to the distribution of the naval forces of the country, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had lost sight of the fact that they could not divide the sea. While he admitted the gravity of the naval expenditure, it appeared to him to be absolutely unavoidable. He agreed in going as far as was necessary and no further; but they would all admit that the naval expenditure had reached a point at which it became very serious. They had, however, to remember that the Empire was a sea Empire and that there was no comparison possible between it and any other Empire in the world. The national expenditure both in ships and in personnel, would continue to increase whatever they did. His own view—and he held it more strongly the older he became—was that the Empire would have to wake up to its responsibilities and share this burden. In talking about naval expenditure they should not forget the broad fact that this was a sea Empire or nothing, and that if it was a sea Empire all parts should assist in preserving it. As an illustration of that argument, he saw on page 11 of the Estimates a charge for twenty-five Royal Navy Reserve Officers allotted to Naval Reserves in Australasia. The revenue of Australasia was greater than the revenue of Japan, and they all

  1511
  knew what Japan was doing. Why should Australasia escape her duties and liabilities in connection with the Navy? He admitted that naval expenditure would continue to increase; but he looked to a better co-operative system between all parts of the Empire to provide the necessary expenditure. There were those who said that the naval forces of the country were now powerful enough, and that there was no need to do any more. He did not think that they could stop. They could stop doing what was unnecessary; but they could not stop doing what was necessary. Suppose it was found that the number of British ships exceeded the ships of a combination of Powers by ten or twelve. Was this country going to stop and wait until the others came up to it? If it did, then when the other countries reached equality they would have ships of a superior kind to ours, which would be out of date, because every ship was an improvement on another ship. What was necessary was to take a reasonable view, to examine expenditure and see that nothing that was not required was asked for. He did not think there was anything to complain of in the Estimates. During the last fifteen or sixteen years the Admiralty had been conducted in a businesslike way; but the more criticism there was in this House of a really reasonable character the more the Admiralty would look into matters.
  There was, he thought, one branch of expenditure which showed a tendency towards exaggeration. He thought there was danger in imagining that this Empire demanded a very great naval personnel, and he thought he saw a tendency on the part of the Admiralty in that direction. He protested against that. The real truth was that the Navy was so entirely different from the Army that no analogy as regarded personnel could be drawn between them. In contemplating a reserve for the Army it was necessary to calculate on something that could not be estimated. In a land war it was not the enemy they had most to fear but disease. Disease could not be helped, but it might be mitigated. That was not the case in the Navy. The sanitary condition of the Fleet did not change when it passed from a state of peace to a state of war. All the conditions that prevailed
  1512
  in peace remained in war; and it was, therefore, obvious that it was very much easier to arrive at the standard of what the personnel of the Fleet should be than in the case of the Army. He mentioned that because he thought the general trend of policy was to exaggerate the proportions of a reserve personnel required. They knew exactly the number of warships fit for service and they knew the number of men required to man them. There would be no wastage through disease, but only the number actually killed or wounded. The conditions of modern warfare had greatly changed. In the old days a ship might become a slaughter-house and still survive, but that was not the case now. Did not the present war emphasise that very point? The naval reserve was there, but the ships were wanting. He would therefore ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to consider whether he was not going a little too far as regarded personnel. He would conclude where he began. He thought it was the true policy to speak out plainly in regard to the duties and obligations of the outside Empire, in order that all citizens of the Empire should agree to share the burden of the Fleet, without which the Empire could not exist. The present arrangement was not right and should not continue. The increasing expenditure might weigh down the popularity of the Navy, and then there would be a reaction which would drag down the Navy to a low standard, which would be as bad for the Colonies as for this country.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he thought it might be convenient if he now answered the Questions which had been put, and if necessary he would answer further Questions later. With reference to the point mentioned by his right hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University—who approached the subject with great knowledge, and whose remarks deserved to be received with great respect—with regard to the early age at which boys were admitted to the Navy, his right hon. friend said that the early age had been already tried and had been found wanting. That was certainly true, but he thought that the conditions under which it had been tried were sufficient to account for its failure. The present

  1513
  system had very few features in common with the old system, under which boys wore put on board ship under conditions not suitable to children of their tender age, and under conditions of education generally which applied to the Navy of that day, but which no longer applied. The conditions now ensured at Osborne were such that the boys would in every respect, both physical and educational, have at least as great advantages as in any private or public school in the country. As to the suggestion that the Admiralty ought to seek advice on educational matters, he would say that the first thing they did with regard both to Osborne and to the general scheme of naval education was to go to the University of Cambridge, which his right hon. friend represented, and to secure one of its most distinguished sons, Professor Ewing. Not only had they thus secured the highest and best advice on educational subjects, but through Professor Ewing they were kept in the closest personal touch with all the greatest educational authorities in the country. The suggestion that it would be an advantage if the inspection of Osborne was carried out under the auspices of the Board of Education was a new one to which he would not like to give a reply for, or against, off-hand, but he would undertake that it should receive the fullest consideration. With regard to the wastage, the Admiralty did not contemplate any appreciable wastage right up to, or nearly up to, the age of eighteen. They contemplated a considerable wastage up to the end of the first year at Osborne, by which time they expected to be able to eliminate nearly all who did not show sufficient qualifications to make them desirable naval officers. There was one very forcible consideration, not educational but naval, which weighed against any proposal to fill up from outside sources. The First Lord of the Admiralty had recently stated that the sea was one and the Navy was one, and that unity of the Empire was a most important feature which they could not afford in any way to injure. Unless it was absolutely necessary they should jealously guard against any action which would introduce division or section into any class of the Navy. It was originally considered whether there should be two rival schools, one at Osborne
  1514
  and another at Dartmouth, or whether the boys should all go to one school. The idea of having two schools was very attractive in many respects, but the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the principle of the unity of the Navy was of such importance that they could not afford to disregard it.
  The hon. Member for Leith had complained that the Committee did not get sufficient information on, certain points. The Admiralty were anxious to give all the information possible, but purely on financial grounds it was not always desirable to say too much, because there were such things as countries building and providing against one another, and if they said too much about what they were going to do and exactly how and why they were going to do it, it was not at all unlikely that other people would do the same thing and thus cause us further expenditure. With regard to Rosyth the Admiralty had given practically all the information in their possession. No great naval establishment could be designed or even considered until after the most careful examination of the site had been carried out and the Admiralty experts had made their report. The Admiralty had not yet received the report; in fact, the detailed examination was still going on; when the examination had been completed, and the particulars were before the Admiralty, the Government proposals would be prepared and laid before Parliament with the least possible delay.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he mentioned Rosyth merely as an example. His point was that, much as the Committee would always value expert opinion, it could not wholly relinquish its responsibility with regard to public expenditure. In some respects he was afraid the Committee leaned too much on expert opinion and too little on its own judgment.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he did not for a moment suggest that the Admiralty had any right to act on the advice of their experts without submitting their proposals to the House, but simply that they could not submit their proposals until they had considered the result of their experts' investigations. As to the suggested Estimates Committee, the Prime Minister had really answered that point. The

  1515
  hon. Member for Devonport had raised a very legitimate question as to the field of selection for cadetships, and it might be a satisfaction to him to know that on the last entry three sons of engineer officers in the Navy had actually obtained nomination. There would be no narrowing of the ground for nom nation by the First Lord; that would b e done only by the committee of selection, which consisted of naval officers and civilians skilled in education. A further question raised by the hon. Member was with regard to separation money for the Marines. Considerable advantages had been given to the Marines to correspond to 1 the increased pay of the Army. The Admiralty had the fullest sympathy on general, grounds with the suggestion that this separation or lodging money should be granted, but the conditions practically precluded it from being done. The money was really given not as a separation allowance to the wives and children, but as a lodging allowance to the men themselves, because accommodation was not provided for them in barracks. On board ship lodging was provided; consequently the Marine was not entitled to the allowance when afloat. Moreover, the Marines, when on shore, were under the Army Act, under which the system of lodging allowances obtained on the ground he had stated; but when the Marines were on board ship they were under the Naval Discipline Act, which recognised no such system. Therefore, to give a separation allowance to Marines afloat would raise the much larger question of whether it would not necessarily have to be given also to all seamen of the Navy. On the grounds of policy such an allowance could not very well be made. With regard to carrying a schoolmaster on every ship, that would be a very large departure, and one which was not likely to commend itself to the Navy. Every boy who went through the curriculum of a training ship ought to have the necessary instruction in stoke-hold and mechanician's duties, and in gunnery, but it did not follow that that instruction would best be given by schoolmasters. The question raised by the hon. Member for East Perth had already been fully discussed. While there was considerable force in the argument that a new ship
  1516
  should not be laid down when there was a prospect of better designs being produced within a short time, it should be borne in mind that if that practice was adopted they would never lay down any ships at all, because they were always at work trying to improve designs. There was no method by which ships could be laid down with certainty except that of determining to lay them down at a certain time to the best designs then available. If Noah had proceeded on the principle suggested by the hon. Member, the ark would not have been completed yet. The matter had been fully considered, and the balance of advantage had appeared to lie in laying down the ships at once.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that both sides were agreed that the Estimates were enormous; the difference between them was that they on the Opposition side held it to be the duty of this country, as the supreme Naval Power in the world, to take the initiative in trying to bring to an end this ruinous naval competition. The Prime Minister had refused to take the initiative and they contended that he was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was not for him to take the initiative, but that was a perfectly monstrous proposition coming from a Government which was responsible for one of the greatest wars of aggression that the century had known. It was said that ours was only a defensive policy, but France said the same thing. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said we had no motive for a Navy except to defend ourselves. He was glad that the Liberal Party had pledged itself to the proposition that it was the duty of this country to take the initiative and declare that this policy was ruining the country, and they ought to sit down with other countries in order to see if some means could not be invented to bring their system of Navy expenditure to an end. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth said he had never clamoured for expenditure upon the Navy, although he was afraid that these Estimates must grow larger on account of the automatic increases. The Secretary to the Admiralty had somewhat misstated his position, which was that when the Shipbuilding Vote was normal it

  1517
  amounted to one-third of the whole Navy Estimates, but the Shipbuilding Vote would grow. He would go back to the time when it was stationary, and then it would be found that for a series of years the Shipbuilding Vote was about one-third. If that view was correct the Estimates they were passing to-day would involve Navy Estimates amounting to £50,000,000 in a comparatively short period of years. He desired to express his disappointment that the Prime Minister could not see his way to go beyond the non possumus attitude he had taken up.
  The Member for Perthshire had introduced a new and a dangerous doctrine, for he understood that he challenged the present distribution of the Fleet. He had never hesitated to challenge the authority of the Admiralty on many points but there were things as to which in his humble judgment the Admiralty's authority was pontifical, and for them to say in this House that the Admiralty ought to have a larger or a smaller number of ships in the Mediterranean or anywhere else was a position that he could not take up for a moment. He said that because they had the whole thing discussed at the time when the hon. Member for Perthshire was not a Member of the House, when the Mediterranean scare took place, and when the demand was made by the Navy League and its supporters in the Press that we should have a larger squadron in the Mediterranean. The decision of the House of Commons on that matter was that the whole responsibility must lie with the Board of Admiralty. On the question of education he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire chose to castigate him yesterday for some views ho had expressed. He did not object to this modified "Britannia" scheme of education, and he had no objection to the curriculum or the mode of selection of the boys, which was rather more competitive than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge seemed to think. They were classified, upon an interview, after making them read and write and testing them in various ways. His objection was that naval opinion was not unanimous by any means upon the question of the early versus the
  1518
  later age. As to the early age his objection was on behalf of the Navy and on behalf of the people who supported it. The system of selecting boys at the age of twelve and keeping them in an expensive school, to which not 5 per cent. of the parents of this country could afford to send their children, meant the shutting out of 95 per cent. of the boys of the country, which was a wrong to the Navy, a wrong to the boys of this country, and a wrong to their parents. That was the result of the system, and he greatly preferred the system which had been adopted in the United States which took the boys at a later age, paid the whole of their expenses out of the public funds, and the parents were not allowed to spend a dollar for the support of their children. He preferred the Admiralty mode of selection, but at the age of sixteen or eighteen years there was not the least objection to competition. His objection to the naval education system was that it was not possible for these boys to enter the Navy as officers. He held that the Navy or the country would never be justly treated until at every step of his career the naval officer was paid by the State a sum sufficient to meet his expenses and from the earliest day he should be self-supporting.
  He wished to know what was the present rule of the Admiralty with regard, not to wages or salaries, but the extraordinary expenses which naval officers had been allowed and encouraged to make. The practice of permitting naval officers to spend out of their own money on the service of the ship to which they belonged was what they called "painting the ship." That was a gross flagrant and scandalous abuse if it existed at all, because it was most unfair to the poorer men. Last year he was told that the practice was permitted, but not encouraged. He contended that it ought neither to be permitted or encouraged, because it was absolutely wrong. There was one particular class of officer who he believed considered that he had suffered a great deal from this system and its results. In times past it had been believed that this system of allowing officers to pay for "painting the ship" was a mode of giving a preference to the rich. He wanted to know whether the Admiralty had stopped; this practice altogether, and he hoped they

  1519
  would let it be known that it would not be permitted, and that officers would not be allowed to expend any of their own money on the public service. They were spending £42,000,000 on the Navy, and were they going to be mean enough to ask a single naval officer to spend a single penny? He wished also to know whether there was any justification or foundation for the complaint that certain kinds of naval officers had not fared so well as others in the matter of promotion. He knew that was a delicate subject, but that was what had been stated, and he could refer to statements made upon it in public journals. There was the specialised officer and the non-specialised. The complaint had been made to him that the non-specialised officer, who was usually the richest officer, fared better in promotion than the others, and that of the others the navigating officer, who as a rule was the poorest officer, fared worst of all. He had seen a table of information which supported this complaint, and he thought it right to bring the matter to the attention of the Admiralty in the hope that the hon. Gentleman would give a frank statement upon it, and that if there was anything unusual or abnormal he would see that it was either corrected or sufficiently explained.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had made a complaint which was not new when he said that the promotion of the specialised officer was as a rule less rapid than that of the non-specialised officer. He did not think that was the case. If there was any complaint, the hon. Gentleman would find it was that the specialised officer obtained more rapid promotion than the non-specialised officer. The hon. Gentleman made a complaint that the officers of a man - of -war had to spend a certain portion of their substance in ornamenting and painting the ship. No doubt the grievance did exist, and it was entirely due to the niggardliness of the Admiralty. But there were means of escape even from that. There was a means which was extremely popular throughout the service, namely, the method of getting the supply from the dockyard itself. He had heard of an officer who said his only complaint
  1520
  in regard to the men on board his ship was that there was not a competent thief amongst them. In regard to cadets, the hon. Gentleman had complained that the system excluded boys who would make very good naval officers. Any boy would make a good officer when put into the Navy. It was the Navy that made the officer and not the officer the Navy. He did not think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport in regard to appointing schoolmasters to go on board the ships was a wise one. He did not think there was anything comparable to the education a boy got in the Navy between the ages of thirteen and twenty. He attributed that largely to the absence of the schoolmaster. The naval officer gave the boy that practical education which he rejoiced to possess himself. If they said they would take a large number of boys at thirteen, and charge the parents nothing for their education, the result would undoubtedly be to get a large number sent into the Navy for the sole purpose of getting education. Having got their education at the expense of the State, a large number would resign. He thought that would be quite a sufficient objection to changing a system which had worked very well.
  They were told that the bluejackets were to have no training whatever in masts and yards. He presumed that the whole idea of sail was to be eliminated from the life of the sailor. It was perfectly true that he would get a certain amount of boating, but experience in boating would not enable him to put a ship about. There might be a war in which it would be absolutely necessary to take possession of a considerable fleet of sailing ships. The number of sailing ships was considerably larger than the number of steamships. What a nice position it would be if they had not a man who could take charge of one of these sailing vessels and put her about! He suggested that one ship might be kept where the handling of masts and yards would be taught, so as to have a certain number of men who would be sailors as well as seamen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had suggested that the time had arrived when the Navy should be treated as the Army, and that naval men should be put

  1521
  under a system of short service of two, three, or four years, and then drafted into a Reserve. He hoped the Admiralty would not entertain any notion of that kind. It might be excellent for the Army to have short service—he could not offer an opinion on that—but it was not suitable for the Navy. The artificial conditions of life in the Navy required that men should enter the service young and be brought into such a condition of mind that they freely accepted life on board ship. He trusted his hon. friend would give, on behalf of the Admiralty, an assurance that they were not prepared to plunge into a system of short service with the large Reserve suggested. He was in favour of a very considerable increase in the Naval Reserve drawn from the merchant service. The Naval Reserve at present numbered about 26,000. It might be increased to 30,000, 40,000, or even 50,000. The Naval Reserves, as they existed now, were not really reserve men. They were really an infusion of an active element if we mobilised the Navy. Therefore he hoped that something more would be done than was proposed at present.
  He most sincerely regretted the existence of the Naval Volunteers. He thought they never could be of any use. The arguments by which he supported the Royal Naval Reserve were the same factors as those by which he condemned the Naval Volunteers. The Admiralty had recently built barracks at Portsmouth to accommodate 6,000 men. Admiral Fisher, who had introduced an enormous number of improvements in regard to the Navy, had for the first time issued a rule which enabled men to leave the barracks at night. That was absolutely the right system. What was the result. Out of the 4,000 who had beds in the barracks not one-third remained in the barracks. That showed the popularity of the new rule, and also that the barracks were built four times as large as they need be. In regard to the masts of the ships, he asked whether the Admiralty had considered the extreme danger of the present heavy masts. The ordinary error in shooting was a vertical error. A shot was fired either too high or too low. The result of that was, as experience had shown, that the tops of the masts of the
  1522
  battleships in action suffered more than any other part. If these heavy armoured masts did get struck by projectiles, the result would be that they would come down and jam the turrets, or put out of action some of the guns. He earnestly impressed on his hon. friend to consider whether these heavy masts could not be absolutely done away with. Of course it might be said that masts were necessary for hoisting out boats, but that could be provided for by derricks. He trusted his hon. friend would forgive him for bringing this consideration before him, but it was not without importance.
  In conclusion he wished to make a few remarks on the general question. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth had asked why the Colonies should not make a further contribution towards the cost of the Navy. At present the Colonies subscribed not one-hundredth part of the total cost of the Navy. As a matter of fact they subscribed only £300,000 in all.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that India paid £100,000.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that India paid £100,000; but that was not a voluntary contribution. England exacted it just as she required a contribution from India of £1,500,000 for our Army. But the Colonies, from whom we could not exact or require these contributions, and which they must give voluntarily if at all, had at this moment practically withheld all assistance to the expenditure on the Navy, on which their existence depended. On the other hand, they wanted commercial preferences, were determined to maintain their political independence, and equally determined not to contribute to the Navy, by which alone their independence could be maintained. Whatever was to be done for the Navy must be done for it by ourselves alone. That made it so important that we should see to it that we were not exceeding the real needs of the Empire. Ho himself had put the point, which had been enforced by the hon. Member for Exeter, and still more powerfully enforced by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, and which had not yet been answered—that the present Construction Estimate was not a two-Power but a

  1523
  three-Power Estimate, judged by expenditure, which was a fair test. The very simple Question put the day before, he repeated now, and hoped the Committee would get a satisfactory answer, it was—What was it that had caused the Government to depart from the two-Power standard to the extent of doubling their naval requirements? It might be that there was an answer to that Question; that the hon. Gentleman would be able to say that he knew the answer but could not give it because of the exigencies of the public service. But he did think that if the time had arrived when there should be a three-Power standard the matter should be dealt with by Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman disputed the figures, he invited him to explain how it was that we got less value for the money we spent on our Navy than the three largest naval Powers in Europe.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wanted to ask if the hon. Gentleman was in a position to assure the Committee or guarantee that, although he refused information to the Committee, other people, as he described them—presumably other naval Powers—were not as well acquainted with the policy and plans of the Admiralty as he was himself. The neglect of other Government Departments in allowing official information to leak out during the past few years, had rather destroyed, at any rate had shaken, confidence that the Admiralty, any more than their other Departments, was able to keep their secret plans and designs from other people. That was very important, especially when this enormous and alarming growth of expenditure on the Navy was contemplated. The Committee should have, as far as possible, a full, complete, and unreserved statement that the money they were now asked to provide would not be exceeded in next year's Estimates. He wished to refer to the question of the education of our ordinary seamen. During the last fifteen years he had signed vast numbers of papers for boys who were entering the Navy—sons of agricultural labourers, fishermen, and tradesmen who loved the sea and naturally wanted to join the Navy—and two-thirds of these boys were certainly far below the standard of education to which
  1524
  they should have attained to make them efficient under the new system of naval service. Everybody knew that the work of ordinary seamen in the Navy was approaching year by year more nearly to that of a mechanic. It required high intelligence. He did not know anything about the possibility of carrying schoolmasters at sea, but this he did know, that for better effective service in the Navy a vast number of boys who had passed through his hands, should have some months, at any rate, of good training under a highly capable instructor or schoolmaster. That was a matter worthy of serious consideration by the Admiralty. He joined the hon. Member for King's Lynn in the regret that the teaching of sailoring work to the men of the Navy had been abandoned. He meant the manipulation of sails and yards, the bending of sails, and the management generally of sailing vessels. It would be a great misfortune to the nation if, in time of war, mercantile vessels were captured and fifty men could not be mustered capable of re-rigging them and repairing the damage caused by the capturing gunboats, and sailing them into port. A short time, therefore, should be devoted to imparting to the boys proficiency in the manipulation of sailing vessels, and certainly under no circumstances should it be abandoned altogether.
  MR. PRETYMAN: They are trained to manipulate sailing boats.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he was bound to say that he feared the capacity of "Jack Tar" in the management of small boats left much to be desired. He did not know whether it was the fault of the men or of the boats, but there were large numbers of fighting men on board ship who found the greatest difficulty in getting a boat through the surf on the sea-coast, even when that was not heavy. There had been some sad and disastrous experiences of late in that respect; and that looked bad for our naval reputation. If the hon. Gentleman would make inquiry into this question he would find he was perfectly justified in making that statement.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that the discussion, two nights ago, on the

  1525
  question of contributions by the Colonies to the cost of the Navy had, he was glad to recognise, already borne good fruit. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, who had as Imperial a soul as any Member of the House, and who knew better than most the needs of the Navy, opened his speech by advocating that the Colonies should subscribe towards the legitimate cost of the Navy. He was amazed that Englishmen and Scotsmen in the House who regarded a strong Navy as a matter of vital importance, did not take more pains in pointing out to the Colonies their duty in this matter of contributing to the expenditure on the Navy. It was, therefore, to the financial aspect of the question that he would address himself. He did not imagine that anything he could say or anything Irishmen could say would induce the Admiralty to make any reduction in the Votes. Anything he could plead with reference to the poverty of Ireland would not induce the hon. Gentleman to make any change; but the Irish Members were, nevertheless, bound to do their duty to their constituents, to whom the Navy was of no use. He would only refer to the Colonies, because if the Colonies contributed to the Navy the Irish taxpayers would be relieved to a certain interest. He saw that out of a total of £6,000,000 sterling, which they were now asked to vote, the Colonies contributed only £76,000. Would any hon. Member say that that was a fair contribution from the great Colonies over the sea. It was said the other day that if the Suez Canal were blocked, vessels to the Cape, India, and Australia, would pass down the West Coast of Africa at the rate of one an hour. All that great carrying trade was secured by the Navy; without it the Colonies could not exist, and yet they only contributed £76,000 out of £6,000,000. It would be more worthy of the pride and honour of this country to refuse such a paltry and mean contribution. The Australian Commonwealth and New Zealand contributed £58,000. In connection with that, he should like to ask whether, in consideration of that insignificant contribution, the Australian Commonwealth had not made a bargain with the Admiralty that two out of the eight ships on the Station should be manned by
  1526
  Australians and New Zealanders, who were to be paid, not at the ordinary naval rate, but at special rates approximating more to colonial wages. A great part of the £58,000 would in that way go into the pockets of colonists. Was it not also a fact that the Australian Squadron was, in consideration of the contribution, to be kept up to eight cruisers, which were to be employed exclusively in the protection of the fisheries, and which were not to leave Australian waters. As regarded the distribution of the Fleet, he was an unsophisticated amateur; but it did seem to him that to keep eight cruisers on the Australian Station was a waste of money. He did not think that in the event of war France, Germany, Russia, or the United States would attack Australia. Why, therefore, keep eight cruisers on the Station? The taxpayer was a long-suffering individual. But this bargain with the Commonwealth ought to be the last straw.
  He also wished to ask whether any representation had been made by the Admiralty or any other Department to Canada pointing out the benefit she derived from the protection of the Fleet on the Bermuda Station and the North Pacific Fleet, and whether she would make any contribution to the up-keep of those fleets. He understood such a communication had been sent; and he wished to know what answer had been received. He was amazed that such a prosperous colony as Canada had not contributed to the Navy. There was a misprint in the Estimates the other day, and he wondeed whether the omission of Canada from the contributions was also accidental. He could not believe that Canada would be so mean and paltry as not to contribute to the Navy, to which Ireland, without any sea-borne trade, contributed between three and four millions sterling. It might be that Canada was looking forward to amalgamation with the United States. He himself believed that that would ultimately happen, and that might be the reason why Canada had not contributed to the Navy. He was in a state of wonderment as to how the country would be able to meet those constantly increasing Estimates. With the construction account increasing all other accounts would also increase; and in three or four years the

  1527
  House would be asked for £10,000,000 more. As regarded the details of the Estimates no adequate explanation had yet been given; and he hoped it would be forthcoming. He intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for East Clare. Even from an English standpoint the Navy ought not to exceed the two-Power standard; but now it was being arranged on a three-Power basis.
  MR. SPEARsaid that as representing a constituency in which a large number of dockyard employees lived, he desired to thank the Admiralty for laying down the new battleship at Devonport instead of having it built by contract, as was originally intended. That was of considerable value to the men; and the avoidance of change in the personnel of the dockyards was, he thought, very desirable. While he recognised the importance of keeping in touch with private shipbuilding yards, both as regarded construction and repairs, he wished to emphasise the importance of keeping the dockyards fully employed on construction and repairs. The dockyards were fitted with the most efficient appliances; and the work could be done better in them than in private yards, The Estimates had reached an alarming figure; but it should be remembered that in time of war the food supply of the country depended on the Navy. He thought it was of the first importance that the country should have a thoroughly strong and efficient Navy. Irish Members seemed to think that Ireland had a special grievance in regard to their contribution towards the maintenance of the Navy. They apparently had forgotten that last year this House was engaged in dealing with the land question and in effecting arrangements which would probably be more beneficial to the people than any legislation in reference to agrarian questions in any other country in the world. That was an evidence that this House was not less careful of the interests of Ireland than of those of any other part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDremarked that Parliament had not given a single penny to Ireland. It had simply made
  1528
  arrangements for a loan which was likely to turn out very good business for the Treasury.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This matter is quite irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
  MR. SPEARearnestly hoped the Admiralty would continue their scheme for providing a strong Naval Reserve. The movement of the population from the country districts into the towns was such that, at no distant date, it would be extremely difficult to get strong lads for the Navy; hence it was desirable that the Admiralty should secure the services of men in case of need by getting them into the Reserve after they had passed through the Navy. He was fully confident that the Admiralty were doing their best to secure a fully efficient Navy, and as long as his constituents were satisfied that all economy consistent with efficiency was practised, they would not object to finding their share of the money. He strongly supported the view that it was only reasonable that the Colonies, who derived so much advantage from the Fleet, should contribute much more largely to its cost. They had given such full evidence of their loyalty and patriotism that he was confident that, if it was pointed out to them how altogether inadequate was their present contribution, they would at once see the desirability and justice of increasing it.
  MR. BLACKdesired to dissociate himself from the easy acquiescence of hon. Members on the Government side of the House with the enormous figures of the present Estimates, and with the fact that the present constructional programme pointed to an expenditure of £50,000,000 per annum in the course of two or three years. As, in addition, the works provided for under Naval Works Acts amounted to two or three millions a year, there was an admitted prospect of a permanent annual outlay of from £55,000,000 to £60,000,000. The Prime Minister had very properly pointed out that expenditure was dependent on policy, but it was really futile to fix a two-Power or a three-Power limit to naval expenditure until the Government had carried out the same clear idea as to what really was the policy to be pursued. The Government assigned to the Navy

  1529
  three different kinds of duties, and the question was whether some of them were not of the nature of impossibilities. The first was the defence of these shores. With that object all would agree. The second idea was that all our sea-borne commerce in every quarter of the globe should receive equal protection as well as our colonial and other possessions. Was not that really attempting the impossible? It was that that rendered the present rate of expenditure almost insupportable. The Estimates this year represented £1 per head of the population, with a prospect of their increasing to 25s. per head, or about one-fifth of the sum spent per head on food. According to the Blue-book recently issued by the Board of Trade, this country had about 7,000,000 tons of steam-driven, and about 1,500,000 tons of wind-driven ships, so that an expenditure of £42,000,000 represented £5 a ton on all the shipping of the country. Moreover, it represented 16s. per ton on all the shipping cleared in this country, and it amounted to 50 per cent. on the total freight earnings in the year. These facts gave rise to the question whether we had not reached the point where the premium of insurance was in excess of the risk, whether it was not time to reconsider the general lines of the policy to be pursued, and whether by having a large Fleet in being around these shores we were not more securely protecting our sea-going shipping than by spreading cruisers all over the world. In view of the greater mobility of cruises and battleships now as compared with the beginning of the last century, the wisdom of maintaining various stations all over the globe was open to question. Might it not be well to have only one central station—the British Isles—with coaling stations dotted about in all quarters. Under such a system the Admiralty would be able to make much greater use of a Naval Reserve scheme. It would decrease the active list, increase the use of the Reserves, and diminish the total cost of manning the Navy.
  With regard to the question of recruiting in Scotland, he thought he was right in saying that there were only 300 or 400 men drawn, not from the fishing villages, but from Glasgow, Leith, Edinburgh, and other manufacturing towns. He urged
  1530
  upon the Admiralty the necessity of doing something to improve recruiting in Scotland, because if they did not get a fair proportion from Scotland they failed to have in the Navy a microcosm of the nation. He would not detain the House by outlining any method, but he had suggested more than once that it might be possible to have one or two Scotch ships officered by Scotchmen, and in other ways specially identified with Scotland. He understood that Australia and New Zealand had two ships set apart for their own recruits, and surely what was possible there was possible in Scotland. His opinion was that it ought to be possible for a young man to enter the Army or the Navy just as easily as it was for him to join any of the learned professions. He hoped that in the future "painting the ship" would be absolutely prohibited and arrangements made by which an officer could live upon his pay without assistance from his parents. Nothing was said in the First Lord's Statement about the scheme of retirement, and he wished to impress upon the Admiralty the desirability of knowing and seeing clearly what object the Navy was to serve. Were they to undertake the' impossible duty of providing a defence all over the world for every ship which sailed under the British flag? It was time to bring to an end this enormous expenditure on the Navy. The insurance premium had become greater than the risk. In his opinion it would be better to take the risk, and to be content with a small, well-equipped Navy in the home waters ready to go anywhere it might be required.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the Prime Minister stated yesterday that he adhered to the view of the two-Power standard, and the right hon. Gentleman further stated that this principle had never been exceeded, and was not exceeded in the present Estimates. Was this in consonance with the facts and figures? He hoped the Committee would receive from the Secretary to the Admiralty a clearer and more detailed statement than had yet been given of the co-relation between the principle and the practice of the Government with regard to the Navy. The principle that the Navy must be kept up to the two-Power standard was accepted

  1531
  on all sides. But, while the total expenditure on the Navy was £42,000,000 the expenditure needed by the two-Power standard did not exceed £24,000,000 in the case of Continental nations, or £27,000,000 if America were included. He hoped it was not in contemplation to advance to a three-Power standard.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLINsaid that in the answer given by the Secretary to the Admiralty there was not a word in reply to the very able and eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for East Clare. He was quite sure that it was not the hon. Member's intention to overlook that speech, and, when he came to reply, he hoped he would deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for East Clare as well as by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He was surprised at the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the Colonies not contributing more towards the Navy. His colleagues' position was perfectly correct when they took exception to the fact that the Colonies were not called upon to contribute to the Navy, whereas Ireland was obliged to contribute £2,000,000 a year. What right had hon. Gentleman representing English constituencies to ask Canada to make a contribution towards the Navy? The hon. Member for King's Lynn and the hon. Baronet the Member for Yarmouth had made a desperate onslaught upon the Colonies because in some instances they did not contribute enough, and in others they did not contribute at ail. What had this country given Canada that she should be called upon to contribute to the Navy. This very Vote which they were about to pass was for His Majesty's Fleet. It had been asserted in this discussion that the object for which the Navy existed was to defend our trade and commerce on the seas. Did Canadian vessels carry that trade and commerce? No, the trade and commerce between this country and Canada and the Colonies was carried in English vessels, and therefore the Navy existed to defend our own trade and commerce and not the trade of Canada. He had read in the papers that Canada was raising an Army of 100,000 men which they would be able to bring up to a fighting force of 200,000. The Canadian Government spent money on the construction of ships
  1532
  to defend their own fisheries, and therefore they had their own little navy, which was a matter of importance to them. Therefore he did not think hon. Gentlemen opposite had anything to complain of in regard to Canada for she had rendered this country greater services than England had rendered to her. Canada in the moment of trouble came to the rescue of this country and now England was showing her gratitude by treating Canada with absolute scorn. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought Irishmen ought to rejoice because certain vessels belonging to the Fleet had visited certain ports and harbours in Ireland, and that in consequence they should not take exception to the increased expenditure found in every page of these Estimates. They had always striven hard from the Irish Benches to make their position perfectly clear in regard to this expenditure, which was that the Navy was of no use to Ireland because Ireland had no commerce, for Irish trade had been destroyed by this country. That was why they could not joyfully vote such large sums towards the Navy, and that was why they protested against contributing a considerable proportion towards these Estimates, because the money was taken from a country which was absolutely incapable of bearing the burden put upon it. That was the position taken up by the hon. Member for East Clare. A Royal Commission had revealed that Ireland was taxed £3,000,000 too much. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew perfectly well that criticisms of that kind were not agreeable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but Irishmen had a duty to perform. They often spoke of equality of treatment and it was frequently stated that Ireland got an equal share in everything. Ireland was represented in that House by eighty Members but three Members on the Treasury Bench could defeat the whole of the Irish representatives, for they had only to call in to their assistance those who cared nothing for Ireland. Even if they were Englishmen they would object to this expenditure and ask where was all this going to end? Years ago they were told that they had almost reached the extreme end of the Estimates, but since that time the amount had more than doubled. Ireland was taxed for the maintenance of the Navy in which they had no interest. What was

  1533
  the answer they got when they asked for a contribution towards technical education? They were told that they must vote this increase for the Navy and at the same time Ireland was refused a small amount towards education. As an Irish Member he felt it was his duty to enter a protest against expenditure which brought no benefit to Ireland, and he was quite confident that those who represented Ireland did not share in the joy of hon. Members opposite in regard to the magnificence and strength of the British Navy.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid the hon. Member for Dundee had asked what steps had been taken to reduce the expenditure of naval officers upon their ships. On principle every one would agree that no inducements of any kind ought to be offered to naval officers to spend money out of their own pockets on the public service. The Admiralty were not prepared absolutely to forbid a sailor to spend money on his ship, which he regarded in a sense as his child, but they had largely increased the allowance for paint and brass-work. The question of naval bands had also been dealt with, and to a large extent the necessity for officers to contribute to their upkeep had been removed. With regard to promotion, he thought what had been said by the hon. Member for King's Lynn absolved him from the necessity of saying much on that point in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee. He could assure the hon. Member for Dundee that no advantage was given either to specialised officers or to what were called watch-keeping officers The Board of Promotion considered these matters solely from the point of view of personal merit, and of advantage to the service. On the point of the proportion which the reserves should bear to the total personnel of the Navy, the Admiralty took their stand on the admirable Report of the Committee presided over by the right hon. Member for Berwick, and held that the total Reserve available on mobilisation should be 50 per cent. The Admiralty had endorsed and accepted the recommendations of the Committee to which he had referred with regard to short service. He thought his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn was in error in supposing that the system of
  1534
  allowing men to go out of barracks at night had been first introduced by the Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth. It was one which had been in force for a long time. The naval barracks had been designed to hold a certain number of men, giving the full cubic space which was necessary. It was recognised that the only time the barracks would be crowded would be in time of mobilisation, when it might be necessary, for a short period, to use the whole of the space available. That contingency had been arranged for by providing double the number of hammock fittings normally required. On mobilisation the naval barracks at Portsmouth would contain close on 6,000 men and officers, and in normal times about 4,000. The hon. Member for Leicester had raised a point in regard to the leakage of information from the Admiralty. He could tell the hon. Member that the subject had quite recently been engaging the most careful attention of the Board, but, from the nature of the case, to state any precautions which they were taking would render them valueless. As to the education of boys entering the Navy, he reminded the Committee that during the period they were in the training ship the boys received the careful attention of schoolmasters, and everything was done that could be done to improve their reducation. On the question of masts and yards, it must be of advantage to every man who went to sea to have a knowledge of masts and yards; but many factors had to be considered. They could not put a quart into a pint pot, and they must teach men all they could, within a given period, of what was most necessary. It would be impossible to maintain the instruction in masts and yards except at the expense of something else more necessary; but it should be remembered that in a mobilised fleet there would always be a certain number of naval reserve men who were merchant sailors and had the training the hon. Member for King's Lynn suggested.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I suggested that one training ship might be retained for instruction in masts and yards.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that point would certainly be borne in mind and considered, but he could not say more than that at the present time. With regard to the

  1535
  complaint of the hon. Member for Banff as to vessels for training purposes, there was a considerable number on the coasts.
  MR. BROADHUESTsaid the point was that these vessels seldom visited the remote parts of the coast.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he was afraid that what the hon. Member called the remote parts of the coast were places where there were shallow waters, and where it might not be safe for the vessels to go. As to the cost of the new scheme for the retirement of officers to permit of promotion, it would be about £25,000 a year. The hon. Member for Kilkenny asked some very detailed Questions. He hoped the hon. Member would excuse him if he said that he did not think they were Questions in which he took a very great personal interest. He was afraid that he should be wearying the House unduly if he were to go into all the matters raised by the hon. Member. He was anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Members from Ireland as fully as possible, and if it was their wish that he should read out the detailed explanations he was prepared to do it. He understood, however, from the hon. Member's countenance that he was absolved from doing that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid not at all. The hon. Member must not read any absolution from his countenance at all. He presumed the hon. Member wanted to get his Vote, to-night, before dinner, and if that was the case the hon. Gentleman ought to answer one or two Questions; or kindly send the replies. There was one question which the hon. Member for Kilkenny asked in which he and many other people on his side of the House were interested, for their attention had been called to it. Was it a fact that the men on board the ships of the Australian Station were to get a special rate of pay arranged by the Commonwealth Government in accordance with the standard rate of wages prevailing in Australia? That was the first Question. Here was another one. Was it a fact that arrangements had been made that some of these ships in the new Australian Squadron should be manned exclusively by Australians? These were Questions which he ventured to say were quite as important and well worthy of
  1536
  being answered as many of the Questions that had been answered.
  MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)hoped that the hon. Member would recognise the necessity of making inquiries on the points raised yesterday afternoon in reference to the Irish fisheries. It was a very serious question for fishermen along the coast of Kerry, that great ravages were made by trawlers for the simple reason that there were no gunboats to protect the fisheries. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty would do something in that matter he would promise him that, so far as he was concerned, he would not have the same difficulty in the. future as he had had in the past couple of days in getting his Estimates through.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid that the hon. Member for East Clare had asked two Questions. These Questions he had noted and was about to answer. With regard to the pay of the men of the Australian Contingent, he had to state that those men would receive the rate of pay given to men in the Royal Navy, and over and above that rate they would receive at the end of their period of service a colonial addition. The answer to the Question as to the ships, was that there were three ships to be used as training ships and these would be manned by Australian crews. In making this arrangement, however, the Admiralty did not consider that they were granting any favour, as it was desirable that as large a number as possible in the Australian Colonies should be trained for this service. He had given very careful attention to the question of the fisheries, but he wished to say at once on behalf of the Admiralty that the Admiralty would on no account whatever hand over any ships or men of the Navy to any other jurisdiction whether it was to local authority or anyone else.
  MR. FLAVIN: We only want the use of them where necessary.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid what the Admiralty desired was that the ships which were on the coast of Ireland,

  1537
  or of the United Kingdom, should give every assistance to the local authority to carry out the Fisheries Regulations, whether inside or outside the 3-mile limit. The Admiral Commanding Coastguard and Reserves was now engaged on an inquiry into this matter. There were on the coast of Ireland two torpedo gunboats and three steam Coastguard cruisers. All the Coastguards were under the control of the Admiral Commanding, and so far as Ireland was concerned, the Rear Admiral at Queenstown was to act as his deputy, and he would be available for any representations that might be made to him upon the subject. He would visit the Irish Coastguard stations from time to time, and the Coastguards would be instructed to give every assistance in their power in carrying out the
  Fisheries Regulations under the supervision of the Admiral Commanding As to the question of the standard referred to by the hon. Members for King's Lynn and Exeter, he thought the Committee would not wish him to go over the whole ground again, but he would repeat that the Admiralty could not accept the tonnage or money standard. He would say in conclusion that he would rather stand up there to defend Estimates that were too large than to defend the Admiralty for not providing a Navy sufficient to meet the needs of the country.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 284. (Division List No. 35.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.).

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Austin, Sir John

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Brigg, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Arthur

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Labouchere, Henry

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Leng, Sir John

  Reddy, M.

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts. John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cullinan, J.

  M' Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kean, John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehy, David

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Toulmin, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Young, Samuel

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O' Dowd, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Malley, William

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Allhusen, Augustus HenryEden

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Bigwood, James

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Black, Alexander William

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arrol, Sir William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bond, Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Bowles, T.Gibson (King'sLynn

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Brassey, Albert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Beaumont. Wentworth C. B.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Bull, William James

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Burdett-Goutts, W.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Butcher, John George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham;

  Caldwell, James

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Campbell, Rt.Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cavendish, V.C.W. Derbyshire

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Percy, Earl

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Chapman, Edward

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Horner, Frederick William

  Randles, John S.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rankin, Sir James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Ratcliff, R, F.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rea, Russell

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Keswick, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambert, George

  Bobson, William Snowdon

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Langley, Batty

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molynoux

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks, N. R.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Russell, T. W.

  Doughty, George

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Elibank, Master of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Tomkinson, James

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tuff, Charles

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hain, Edward

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'd)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nicholson, William Graham.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  1540

  1541

  Wallace, Robert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wylie, Alexander

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that the result of the division showed that no matter what hon. Members might say, when it came to voting they voted for a strong Navy. He was not surprised that Englishmen took that view; but he had not changed his nationality. He wished to ask why the item (i.i) for special gratuities for services in South Africa had increased from £5,000, during the war, to £6,000?
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it was because the period of time for which such gratuities were to be granted was, on 20th February last, extended by the Treasury.
  Men who were not previously to receive gratuities would now receive them.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that the explanation was satisfactory. On the main question, however, his view was that the Navy was of no good to Ireland, which had no seaborne trade. All Ireland had to do with the Navy was to help to pay the bill. The case he put before the Committee was agreed to by all his colleagues, and they would endeavour to reduce the Navy Estimates as far as they possibly could.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 273; Noes, 73. (Division List, No. 36)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Elibank, Master of

  Allsopp, Hon. George

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

  Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Amold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Atkinson Rt. Hon. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Chapman, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Austin, Sir John

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mane.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fison, Frederick William

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Mich. Hicks

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bigwood, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bond, Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Denny, Colonel

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Brassey, Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Groves, James Grimble

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hain, Edward

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Bull, William James

  Doughty, George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Butcher, John George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Caldwell James

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hardy, L. (Kent. Ashford)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Morton. Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Spear, John Ward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stock, James Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Partington, Oswald

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Percy, Earl

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tuff, Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'd

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Langley, Batty

  Pym, C. Guy

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Randles, John S.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Ratclift, R. F.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rea, Russell

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Richards, Henry Charles

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Robinson, Brooke

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lowe, Francis William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E R.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Macdona, John dimming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Runciman, Walter

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wylie, Alexander

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Milvain, Thomas

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Moore, William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Slack, John Bamford

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Delany, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Devlin, Chas Ramsay (Galway

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Boland John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Brigg, John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joyce, Michael

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Burns, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leng, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Cullinan, J

  Hayden, John Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sit 11th D

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  1544

  1545

  M'Kean, John

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehy, David

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  O'Mara, James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mooney, John J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Murnaghan, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Murphy, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Toulmin, George

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Young, Samuel

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Roche, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Shackleton, David James

  And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the object he had in view in calling attention to the Brussels Sugar Convention should be kindly received by the Government, for members of the Administration had accepted it as a kind of working model of the new fiscal arrangements. He might begin by explaining what the Permanent Commission was, and in what relation it stood to the Sugar Convention. The Convention was not like many treaties, a simple obligation entered into with a clear appreciation of what it involved, and which, so long as its provisions were observed, caused no further trouble to any of the parties. This Convention set up a body called a Permanent Commission, both legislative and administrative in its character, and invested with very great powers. The duties of the Commission were, first to acquire information with regard to sugar legislation, the duties and bounties that existed in every country in the world, and it was empowered to pronounce an opinion on the practice of all countries. It therefore had a very wide field of operations. More than that, it worked in secret, and the only thing that was absolutely known with certainty was the decisions at which it arrived. It had condemned the practice of Austro-Hungary with regard to sugar—although they
  1546
  had never heard what had become of that condemnation. It had found fault with France, and had absolutely condemned Russia, Denmark, and The Argentine, and it had ordered our Government to prohibit imports from those countries, which it had done. They were at a loss to know why the Government did not also prohibit imports from Japan and the United States and other countries which appeared to have been equally condemned. They knew nothing of what occurred at the October meeting, and thus they had a very mysterious body, with very autocratic powers, which had been exercised with very bad results on the commerce of this country. The Commission might have fulfilled a very useful function had it given full information with regard to the sugar bounties, It might also have proved of great service to the traders of the country, who, he held, had a right to complain of the secrecy observed. The noble Lord the Under - Secretary for Foreign Affairs told him the other day that it was not proposed at present to publish what had taken place at the October meeting. That was greatly to be] deplored. The Commission, after all, was appointed to deal simply with a matter of trade. It was supposed to act fairly between the eight great nations which sent representatives to it, but this secrecy had created grave suspicions with regard to its proceedings. It was rumoured that instead of carrying out its duties as an international Commission, it had become a sort of cartel or trust, controlled entirely by the sugar producers of the Continent.
  Let them consider for a moment what it was that the Commission was appointed to do, and what it had done up to the present. Its main work was, of

  1547
  course, to abolish sugar bounties. For twenty-five years there had been an agitation in this country against these bounties. Although they were told that the bounties constituted a powerful instrument for cheapening the price of sugar yet it was urged that they were objectionable. But they had never had any perfect information as to what the bounties really were. The Board of Trade had never been able to tell them accurately. In the year 1889, the late Baron Henry de Worms, who was a consistent opponent of the system, prepared a convention something like the present one, but the negotiations fell through owing to the suggestion to substitute a surtax for the bounties. But our Government had since accepted the principle and on the 1st September last those bounties were abolished. What had been the effect on this country of the abolition of the bounties? It had been exactly what he warned the House it would be. The Government had agreed to substitute a surtax system, for which we were directly responsible and which did great injury to the country, for the system of bounties, for which we were not responsible and which did us no harm, even if it did not do us a great deal of good. The immediate result had been great benefit to the sugar-producing Powers and great injury to this country. The sugar-producing countries benefited because prices there at once began to fall and the consumption to increase. It was, of course, very difficult to get exact figures after only six months experience, but he believed that in France the increased consumption had been something like 60 per cent.; while it was said the retail price had fallen from 6d. to 3½d. per lb., in Germany the increase in consumption had been something like 40 per cent., and in Austria from 30 to 25 per cent. The Board of Trade had informed him that, although figures were not forthcoming, the consumption of sugar on the Continent had greatly increased while the price had fallen considerably.
  But let them turn to the condition of affairs in their own country. A pamphlet had been circulated to hon. Members which gave the facts as the effect on the pric3 of sugar here. Commencing with the year 1902,
  1548
  when the Convention first began to affect prices they found that the average price of 88 per cent. beet sugar f.o.b. at Hamburg was 6s. and had risen to 8s. 4d. in December, 1903, a rise of 38 per cent. in the wholesale price, which was of course immediately reflected in the retail trade. The result so far as consumers were concerned was an immediate decrease in consumption in 1901, the consumption was returned at 1·7 million tons, in 1902 it was 1·6, and in 1903 it had fallen to 1·3, or a fall of something like 26 per cent. That was a very serious fall. This was an article of which the consumption, prior to the Convention, was steadily increasing. Now a change had taken place and there was a tendency in an exactly opposite direction. This Motion declared that grave injury had been inflicted on manufacturers of sugared products. This was a matter of which the House had had cognisance for a considerable time, for on the 24th November, 1902, when the Convention was confirmed, the Secretary to the Board of Trade in one of his speeches declared that one benefit the sugar manufacturers of this country would derive from the Convention was, that they would participate in the limitation on the surtax, which was embodied in Clause 3 of the Convention, which would prevent any foreign Power who was a party to the Convention from charging an additional tax of more than 2s. 6d. per cwt. on any of our manufactures that went into their country. On the 2nd December following, the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a Question, assured the House that the full benefits of the limitation of the surtax would be secured to English manufacturers. That statement was repeated over and over again in the course of the debates, and the Government consequently succeeded in pushing the Bill through without alteration. But the Permanent Commission had decided the question, and now they had had a curt letter from the Board of Trade stating that the decision was that the limitation of the surtax did not apply to sugared goods, and a severe blow had been inflicted on the industries of this country. It was pointed out in the debates last year that an extraordinary development had

  1549
  taken place in the export trade of sugared goods which constituted one of the most satisfactory features in the growth of British commerce in recent years. Owing to the cheapness of the raw material we have been able to make artistic and expensive goods and sell them back to the country from which we obtained the sugar. These exports had been growing year after year, but immediately after the Convention was passed a reduction set in, and now confectionery and preserves showed a falling off of £44,000, biscuits and cakes £8,000, pickles and condiments £9,500, and condensed milk sweetened £61,000. In the item of refined sugars and candies there was a decline of £30,000 in our exports to the Continent. The figures might seem small to some, but then they must remember that the Convention had only been in full operation for four months.
  They had heard a good deal of dumping—it was in fact in connection with the sugar question that the word first found currency in the House and the country. It was claimed that the Convention would stop dumping, but it had had an exactly opposite effect. The imports of prepared or manufactured chocolate had increased by £142,000, and of confectionery by £147,000. On the other hand, there had been a falling off in the import of raw cocoa amounting to £300,000. These figures were very significant, and showed what a blow had been inflicted on our industries. The result, so far as our manufacturers were concerned, was this. When they could import sugar from any country they were ready to fight the foreigner with free hands, but now their hands were tied behind their backs; and so we saw the import into this country of all those products, while we could not get admission into the foreign markets. Nor were the sugar refiners any better off under the new circumstances than they were before. The imports of raw sugar had declined by 500,000 cwts., although the price had increased by £500,000, and the imports of refined sugar had increased. But the class that was to be benefited most by the Sugar Convention was the planters of the West Indies; and what was the effect upon them? The effect appeared
  1550
  to be that we had struck the last blow at their waning industry, The export of sugar from the Islands last year, when the Convention came into operation, fell off nearly one half. The total imports in thousands of cwts. during the last three years were 929, 1,280, and 672, so that there appeared to be a great falling off in the import of sugar from the Islands. Several causes had been at work to produce this result. Cuba had come into the market again, and had sent vast supplies not only to the United States but also to this country. By this means the preferential treatment West Indian planters received in the United States had been seriously interfered with. The position of the planters was very well summed up in Mr. Czarnikow's circular of December 31st—
  "Our West Indian planters are hardly better off than during the worst days of the bounty period, when beet was at 6s. 1½d. f.o.b. Hamburg, West Indian sugars sold at to-day's quotations."
  Thus the rise in the price of beet sugar had quite failed to improve the market for cane. The truth was there was only a limited outlet in this country for the produce of the Islands, and the beet sugar producers knew how to maintain the advantageous position they had secured. In an Answer given to the hon. Member for Dundee on Wednesday last the Colonial Secretary pointed out that an improvement had taken place in the exports from the Islands to this country for the month of January, but he added he had not. and was not likely for some time to come, to have any official information showing any definite improvement in the condition of the West Indian sugar planters resulting from the Convention. That was the net result of this violent interference with free trade. The mistake this House made was in inventing the wrong cure for the case of the West Indies. In estimating the difficulties which the Convention had imposed on the country it was necessary to take a somewhat wider view. The Government having adopted the alternative of prohibition of import instead of countervailing duties, serious difficulties had arisen in our commercial intercourse with friendly nations. Immediately the Act was passed into law, importation from Russia, Denmark and the Argentine

  1551
  Republic was prohibited. When the Government took this step it was of opinion that little or no sugar came to this country from Russia: but it had since been discovered that we had very large indirect imports from that country through the Baltic ports, altogether amounting in 1902 to something like 100,000 tons.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: On what authority does the hon. Member say that?
  MR. LOUGH: I have made careful inquiry.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not the case.
  MR. LOUGHsaid these imports came through the Baltic Ports, and not from Russia direct. The right hon. Gentleman had never before denied it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURnever said before.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the fact remained that it was the case. This trade was interfered with. Russia did not take it lying down, and she immediately put a retaliatory duty upon tea. We sent just twenty-seven millions pounds of tea to Russia through the same indirect channels that Russian sugar came to us, and the curious fact was that the quantity of tea she took from us balanced the sugar we took from her. What better system could obtain than for us to take Russia's sugar while she took our tea?
  It might be said that prohibition did our exports no harm. But any violent interference with the course of imports was certain to be reflected in the exports. Members of the Government had lately displayed an extraordinary change of attitude with regard to this Convention. In another place a distinguished member of the Government had recently stated that he was an out-and-out opponent of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but that he was a supporter of the Sugar Convention, and that that was a model of the policy of retaliation of which he
  1552
  approved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol preached the same story at Manchester, where he was speaking against the Birmingham policy. Other Gentlemen opposite also had claimed this Convention as the expression of the policy of the Government with regard to retaliation. What nonsense it was! Who invented the Brussels Sugar Convention? Whose genius pushed the Bill through the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The idea at the root of the Convention was colonial preference. The scheme had failed in its object, and it was the most perfect illustration of the right hon. Gentleman's policy that could be found. When the Government declared that they were against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but that they were in favour of the Sugar Convention, they were really playing with the House, as more complete allegiance to the Birmingham policy could not be shown. But he would be asked what practical suggestions could be made? It might be said that we were tied to the Convention for five years, and that therefore nothing could be done. He contended that a great deal could be done. His complaint against the Government was that we were not well represented on the Commission. Our present representative was Sir H. Bergne, a well-known protectionist. But we were a free-trade country, and we ought to be represented by someone who would make a fight for that which the Government declared still to be the policy of the nation. Sir H. Bergne was assisted by Mr. Martineau, the representative of the sugar refiners. Why was not some representative of those great sugar industries which were suffering so much, sent to fight our battle at Brussels? The gentlemen at present there appeared to take every blow against this country lying down. Instead of fighting for the country they seemed to be fighting on the side of those shrewd sugar producers who were simply endeavouring to raise the price of sugar and to destroy our manufactures. Under the Convention there was power to appeal within eight days of any decision. Was an appeal lodged by Sir H. Bergne against the decision on the question of

  1553
  the surtax? Another thing the Government could do was to give up once for all the bad policy of secrecy which had distinguished the conduct of the proceedings of this Commission. Let them publish the proceedings, as they were at liberty to do, so that the country could know what was going on. Then, too, the Government ought to adopt a fighting policy instead of the complaisant course hitherto followed, and when the Commission suggested the condemnation of a country like Russia, with which we had commercial interests, the decision should be fought against.
  The effects of the Convention, briefly summarised, appeared to be these: It had caused a rise in the price and a decline in the consumption of sugar in the United Kingdom, at the same time that there was a decline in the price and an increase in the consumption of sugar in other countries which were parties to the Convention. It had brought about an increase in foreign dumping and a decrease of British dumping. It had shut out from British markets important sugar supplies. It had produced a decline in imports from the West Indies to this country. It had raised new tariffs against British grown tea. It had obstructed the general import trade. It had caused the adopion of certificates of origin and the bonding of factories. Finally, it had led to a great dislocation of industry and a great decrease in employment. Those were serious matters. Possibly he had not made good all those points, but he was in difficulties as he was the party making the attack. What the Government had to do was to show the benefits we had received, and that would be a difficult task. Had any advantage whatever arisen to the country from the Convention? He appealed from the Government to the Gentlemen who sat behind them. They could not be ignorant of the sense of wrong with regard to all these matters which was spreading out of doors. He appealed to those higher traditions of the House of Commons, which rose above Party loyalty, and asked Gentlemen opposite to force the Government not to continue to carry on by those secret methods what was nothing less than a total revolution in our free-trade traditions without obtaining an
  1554
  expression of opinion on one side or the other from the electors of the country.
  MR. KEARLEYin seconding the Motion, remarked on the great similarity between the arguments by which this Convention was commended to the House, and those which had since been used in connection with another policy. In both cases the appeal was based on the alleged ruin of industries at home, the Empire in danger abroad, and the evils of foreign dumping. He desired to point out the effect of the Convention on the industries in whose interests the Government were supposed to have moved. The West Indies were the trump card of the Government. They had urged that the case was so grave and urgent that the only way in which the prosperity of the West Indies could be restored was by the abolition of bounties, that unless their export trade was improved both in volume and value it would be impossible to carry on civilised government, that they would be face to face with ruin, and that starvation would ensue. The opponents of the Convention argued, on the other hand, that the causes of the decline of West Indian trade were economical, and did not arise from the bounty system; they pointed out that the causes of the trouble were out-of-date methods, obsolete machinery, and heavy charges on the land, and that the price of sugar which to the West Indies spelt ruin enabled other sugar-producing countries to carry on a satisfactory industry. Bounties had disappeared, and it was now possible to see what effect the abolition had had on the volume and the prices of the sugar coming from the West Indies. Prior to the Convention, West Indian sugar had always been able to obtain in the Mincing Lane market £1 or £2 per ton more than beet sugar. Within the last twelve years West Indian sugar had been as high as £20 per ton, and within the last twenty years it had been as high as £30. But during the whole of that period there had been constant clamourings that the Islands were being ruined, and that bounties wore the cause of their downfall. Consequently those who had followed these matters closely had always had their doubts as to the genuineness of the agitation, for agitation it undoubtedly

  1555
  was. Up to a certain time, as he had said, West Indian sugar obtained a higher price than the corresponding article in beet. What was the position now? In July, 1902, 88 per cent. beet was 6s. 1½d. per cwt.; the corresponding quality of West Indian sugar was 7d. 9d., an advantage of 25 per cent. in price. Instead of bringing about an increase of price the abolition of bounties had had the contrary effect, for to-day the corresponding prices were 7s. 3d. for beet and 8s. for West Indian sugar, so that the latter was 35 per. cent. worse off as compared with two years ago.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURasked whether the hon. Member contended that the Convention had produced that result.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that that was his contention. What had been the effect on the volume? In 1901 the importation of sugar from the West Indies was 46,000 tons; in 1902, 64,000 tons; and in 1903, 33,000 tons, or a drop of nearly 50 per cent. Did that look as though the West Indies were in a fair way of being saved? It would be interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of those figures. Then as to the general position of the West Indies. Before the abolition of bounties the West Indies had preferential access to the markets of the United States. The reason of that was, that in 1897 the United States decided to countervail all sugar from bounty-fed countries. The West Indies were not a bounty-giving country; consequently their sugar went in free of any countervailing duty, whereas sugar from the Continent was countervailed to the extent of 15d. or 18d. per cwt. To-day, however, all the sugar-producing countries on the Continent that were in the Convention had access on the best terms to the United States market, and the preference to the West Indies had disappeared.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURasked what that had to do with the Convention.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid it had very much to do with it. The Convention had worsened the position of the West Indies in the United States market. The right hon. Gentleman could not deny that
  1556
  before the Convention the West Indies had a preferential access to the United States market as compared with European countries. He knew that the United States had entered into a reciprocity treaty with Cuba giving a preference of 20 per cent. But Cuba was not supplying the whole of the requirements of the United States, and the fact remained that the position of the West Indies in competing with European countries for the United States market, was worsened.
  He now came to the question of how the Convention had affected the sugar-using industries of this country. They had lost the advantage of cheap sugar. Before the Convention they bought in a free market; the whole world was their market; the representatives of all the cane and beet producing countries in the world were on our market, and there was no question of priority to one or another. That was the system of free trade which they desired to see continued. Was there freedom of trade in the transaction of one's own business to-day? Not at all. The control of the destinies of the sugar-using industries now was not in London, Silvertown, or Dundee; it was at Brussels, and it was eight to one against the interests of the British manufacturers, who, thanks to the Government, were unrepresented there. The Confectioners' Alliance, when they saw the names of the expert advisers nominated on behalf of the Government, asked that they also might be represented by an expert adviser, but the Government would have none of it; they preferred the services of Messrs. Martineau and Lubbock. Everybody knew what the interests of those gentlemen were, and it did seem hard that these other trades should not have been allowed to give the representatives of the Government the benefit of their experience in their own trades. The Convention had made sugar dearer at home and cheaper abroad. What had been its effect on the home market? Before the Convention, owing to enormous visible supplies of sugar, prices were very low. That condition had not changed, because there were still enormous visible supplies of sugar, and he did not hesitate to say that but for the Convention sugar would have been 1s. or 1s. 6d. cheaper to-day. In July, 1902, beet sugar was worth 6s. per cwt.,

  1557
  but from the moment the Government] placed their influence at the back of the Sugar Convention the price had been steadily rising. He contended that the rise was wholly due to the Convention, because the visible supplies of sugar were so large to-day, and had been ever since July, 1902, that only circumstances operating outside the regular way, could account for the increase of price, which now amounted to something like 35 or 40 per cent.
  Another result of the Convention had been to transfer the boon of cheap sugar to the Continent at our expense. The consumption in Germany had increased by 39 per cent., in France by 63 per cent., in Austria by 25 per cent., and in Holland by 43 per cent. Instead of the British consumer securing a corresponding advantage, he had been the victim of the whole situation. As the result of dear sugar at home and cheap sugar abroad, coupled with the broken pledges of the Government, our home market was being invaded by manufactured goods which previously never had access to it, and our exports to markets over which for years we had had unchallenged supremacy were diminishing. In speaking of the broken pledges of the Government, he referred to the statement in which they declared that the conditions laid down by the Convention would be applicable to sugared goods, as well as sugar, by which declaration many Members on the other side of the House were induced to support the measure. He remembered the hon. Baronet the Member for Norwich making a strong speech at the time his Amendment, in which he sought to insert an express declaration in the Bill to that effect, was before the House, and the hon. Baronet was followed by the hon. Member for York. Both stated that they were satisfied with the pledge the Government had given that sugared goods would be assimilated to sugar and be entitled to the same treatment. What was the position to-day? Although in moving the Amendment he had pointed out the danger of unfair treatment being meted out to our exports, and the danger of dumping on our markets, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade said that there was no chance of that; that our manufacturers
  1558
  would get the advantage of the protection of the surtax, and the same privileges in approaching foreign markets with sugared goods, as they would with sugar-. The President of the Board of Trade emphasised this more strongly. On 5th August, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The hon. Member opposite was absolutely wrong in saying that confectioners would be worsened rather than improved by the provisions of the Convention with respect to the surtax. The surtax would reduce any possible advantage the home producer might have over the foreign producer to a maximum of six francs. The result, of that would be that our sugar products would find a freer entry into the contracting States."
  Were they finding a freer entry into the protective States? Was that the experience of the Government? He did not think it was. The right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "Certainly the import of the articles into the contracting States would not be rendered more difficult. He granted that it was conceivable that danger might arise such as the right hon. Gentleman for Norwich laid great stress on, and that we might find in future our confectionery and jam manufactures, and so forth, exposed to unfair competition."
  The suggestion was that the unfair competition might arise from the fact that bounty-fed sugar might be made into sugared goods, and that these would be sent into our market. The right hon. Gentleman then gave an undertaking that that would not be permitted, that if an instance of it was brought to the notice of the Government, steps would be taken to prevent injury to the trades concerned. When we had more experience of the working of the Convention, it would be found, he maintained, that the foreign manufacturers were dumping their sugar products down into our markets to the detriment of the home manufacturers. The. Prime Minister the next day said this—
  "The statement that the Government were prepared to admit chocolates and other manufactures into which sugar entered, which manufactures might be made out of bounty-fed sugar, was based on an entire misconception. The Government objected equally to bounty-fed sugar and bounty-fed chocolates, and the only reason why they did not accept the Amendment"
  which he had himself moved—
  "which was discussed at great length yesterday, was, in the first place, because they did not believe, as a matter of fact, that there would be

  1559
  any chocolates, or similar products thrown into this country made of bounty-fed sugar. They did not believe, from the best advice they could obtain, that there was the smallest probability, or possibility of that result. They laid down, in the second place, that if this result occurred, it would be the first and most immediate duty of the Government of this country to stop it by legislation; and, in the third place, the only proper way to stop it was by legislation ad hoc. because if the legislation was to be embodied in this Bill the manufacturers of chocolate, and others in this country would be compelled to carry on their manufactures under the control of the Brussels Convention."
  If the Government had accepted his Amendment it would have prevented all this difficulty, for although the foreign manufacturers were carrying on their manufactures now under the cloak of the Brussels Convention, unless the Government took very speedy steps to give that protection which our home manufacturers needed, their last stage would be worse than the first. The fact was that the Convention was being evaded on the Continent, where they were using what was practically bound-fed sugar; and sugared products were being dumped upon our markets to the detriment of the home manufacturers. But no legislation had been introduced, or even promised, by the Government in order to put a stop to this evasion of the Convention. When Mr. Boyd, an important man in the sugar industry, complained to the Government that although the Government had given them to understand in regard to sugared goods that they were to get the benefit of the Convention, it had been vitiated by the action of the Brussels Commission, their only reply was—
  "The Brussels Commission has decided that the limitations laid down in Article 3 of the Convention do not apply to sugared products."
  Article 7 of the Convention gave our representative the right of appeal when a decision was given adverse to the interests of this country, providing that right was exercised within eight days. Would the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade tell them whether our representative had exercised that right on any occasion when the interests of British sugar refiners or the sugar-using manufacturers had been invaded? He believed that no notice of appeal had been given on any single occasion; and,
  1560
  if that were so, it afforded ample justification of the claim which was made by the sugar-using industries to have a representative on the Commission to advise the Government as to the course to be taken. Their application for such a representative was ignored, however, and they were now smarting from the ill effects that had arisen in consequence.
  What sort of treatment was being meted out to our manufacturers in foreign markets? The Secretary to the Board of Trade had told them, as a sort of consolation, that although they would pay more for their sugar, they would stand in a better position in foreign markets because their sugared goods would be admitted on equal terms with sugar. Well, at the present moment some of these countries were imposing a duty of 30s. per cwt., which was much more than 100 per cent., on some of the sugared goods entering those countries. Before the Convention Act was passed they had nothing of that kind to contend with. Sugar entering into Germany from this country was charged a duty of 8s. 5d. per cwt., and sugared goods 30s. 6d. per cwt. In Austria the duty on sugar was 11s. per cwt., and on sugared goods 35s. 6d. per cwt. Did the hon. Gentleman wonder that the sugar-using trades charged the Government with a great breach of faith. They were only told that their appeals were receiving careful consideration, that they were to possess their souls in patience, and that the matter would be brought before the Commission in March. Even the sugar refiner, the spoiled child of the Government, had his grievance, and was up in arms against the way in which he was being treated. Mr. Martin, honorary Secretary to the British Sugar Refineries, addressed a letter to Lord Lansdowne, dated 20th January last, in which he drew attention to the duties in Belgium, Germany and Austria on imported syrup. Mr. Martin said—
  "It appears that since 1st September the import duty on syrup containing over 50 per cent. sweetening matter has been 25.50 franca, which is tantamount to the charge on refined sugar. By the new Belgian law, 14th December. 1903, the Excise duty on sugar used in the manufacture of invert sugar, has been considerably reduced, but no reduction has been made in the import duty, so that the invert sugar manufacturers in Belgium are enabled to raise their price for home consumption to the amount

  1561
  of the surtax and therefore obtain a considerable bounty on their production."
  and then he went on—
  "Apparently the Belgian Government were treating invert sugar and golden syrup as byproducts, and consider themselves free from the conditions of the Convention with regard to these two articles. My Association contends strongly that these articles are formed of sugar, and are not by-products, and that the terms of the Convention should apply to both of them. If this is not insisted upon, not only will a large and growing export trade to Belgium in syrup, and possibly in invert, sugar be entirely killed, but it may, and probably will, come about that our own home and export markets will be invaded by bounty-fed invert sugar and syrup to the detriment of many of our refiners. Any Belgian refiner who makes invert sugar would be enabled to apply some of the benefits he obtained from the latter to cheapen his refined sugar."
  Thus all the interests the Government were supposed to protect by the Sugar Convention Act were showing that this Sugar Convention had absolutely failed in its purpose.
  He wished to say a word in behalf of an interest that had not much consideration given to it in this House—the interest of the consumer. He had been very much struck in the fiscal debates with the fact that, although there was a great amount of argument all round the question on behalf of the producer, very few Members spoke on behalf of the consumer, who bore the burden of all our sins and follies. In spite of the belief of some of the hon. Members opposite to the contrary, whatever increase there might be in a cost of an article, it finally worked its way down to the consumer. He maintained that the Convention alone had advanced the price of sugar by a ¾d. a pound; the duty was a ½d., so that the consumer paid ½d. a pound more for his sugar than he did before. He used to buy his sugar at l¼d. a pound, now he pays 2d. The result was that the consumption had fallen, and that was not difficult to understand, when the methods of the consumer were considered. He estimated with the greatest precision and nicety his weekly budget, and if the price of a commodity advanced he could spend only the same amount of money so must satisfy himself with less of the commodity which had advanced in price. He thought that
  1562
  enough had been said to show that the consumer, that trade, and manufacturers had suffered equally, and that the interests in whose behalf the Government were impelled to move had not benefited in one single degree from the Convention.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the decisions of the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention have operated so as to inflict grave injury on the manufacturers of sugared products in the United Kingdom as compared with their Foreign rivals, and that the Convention has failed to confer the anticipated benefits on the West Indies."—(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, however little he intended it, was evidently in favour of the introduction of the principle of retaliation. The result of the speeches of the mover and seconder was that they would, if they could, destroy the Convention and restore the bounty system. Their speeches had been elaborated with considerable length of detail and a great deal of inaccuracy. One conspicuous inaccuracy of the hon. Member for Islington was his statement that the Sugar Convention was the special policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and was designed to give a preference to the Colonies. Now, as a matter of fact, the Sugar Convention expressly prohibited any preferences being given to the Colonies. He would like to remind the House that, as a result of a bounty system, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to see restored, sugar refining had largely disappeared from Liverpool. There were still five considerable refineries in that city, but within his own recollection there were three times that number. The same result followed in Greenock. He would remind the House also that Mr. Gladstone had denounced the bounty system with all his eloquence on many occasions; but he wished to do away with it by agreement, by negotiation, in other words, by convention. He must confess he had never given his confidence to this Convention, because it was the work of free-trade statesmen

  1563
  and agitators. His objection to it was that it was a clumsy free-trade device for restoring the natural price of sugar, and for affecting that which, from his point of view, would have been better attained by frankly protectionist means. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying that the right thing to do was to put a large duty on bounty-fed sugar, and give a preference to colonial sugar. He recognised however, that, having regard to the free-trade views which prevailed in the House and the country, that was impossible, and the Convention was the only practicable measure. He believed that it had done a great amount of good, and that it would do a good deal more. He asked the House, was there any industry in the country which ought to depend upon the dishonest bounty system? They all knew that that system was intended to ruin the sugar refining industry in this country. It appeared to him that the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite amounted to this, that they wished their profits should be increased.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had not the slightest interest, direct or indirect, in sugar, and he considered the remark of the hon. Member very unjust.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he withdrew the remark at once. What he wished to say was that if there were any hon. Members in the House who were personally interested, they might use the same arguments as those employed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even in his own case, he suffered largely from the Convention, because he used to carry in his steamers a large amount of bounty-fed sugars. Notwithstanding that, he gave his hearty and cordial support to the Government, and he did not think that the confectioners had any justification for their present agitation.
  MR.WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Resolution had made out a case, and he would try and cast his remarks in a mould rather more favourable to the position of the Government than he might otherwise have done. He did not believe that, on the whole, it was true to say that the Convention had altogether failed in its
  1564
  objects. After all, the primary object of the Convention was to effect an improvement in prices. He confessed that he doubted at the time whether that improve-meat would be so rapidly effected. There were many causes which might have retarded any rise in prices; but the Government had succeeded much better than, in the view of many people, could have been expected. The hon. Gentleman opposite had been able to show how prices had steadily advanced; how there had been a rise of over £2 per ton since the Convention was enforced. The monthly returns of the prices of sugar f.o.b. at Hamburg showed a steady and constant rise; and naturally that had made itself felt in retail prices. The same class of sugar which was sold at 12s. 6d. per cwt. before the Convention, now fetched 15s. 3d. in the London markets. Naturally and necessarily that had had an effect on the retail prices of ordinary sugar purchased by the consumer. He believed the price in all cases had advanced a ¼d. per lb. in consequence of the Convention. There had already been a considerable measure of success for the Government. But the Government also held out hopes that there would be no fluctuations, or fewer fluctuations, after the passage of the Convention. He had never himself been able to see how the abolition of bounties, which was almost the only fixed factor in the price, should be regarded as making for greater stability of price. One would have thought when there were so many factors affecting the price—combinations, freights, new processes, new areas of production, and above all, variations of the harvest—that these elements would be more responsible for the fluctuations of the price of sugar than the fixed bounties given by foreign Governments, but the fact remained that our Government had certainly succeeded in limiting the fluctuations in one direction, at any rate. The downward fluctuation had ceased altogether, and the manufacturer and the consumer had now only to adapt themselves to fluctuations in the direction of a steady and constant rise since the Convention. Most undoubtedly that must be counted as a partial triumph for the efforts of the Government.
  He asked himself whether it was altogether fair to say that these results on

  1565
  the price of sugar were due to the action of the Government or to the Convention. Could these results be really claimed as arising from the Convention? What other reason could be assigned? The natural circumstances of the world did not seem to provide any explanation of it, and he thought that the Government was entitled to the whole credit, undivided and unstinted, of any alteration in the price of sugar. His hon. friend the Member for Islington felt conscious of the fact that it might be argued against him that it was, perhaps, a little too soon to judge of the results of the Convention. That was an admission which gave great satisfaction to his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. He quite agreed, for there were many indications which went to show that the rise in the price of sugar was by no means complete. After all, the Convention had only been influencing the market since 5th March, 1902. and it had only been actually in force since 1st September. In the circumstances, however, he thought that the very marked and substantial stiffening in price which had been already achieved ought to be extremely gratifying to those who sat on the Treasury Bench and to one who no longer sat there. It ought to be especially gratifying to the First Lord of the Treasury, because the Convention was the first example of his own new policy—the first example of the employment of retaliatory powers.
  A great many people had been saying in the autumn—he might have been among them—that the policy of retaliation was an afterthought designed to tide over the exigencies of the Party situation; but the first fruits of the Convention proved beyond all doubt that retaliation was a real policy, and that its use in the hands of Imperial statesmen not hampered by the old traditions of British finance or the pedantry of economics or arithmetic, might produce results which sensibly affected the industries of the people and the comfort of the working classes. He thought also it was a great proof, if what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham told them was true, of the commercial strength and prestige of Britain. Let them consider the picture
  1566
  the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the country. Here were all these great protectionist nations—the followers of a policy of scientific taxation. We were often told that they were not all fools; they were pursuing their self-interest, and in doing so they had for a long course of years adopted a two-fold policy—they had stimulated their home industries by means of bounties, and had pursued a relentless policy of dumping in the British marker. Why did they dump? The late Colonial Secretary said it was very clear that they dumped because they wished a monopoly, and that they nearly got it, but at the critical moment, in the nick of time, the President of the Board of Trade stretched out his hand, and a voice from Downing Street went out and stopped those nations in the flood-tide of victory. The moment the British Government intervened, so they were invited to believe, the whole fabric of continental protection, in so far as sugar was concerned, collapsed, and continental nations, rather than face the fury of the right hon. Gentleman, proceeded, not merely to throw over their system of bounties, not merely to starve their home producers who had grown up under this munificent system, but to abandon the monopoly of the English market which, according to the late Colonial Secretary, they had almost within their grasp. They not only submitted to our dictation, but they submitted with an uncommonly good grace. So perfect were the manners of foreign diplomatists and so correct their conduct, that one could almost imagine that they thought that they were the parties getting the benefit of the Convention and that we were the parties going to lose. But there was a more remarkable test of our power in the composition of the tribunal. Ten or twelve Powers were represented, and we had only one delegate. We were one against twelve. Austria-Hungary had secured two representatives—one for Austria, and one for Hungary. One might almost have thought that a claim might have been lodged on behalf of Great Britain and Ireland, but we did not need to worry about that. Our position was so strong that one Englishman representing a country of our commercial strength was able to stand up against all these foreigners. One representative of a free-trade nation was sufficiently strong to

  1567
  preserve the interest of this country against so many protectionists, and to force those nations to carry out in detail conditions of the Convention which must be galling and humiliating, and which inflicted such loss on all of them. He could not repress a thrill of patriotic emotion when he contemplated the spectacle of this solitary champion of Britain fighting alone for free and freer trade against the world, and preserving, by his own individual authority and the moral force of the Government he represented, against overwhelming odds, the interest of the tea planters of Jamaica and the sugar refiners by the banks of the Clyde.
  He thought the President of the Board of Trade would admit that ho had dwelt only on those aspects of the Government policy which might be the subject of legitimate congratulation. Before sitting down he wished to say one or two words on the reverse of the medal. Very many of the valuable objects which the Government had in view had not been obtained without some cost. The price of sugar had gone up by £2 a ton, and one had only to calculate how many tons came into the country to estimate the loss arising from that fact alone. He would put aside altogether the question of the consumer, because it had been very well dealt with by the hon. Member for Devonport. So far as the producer was concerned, he had never been able to make out why it should be honourable, patriotic, and Imperial to refine sugar, and contemptible, unworthy, and pro-Boer to be engaged in jam and pickles. He should have thought that in a commercial country any change in legitimate trade, if employment was considerable and conditions healthy and wages rising, was worthy of the respectful attention of the statesmen directing its affairs. And it had been proved that fifteen times as many persons were employed in this despised and degrading industry as in the patriotic business of sugar-refining. It had been proved that more than five times the number of persons displaced by foreign competition or other causes from sugar refining had been accommodated in the secondary industries of sugar. Jam and pickles had to fight foreign competition like
  1568
  everybody else, and they had been fighting it rather well. There was scarcely any branch of our export trade which had undergone such a notable expansion as the jam trade group. The Government had done a great injury to all these important trades. They had done on injury both direct and indirect. At the same time that they had raised the price of the raw material here the Convention had depressed the price of raw material abroad. It was not merely addition; it was addition and subtraction. It was like votes sometimes given by Members against their Party, which counted two upon a division. This double operation had produced striking effects. The consumption of sugar here had fallen off immediately, whereas, up to 1901, we were increasing our consumption at the rate of 40,000 tons a year. In the two years influenced by the Convention and the negotiations, the consumption in this country had fallen off by 200,000 tons each year. While that had been done here, French and German consumption of sugar had increased by 122,000 tons. In fact it might be said, speaking in general, that the consumption of sugar by continental Powers had gone up between a quarter and a half as much again during the period covered by the Convention. If he were willing to embark on a line of argument which might be gratifying to the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division, whose strong protectionist views were well known to the House, he would point out that the effect of this increased consumption abroad and the decrease here had resulted in an increase in the import of foreign manufactured sugar into this country, and a decrease in the manufactured sugar going from this country to foreign countries.
  Some of the inducements held out to the House to support the Convention had not been altogether realised. They were urged to support it because it would make us more independent of the sugar production of the Continent, and make this country more dependent on the sugar production of our own Colonies. The very contrary was the fact, as the debate had already shown. Since the passing of this Convention we had become dependent in a larger proportion, according to the figures, on continental supplies, and in smaller proportion than ever in recent

  1569
  years, on the supply coming from the West Indies. Not only had foreign dumpers controlled the market commercially, but we had provided them with an instrument in this astonishing tribunal which enabled them to control the sugar market from a diplomatic as well as a commercial point of view. We were promised certain advantages under Article III. of the Convention. We were led to believe that under the Convention the duties on British sugar products, imposed by States who were parties to the Convention, would be reduced from the high and almost prohibitive level at which they now stood. The Secretary to the Board of Trade was a Minister closely connected with this class of legislation, and he had earned a reputation for close and cogent reasoning; it was therefore disappointing to find that some of the statements he so confidently made were not borne out by the teachings of experience. But the object to which the Government above all attached importance had not been achieved. The case for joining the Convention was based on the needs of the West Indies, as was apparent from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury on 26th June, 1902. Naturally the West Indies were brought very prominently before the country by the Association headed by Sir Nevile Lubbock, which was, perhaps, not altogether disinterested, and which operated by a very ingenious method of agitation, that of exciting the honest Imperial enthusiasm of the English people and of turning it to commercial profit. Sir Nevile Lubbock was the individual who made an impression on the Prime Minister, because on 26th June, l902, the right hon. Gentleman said that—
  "If it were not, in effect, for the case of the West Indies, there was no conceivable reason why we should not allow the foreigner to tax himself for the sake of our consumer."
  That was said in the pre-tariff reform epoch. That was before "Economic Notes on Insular Free. Trade" was published. His purpose in alluding to that was not to revive that greater controversy, but to show how absolutely the case for our joining the Convention was based upon the need of the West Indies. The facts were patent to the House. It was a very remarkable fact that, while other kinds of sugar had been artificially raised in price, the one class of sugar the
  1570
  Government desired to raise in price, and for which they embarked on this legislation, was the one class in the whole of the sugar market which had not responded to the new conditions. There had, in fact, been a collapse in the West India trade; the importations from thence during the period covered by the Convention had fallen off in value and tonnage. The West Indies were given £250,000 to help them until the Convention came to their relief, but the prospects for the West Indies were as dark as ever they had been, and it was a melancholy comment on the recent policy to find the Colonies-now pinning their faith to the fiscal policy of the Member for West Birmingham, and the hope of an arrangement such as that between the United States and Cuba. That right hon. Gentleman had been a Minister of many policies, but this was a policy in which be had had absolutely his own way; it was pressed by him on an in-different or a reluctant Cabinet, and forced by every measure of arbitrary pressure through a distrustful and even contemptuous House of Commons. The Government had put a considerable strain on their faithful followers; no Government ever had followers more faithful, no Government ever gave such opportunities for the display of loyalty. He was bound to say there was something about the vote of this majority that reminded him of the machine-made majorities of the United States rather than the reasoned, independent assent of the House of Commons. The majority that registered its approval of the Army Corps scheme, that registered its approval of Chinese labour, and registered its disapproval of the free-trade Resolution would, no doubt, set its seal of sanction once more on the Sugar Convention. But the story would not end there.
  Here was a case where the Member for' Birmingham had been able to have his own way, and the results were before the country. What were those results? The price of an essential article of food, a matter of comfort and health, and the raw materials of many industries, by the deliberate intervention of the Government, had been unnecessarily enhanced. It had been put up in England, and it had been put down on the Continent of

  1571
  Europe. At home the trades which depended on sugar had been depressed while abroad they had been exalted. They were more than ever in the power of the Continental producer, and they had abandoned their right of buying in the markets of the world. A very large proportion of the countries of the world were prohibited from trading with them by this Convention, and they had embroiled themselves in a tariff dispute with Russia. They had set up a complicated and vexatious machinery which they had hoped they had given up for ever. Meanwhile the West Indies were worse off than ever they were before, for they were now in a miserable condition, and they had no guarantee that the House would not be presented with other demands of the kind of which this House had already had sufficient experience. As free-traders they deplored most of all that through the agency of this Convention another turn of the screw had been given to increase the price of food. Lastly, no restrictions had been placed on the supply of manufactured foods from abroad. Perhaps it was a good thing, that in view of the circumstances of a political situation that was known to all, and on the eve of a great departure of policy, they should have provided for the country this object lesson of Ministerial ineptitude. He hoped they should have opportunities to refer to it in this session, or in the next session of this Parliament, or in the next Parliament or in the interval between the two Parliaments; but in the meantime he thought it should be nailed to the parish pump as a warning to tariff meddlers, tariff mongers, and tariff muddlers of all denominations.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Oldham has just delivered a humorous speech, and perhaps he will excuse me if I refuse to regard it as a serious contribution to the debate. So far as the hon. Member for Oldham has used any arguments against the Government they are the same arguments as those which have been used by the hon. Member who initiated this debate. It is therefore to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington that I prefer to turn if I am to understand rightly the case that is to be made against the Convention. This Resolution consists of two parts, and it reflects upon the Permanent
  1572
  Commission and upon the British representatives upon that Commission. The substantive Resolution declares that the Convention has failed in its object and—
  "That the decisions of the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention have operated so as to inflict grave injury on the manufacturers of sugared products in the United Kingdom as compared, with their foreign rivals,"
  I shall refer to the two branches of that Motion later; but I wish to point out that the statement that the proceedings of the Permanent Commission are conducted in secret and that it gives no account of its labours is incorrect. A report has already been presented to the House. As a matter of fact the shorthand notes of the proceedings of the July meeting are to be seen in the Library at this moment. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that no report of the proceedings in October had yet been issued because some of the most important of the subjects discussed have not yet been finally dealt with. The hon. Member, not content with attacking the Permanent Commission, has attacked the British representatives on that Commission. I have always thought that it was a good rule of the House that the agent of the Government should not be attacked, but rather the Government itself. The Government are prepared to accept full responsibility for Sir Henry Bergne's acts. The hon. Member has attacked a statement of mine with respect to the amount of sugar imported from Russia in the year 1902. I have stated that the amount in value is only £2,000, but the hon. Member told the House that it amounted to between £800,000 and £1,000,000. When asked for his authority for that statement the hon. Member said he had been making inquires.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had obtained the figures from a book which he held in his hand.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Then the only authority which the hon. Member has is avowedly a partisan pamphlet.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had many authorities.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should like to have those authorities. I will state to the House the results of my own inquiries into this matter. I will take the Russian statement of the exports from Russia in the year 1901, because we have not got the Russian statement for a later date. According to that statement the total amount exported from Russia to all destinations in 1901 was 126,000 tons. Of that total only 700 tons were sent to the United Kindgom. That is the statement given by Russia herself of Russian exports. We have not yet got the detailed figures for the following years, but I can give the amount to Germany and the United Kingdom for 1902. In 1902 the amount sent to the United Kingdom was 1,000 tons. I think that is a fair example of the accuracy which has characterised the statements of the hon. Member for Islington. Then the hon. Member told us that the sugar refiners are not satisfied, and road a letter from Mr. Martin, the Secretary of the Sugar Refiners' Association. It would be strange indeed if nothing could be said against an international instrument of this kind, but I am authorized by Mr. Martin to say that the sugar refiners are satisfied with the working of the Convention.
  The hon. Member for Islington raised seven points, and said at the end of his speech that perhaps he had not made good those seven points. That is the only part of the hon. Member's speech with which I heartily agree. I did not think that the hon. Member has made good those seven points, or any one of them. The Resolution states that—
  "The decisions of the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention have operated so as to inflict grave injury on the manufacturers of sugared products in the United Kingdom as compared with their foreign rivals, and that the Convention has failed to confer the anticipated benefits on the West Indies."
  Now let me look at these two propositions for a brief period. The first thing I have to observe is that nobody except the hon. Member for Islington and the hon. Member for Oldham could have imagined that, within six months, it would be possible to form a fair estimate of the effect of this Convention. It is said that exports from the West Indies have positively diminished within
  1574
  the last year. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, also used this argument to prove the uselessness of the Convention at an earlier period of this session. As a matter of fact examination shows that, while there was a reduction during the period preceding the coming into operation of the Convention, there has been a steady increase of exports since that event. I do not profess to attach much importance to that, but if it is a good argument to say that eight months preceding the Convention there was a reduction; it is an equally good argument to say that after the Convention actually came into operation those imports increased.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the comparison he made was for 1901, 1902, and 1903, and the right hon. Gentleman should not accuse the Leader of the Opposition nor anyone else unless he could upset the figures.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, on the first day of the session—
  "In the first place it was hoped that the Sugar Convention would help the West Indies, but the imports have fallen by nearly one half."
  It is perfectly true that the imports during the year have fallen, but the imports since the Convention came into effect as compared with the previous years have increased. [An HON. MEMBER: Do you include January?] No, but by including January the result is more favourable. The hon. Member for Devon-port referred to a fall in the price of sugar from the West Indies and I asked him what the Convention had to do with that fall so far as it had occurred. The hon. Member answered my Question by asking me another Question, but I observed that under the cover of that-other Question he never answered my Question. I do not think it can be shown that the fall which has occurred has any relation to the Convention whatever. I rather fancy that the hon. Member was referring to the brown West Indian sugar, and it is perfectly true that during the month of February the price of that sugar has fallen to 7s. 3d., but if you go back to 31st December you will find that at that time it commanded a price of

  1575
  8s. 11½d. The truth is that these temporary fluctuations in the market are often very difficult to explain.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid his point was to draw a comparison between the relative values of West Indian sugar as against beet sugar for a certain period, and he pointed out that two years ago it was 26 per cent. higher and it had now fallen considerably below that.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Member has made his point very much clearer. It is impossible to draw any just conclusion from the price on a particular day without a careful examination of the surrounding circumstances. The hon. Member for Oldham has referred to matters which have nothing whatever to do with the Convention, as, for example, the arrangements between Cuba and the United States. His Majesty's Government knew perfectly well, when they contemplated the Convention, that some such arrangement as that respecting Cuba was threatened, and that afforded an additional reason for their action. As regards the other arguments used by the hon. Member for Oldham, according to his view, and the view of his hon. friends opposite, a bounty goes entirely to the advantage of the consumer. If that is really so the result of this Convention should be that neither an advantage or a disadvantage will be given and we shall be exactly where we were before. I will leave, it to my hon. friend the Member for Oldham to consider, if a countervailing duty goes entirely to the advantage of the consumer, what difference does this make to the West Indies? If this is not so it appears to me that one of the favourite arguments used by the hon. Member for Oldham and his friends entirely breaks down.
  The Resolution also declares that the decisions of the Permanent Commission have inflicted grave injury on the manufacturers of sugared products in the United Kingdom. Where is the evidence of this injury? I have listened in vain for any figures to prove it. The hon. Member did quote a partisan pamphlet, to which he appears to attach
  1576
  very much importance, to show that the sugar exports from this country have diminished and that the imports have increased. It is true that the exports fell off in 1903 as compared with 1902 from £846,000 to £802,000; but here, again, it is never safe to take a single year or even a few years. I ask hon. Members to go back to 1901, when it will be found that the exports of sugar goods from this country were £749,000, and therefore since the year 1901 there has been an increase to £802,000. There is surely nothing very alarming in those figures. The hon. Member referred to cocoa and chocolate, and said that there had been a fall in 1901 from £197,000 to £129,000. The figures for 1903 have risen from £129,000 to £141,000. The hon. Member for Oldham said that the. Convention had been influencing the sugar world since March, 1902. It is remarkable that while there has been the shadow of this Convention over the sugar market in those years, 1902 and 1903 have shown the lowest average price in the history of the sugar industry. [An HON. MEMBER: The average price.] Yes, the average price and the lowest price, too. What I say is equally true of refined and unrefined sugar. The average import price of refined sugar in 1902 and 1903 has practically stood at the same figure, being 10s. 7½d. in one case and 10s 8¼d in the other. There has hardly been any rise or fall, but the price is lower than has ever been known before. There has been a rise in price between 1902 and 1903 from 7s. 7½d. to 8s. 0¼d. There has been in the case of refined sugar since September last arise of something like 10d., but since the end of the year a fall of 3½d., making altogether a rise of price of less than 7d. But here, again, if we wish to realise the significance of the figures we must compare other years, and in 1902 the rise in price between September and December was almost the same as in the year 1903. Taking the monthly average of prices in January, they cannot be said to be alarming. As to actual prices I will make a comparison with the year previous to the time the Convention was made. I take 1901, and in January of that year the price of refined sugar was 12s. 7¼d., whilst in 1904 it was 11s. 1¾d., or less by nearly

  1577
  1s.6d. The price of unrefined sugar in January, 1901, was 10s, 3d. and in January, 1904, 8s. 11¼d. I think the House will admit that these prices cannot be said to have inflicted much injury. The confectioners are, in fact, crying out before they are hurt. No injury has been shown, or can be shown to have been done to them by the Convention. The complaints refer not to any injury already inflicted, but to a possible and prospective injury arising from the fact that the Permanent Commission has decided, contrary to the opinion of the Government as to the true interpretation of the Convention, that Article 3, which limits the surtax on sugar, does not apply in the case of sugared goods. I admit that it is a great disappointment to find that in this matter the Commission has not taken the view which I still think the correct one, namely, that Article 3 does apply, and that the real meaning of the Convention is that there should be no greater surtax on sugared goods than upon sugar. We do not consider that the question of the surtax is by any means closed. The decision of the Commission leaves Article 1 of the Convention absolutely untouched, and when the Commission meet again, in a week's time, it will be the business of our representative to require a clear statement as to the scope and effect of Article 1, having regard to the decision on Article 3. The subject is still sub judice and under discussion, and if the interpretation put by the Commission on Article I should render it possible for the contracting States to give what bounty they please on the sugared product itself, apart from the sugar contained in it, a grave situation will arise, necessitating such steps as may be required in order to provide a suitable and adequate remedy.
  SIR H. CAMP BELL-BANNERMAN: It is quite unnecessary for me to say anything upon the general question after the most masterly exposition of the present state of affairs by my two hon. friends behind me. and the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Oldham. The first part of that speech was the most sustained piece of irony I have ever heard in the House of Commons. My hon. friends have asked in a very pointed
  1578
  manner of the Government what benefit has come to any one from this Convention. Acts of Parliament are passed not for the purpose of avoiding doing mischief to someone, but for the purpose of doing actual benefit to someone. It has been abundantly proved by the speeches of my hon. friends that damage has been done by this policy, but no attempt has been made to show that anyone has gained anything from it. But I wish particularly to direct attention to the position of the House in this matter My hon. friend the Member for Islington said we might demand a change in our representative on the Commission at Brussels. I doubt whether that would have any effect. The truth is that we are in this position, that it is out of our power-to alter the substance or to modify the working of the Convention in any respects. We are tied and bound helplessly. The most we could do would be to suggest to the Government that they should suggest to our representation on the Commission that he should suggest to his eleven colleagues -all of whom represent States which are our competitors and adverse to us in policy—that they should assent to some little modification being made in the working of the Convention. That is the whole extent of the power of the House in the matter. It is an excellent illustration of the way in which fiscal reform and Parliamentary control come into collision. I have looked up the historical pamphlet which caused the break up of the Cabinet and find it asserted there that, as regards our fiscal policy "what is fundamental is that our liberty should be recovered." One feels inclined to say "O liberty, what political crimes are committed in thy name." By this policy you deprive the House of Commons of its freedom of control and the country of its freedom of trade. I think the Sugar Convention is a most useful object lesson at the present juncture of affairs. It shows the worthlessness of the rampart which it was proposed to erect against foreign dumping. The debate will also show the country that this policy of retaliation, or what the retaliators call the resuming of the liberty of negotiation, means a very different thing after the negotiations arc concluded; and I trust that when the effects of the Convention are realised by the country its determination will be

  1579
  strengthened to take no step on the path which they have been asked to tread.
  MR. WALTER PALMERsaid he had listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Member for Islington, the hon. Member for Devonport, and the hon. Member for Oldham, and not one practical instance dealing with the first part of the Motion had been given by them. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Oldham to come down to this House and make speeches for the amusement of the other side, but this was a very serious question, and it was because he recognised the seriousness of it that he wished to raise his voice against some of the statements made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to say that he entirely disagreed with many of their arguments. He stated the grounds of his disagreement last year, and most of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Islington were the same as those which were contained in his speech of a year ago at Birmingham. The fact that important trades in this country which were interested, were not represented on the Brussels Convention was a matter which might be more favourably dealt with by the Government. But he entirely disagreed with the junior Member for Oldham, and thought the time had come when retaliation ought to be resorted to by this country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not made out their case, particularly in regard to the consumer in this country, who, he thought, would not suffer. He maintained that the Convention had secured us freedom, so that in future we should not be ruled by cartels on the Continent. He believed that thereby the production of cane sugar would gradually be increased.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid it had been stated without contradiction that the real originator and author of this Convention was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. He should like to read to the House what the ex-Colonial Secretary said nineteen
  years ago in the year 1885 upon this question—
  "Really the sugar question is about as strong as any we can have I would as soon fight this fair-trade humbug upon sugar as upon any other thing. I know something about the Workmen's Association for the abolition of the Sugar Bounties—I have met the gentleman before. It is a sham association, with precious few work men about it. It is got up and paid for by a few West Indian planters who want to make a profit out of an increased price of sugar. Ah! I have great sympathy with any real movement on the part of the working classes, but I have no sympathy at all with those who sell themselves to an agitation of this kind. Well, I have no doubt my constituents will know how to deal with them when they come. The only arguments they have got which is worth a moment's consideration is this: they say that cheap sugar has thrown out of employment a number of decent, industrious working men who were engaged in the refinery trade, and they ask you, the whole population of the country, to submit to an additional charge for your sugar in order that these poor fellows may be set to work again. The claim upon you to submit to a great sacrifice, to raise the price of every cup of tea you drink, of almost every article of consumption—for sugar enters into almost the whole consumption of your household—this claim, made by these eighteen-penny working men, is not made on behalf of the working classes, but it is made in order that the few West Indian planters may double their fortunes rather quicker than they otherwise would do."
  It might be said that anyone was at liberty to change his opinions, but facts and principles did not change, and the facts and principles of this question v, ere the same to-day as they were in 1885. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and his friends who had changed, including the Member for the Bordesley Division, who, after a life-long devotion to free trade, had suddenly discovered that he had been worshipping a hollow idol all his life and that our system of free imports was "as dead as Queen Anne." Well may they say, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 202. (Division List No. 37.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg, John

  Allen, Charles P.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Asquith, Rt Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Black, Alexander William

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Boland, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell James

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crean, Eugene

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Runciman, Walter

  Crombie, John William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  Cullinan, J.

  Leng, Sir John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Thomas

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Lundon, W.

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

  Delany, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Kean, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Dobbie, Joseph.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Slack. John Bamford

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Elibank, Master of

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw'sBghs

  Murnaghan, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyrl

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomkinson, James

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Toulmin, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Whitley, J. H (Halifax)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Mara, James

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.

  O'Shaughnessy, P J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roddy, M.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bigwood, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Brassey, Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bull, William James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Dickinson Robert Edmond

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Doughty, George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chapman, Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  1582

  1583

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Pinch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thomas Myles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Spear, John Ward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stock, James Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester;

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Moore, William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tuff, Charles

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'ld

  Heath A. Howard (Hanley)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Percy, Earl

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Prctyman, Ernest George

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Purvis, Robert

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Randles, John S.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock