Commons Sitting of 16 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, viz.:—
  Abertillery Urban District Water.
  Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company.
  Alexandra Park and Palace.
  Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement.
  Barry Railway.
  Blackpool Improvement.
  Blackpool, St. Anne"s, and Lytham Tramways.
  Bridgewater Canals.
  Bristol Blind Asylum.
  Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways.
  Cardiff Railway.
  Central Electric Supply.
  Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation.
  City of London Electric Lighting Company.
  Clacton Improvement.
  Clacton-on-Sea Commissioners.
  Commercial Union Assurance.
  Cordoba and Rosario Railway.
  County of London Electric Supply Company.
  Dearne Valley Railway.
  East Cowes Gas.
  East London and Lower Thames Electric Power.
  Entre Rios Railways.
  Formby Township.
  Gosport and Fareham Tramways.
  Great Central Railway.
  Great Central Railway (Pension Fund).
  Hastings Harbour.
  Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment).
  Hessle Gas.
  Hessle Urban District Council.
  Humber Conservancy.
  Hythe Corporation.
  Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
  Littlehampton Urban District Council.
  London and India Docks Company.
  London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation).
  Mansfield Corporation.
  Marylebone Chapels.
  Matlock Bath Improvement.
  Medway and Thames Canal.
  Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies.
  Metropolitan District Railway.
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District).
  Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers).
  Metropolitan Railway.
  Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time).
  Mortgage Insurance Corporation.
  Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site).
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.
  Nine Mile Point Railway.
  North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
  Nottingham Corporation.
  Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation.
  Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways.
  Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage.
  Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation).
  Rhymney Railway.
  Sandgate Urban District Council.
  Sheffield University.
  Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting).
  South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways.
  Southend and Colchester Light Railways.
  South Lancashire Tramways.
  Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board.
  Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation).
  Tees Valley Water Board.
  Torpoint Urban District Water.
  Tralee Urban District Council.
  Truro Water.
  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.
  University College, London (Transfer).
  Weaver Navigation.
  West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time).
  Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas.
  West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers.
  Whitby Urban District Council.
  Workington Harbour and Dock.
  And they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases, viz.—
  Hastings Tramways.
  Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council.
  Wellingborough and District Tram-roads and Electricity Supply.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Hastings Tramways [Lords]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council [Lords]; Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity Supply [Lords]. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Coventry Electric Tramways (Extension of Time); Hammersmith, City, and North-East London Railway; Heckmondwike Improvement; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway; Wigan Corporation. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  PETITIONS.
    IYER, N. A. SUBRAMANIA.
    Petition of N. A. Subramania Iyer, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF CLOSING).
    Petition from Wallasey, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    LICENSING ACT, 1902.
    Petition from Manchester, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
    Petition from Uppingham, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
    SUGAR TAX.
    Petitions for repeal; from Ashton-under-Lyne; Patricroft; Radcliffe; Scarborough; Southport; Stockport; and York; to lie upon the Table.
    TEINDS (SCOTLAND).
    Petition from Greenock, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    PRISONS (IRELAND).
    Paper [presented 14th February]; to be printed. [No. 23.]
    OSBORNE.
    Copy presented, of Rules for Osborne in connection with the Regulations prescribed by the Parks Regulation Act, 1872 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    ALIEN IMMIGRATION FROM THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE.
    Return (in part) presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 24.]
    TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
    Return (in part) presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Gerald Balfour]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 25.]
    BREWERS" LICENCES.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 26.]
    CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1903–4.
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 27.]
    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 28.]
    NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
    Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th February; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 29.]
    TREASURY CHEST.
    Account presented, for the year 1903–4, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 30.]
    GREEK LOAN.
    Account presented, up to 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 31.]
    PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
    Copy presented, of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Caledonian Railway, the Clyde Navigation, the Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution), the Highland Railway, and the North British Railway (General Powers) Draft Orders ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 32.]
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 16th February, 1905, providing for the distribution of the General Aid Grant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented, of Return showing the Expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in Scotland in the year 1904, with Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896 AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
    Copy presented, of Regulations made under the Acts, I. General, II. Borough of Beverley, III. County Boroughs of Blackpool and Tynemouth, and County of Dorset [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
    Copy presented, of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1903, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1904, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 33.]

    PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
    Public Records (His Majesty"s Stationery Office),—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in His Majesty"s Stationery Office which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
    Public Records (Board of Agriculture and Fisheries).—Copy of Second Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

    PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (MONTHLY STATEMENTS).
    Return ordered, "of Statements for each month of the year 1905 of the number of Paupers relieved in England and Wales (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 108, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Post Office Wages Committee—Corres- pondence between Post Office and Sir Edward Bradford.
    MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will lay on the Table the whole of the correspondence which

    299
    has passed between the Post Office Department and Sir Edward Bradford as Chairman of the Committee on Post Office Wages.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There has been no official correspondence between the Post Office or the Postmaster-General and Sir Edward Bradford except formal letters relating to the appointment of the Committee, the submission of their Report, and the expression of my acknowledgments. I have not the slightest objection to laying this correspondence before the House; but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by doing so.

    Rules for Use of Electricity in Mines.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rules respecting the use of electricity in and about coal mines have now been settled and published; and, in that case, in what Parliamentary Paper can a copy be found.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary A Kers Douglas.) These rules have been settled with the owners" association and approved of by the men"s representatives. They are not yet in force, as they have to be proposed, by Statute, to each colliery owner individually; but the notices of proposal, some thousands in number, will all have been dispatched within the next few days, and the rules will, in each case, come into force, if not objected to, within twenty days from the receipt of the notice. The rules as settled have not yet been made public, but I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy if he desires it.

    The Licensing Act.
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a statement by the Chairman of the Mitford and Launditch Bench of Magistrates that there were 165 licensed houses of various kinds in that petty sessional division, forty of which the magistrates considered unnecessary, and that probably thirty years would elapse before these houses could be closed;
    300
    and whether, in view of such cases, the Government will take steps to increase the compensation allowance so as to make the Act effective.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I had not heard of the statement referred to otherwise than from the newspaper report which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. Assuming, however, that this report is correct, I do not gather from it the grounds on which the Chairman"s anticipation is based. I think it will be time enough to consider the Amendment of the Licensing Act, 1904, when actual experience has shown it to be ineffective.

    Wireless Telegraph Apparatus on Lightships.
    MAJOR SEELY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the installation of wireless telegraphy for life-saving purposes on the East Goodwin, South Goodwin, Gull, Tongue, Sunk, and Cross-Sand lightships, as to which arrangements were in progress in June, 1903, has yet been completed; and, if not, at what date the work is likely to be finished.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) No, Sir. The necessary legal agreement between the Board of Trade, Trinity House, and the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, with the assent of the Admiralty and the Post Office, has not yet been completed. The legal and administrative difficulties have been great, as it was necessary to deal with questions affecting wireless telegraphy in this country by legislation and to safeguard the rights of the Post Office. I am in hopes, however, that the completion of the agreement will not be long delayed, and when completed have no reason to doubt that the actual work of installation will proceed expeditiously.

    Income-Tax Collection.
    Mr. JOHN ELLIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the notices recently distributed in various parts of the country by income-tax collectors threatening legal proceedings have been so issued in consequence of instruction from him, or the Board of

    301
    Inland Revenue, to accelerate the collection of this tax; and, if no particular instructions have been given by him, whether the course pursued has been in effect a new departure as being a revival of rules or regulations which have been of recent years suffered to lie in abeyance.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The earlier issue in certain cases of the notices in question has resulted from a change of procedure, which was devised a year ago by the Board of Inland Revenue, and approved by the Treasury in May last, whereby the first demand notes were issued through the post instead of being delivered as formerly by collectors by hand. This has resulted in the issue of the first demands being completed before 31st December instead of its running over into January and possibly even February, and in consequence the date at which the second notice has been issued has this year been advanced in the case of a proportion of taxpayers, but a proportion not relatively very large. Beyond approving of the scheme of the Inland Revenue in May last I have issued no special instructions until lately, when, in view of the complaints that reached me, I directed the Board of Inland Revenue to take such steps as would avoid infliction of undue hardship on individuals.

    Case of Mr. Tilak—Mr. Brewin"s Report.
    MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for India, regarding the case of Mr. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, will he state whether the report of Mr. Brewin, the investigating officer, was favourable to Mr. Tilak; and would he place upon the Table the Government"s orders upon the report, together with the report.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Police reports are privileged documents and are not communicated to the public. I am therefore unable to lay the report upon the Table or to state its purport.

    Report on Police of India
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if
    302
    he will state when the Report on the Police of India will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am now communicating to the Government of India the decision of the Secretary of State in Council on the most important measures recommended in the Report. I anticipate that the Government of India will, on receipt of the despatch, publish a comprehensive Resolution reviewing the whole subject and stating the conclusions arrived at. When I receive this I will communicate Papers to Parliament.

    Lislea No. 1 National School (Armagh)— Appointment of Local Manager.
    MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Rev. R. T. Simpson has resigned the position of temporary manager of the Lislea No. 1 National School (County Armagh); and, if so, whether the Commissioners of National Education will now accede to the wishes of the parents of the children attending the school and appoint a local manager.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Rev. Mr. Simpson has not resigned the temporary management of this school, which he holds pending the appointment of a local clergymen in succession to the former manager. It is understood that such a successor will shortly be appointed.

    Proportion of White Men Employed in Rand Mines.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the ratio of white men employed on the gold mines, either of the Transvaal as a whole or of the Rand district, to every 1,000 coloured men (Kaffirs and Chinese) so employed in each of years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902, and 1903, and in each of the months of 1904.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) In 1897 and 1898 for the Transvaal mines as a whole, the figures at my disposal give the ratio of white men to every 1,000 coloured men as 137 and 130.

    303
    For July, 1899, for Witwatersrand mines only, the ratio was 116. For the Transvaal mines in July, 1902, the ratio was 250, in July, 1903, 174, and for the year 1904: January, 170; February, 164; March, 159; April, 161; May, 169; June, 177; July, 183; August, 183; September, 170; October, 158; November, 150; December, 143.

    Representative Constitution in the Transvaal—Publication of Papers.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the House will be in possession of Papers respecting the proposed establishment of a Representative Constitution in the Transvaal.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not at present able to fix a date.

    Punishment of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state, so far as particulars have yet reached him, what sentences have been inflicted by Courts in the Transvaal on Chinese labourers, and for what offence in each case; and, where the option of a fine was given, whether the fine was paid or other punishment suffered.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am informed by Lord Milner, in reply to an inquiry as to the sentences imposed in connection with the riot at the Geduld Mine in October, as follows: "Thirtynine Chinese labourers were charged with (1) public violence; (2) assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm on 21st October. Sentences of four months imprisonment with hard labour were imposed on each on the first charge, and on the second charge five were sentenced to be imprisoned with hard labour for two months and to whipping (twenty strokes). The sentences of imprisonment run concurrently. Both offences are common law offences, but the punishment of whipping is imposed by Section 38 of Ordinance 26 of 1904 (Crimes Ordinance). By the law of the colony no sentence of whipping imposed by a magistrate can be carried out till the record has been sent to and the sentence
    304
    has been confirmed by a Judge of the Supreme Court. These sentences were confirmed by a Judge and certified under Section 39 of the Magistrates Court Proclamation, 1902." I have asked to be supplied with regular Returns as to sentences and convictions from time to time.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Guns.
    MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how it is in tended to dispose of the guns now in the vessels of His Majesty's Navy which are to be put out of service to make way for new-ships; and if such guns can be distributed amongst those corps of Garrison and other Artillery Volunteers which are still without modern guns.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire,): This matter is now under the consideration of the Admiralty and War Office, and until the question has been finally settled it is not possible to give any definite reply to the hon. Member's Question.

    Naval Recruiting Notice.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what explanation, if any, have the naval authorities to give of the announcement which in last autumn wag displayed in every post office in Berkshire and Oxfordshire, to the effect that youths between seventeen and eighteen years may now join the Royal Navy without their parents' consent, and that the age of boys was now raised from fifteen and a half to fifteen and three-quarter years, and which was signed by Lieutenant W. E. Abrams, R.N., the recruiting officer, Oxford; by whose authority was the Royal Cipher printed on this notice; and why in an official document of the Admiralty were boys instructed that they could enlist in the Royal Navy without their parent's consent.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: The notice alluded to in the hon. Member's Question was only issued locally, and directly the attention of the Board of Admiralty was called to it they informed the officer responsible that it was an improper notice to issue, and ordered its withdrawal.

    Wages of Chinese Labourers in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the rates of wages which are being paid to Chinese labourers in the Transvaal mines, with the number of men receiving each rate; and, if not, whether he will present Papers on this subject at an early date.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The rates of wages being paid vary from 1s. upwards to 2s. 6d., according to the schedule attached to the contract (see page 13 of Cd. 2183), and reach a higher figure in the case of some of those employed on piece work, though I cannot give the number receiving each rate. I am expecting to receive a report from Lord Milner on this subject which I hope to be able to publish.

    White Labour in the Transvaal Gold Mines.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to
    ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the figures which he has published of the number of white men employed in the gold mines of the Transvaal includes men who are temporarily engaged in such occupations as the building of compounds for the Chinese labourers; and, if so, what is the number of white men employed on such occupations and what is the number employed in the work of mining and extracting gold.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The increase in work for white men is due to the arrival of Chinese labourers and to preparations for their arrival, large fresh construction works are in progress on new mines and development work on the deep levels has been greatly on the increase. I have
    306
    not received a classification of the occupations of the additional white men employed in connection with the mines, but it includes the building and reparation of compounds or barracks.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of unskilled white labourers employed in the Transvaal gold mines on 31st December, 1902, 31st December, 1903, and 31st December, 1904, respectively.
    MR. LYTTELTON: According to the annual reports of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, the number of unskilled white labourers employed in the Transvaal Gold Mines, on 31st December, 1902 was 2,150, and on 31st December, 1903, 2,472. The figures for 1904 are not yet published.

    Venereal Diseases among Chinese Coolies.
    MR. BELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of Chinese indentured coolies who have been treated for venereal diseases in the hospitals in the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not this information.

    Tibet Expedition.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what is the total expenditure that has been incurred by the Government of India in respect of the recent expedition to Tibet.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the total cost of the Tibetan Expedition; and will the Government, in view of the Imperial interests involved, pay the whole or a part of the cost out of the Imperial Exchequer.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): The total expenditure on the Tibet Mission, up to the 31st January last, was £812,736.
    MR. BRYCE: That is not the full cost. I suppose we may take it that there is other expenditure not yet ascertained.
    MR. BRODRICK: As far as I am aware all the main items of the cost are here included.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the despatch to the Government of India it was stated that Imperial interests must be superior in the settlement of this question? That being so, is there not a ground for the Imperial Exchequer sharing part of the expenses?
    MR. BRODRICK: Any pressure which has been brought to bear on the Indian Governmentin regard to Imperial interests was not towards increasing, but limiting the cost.

    Indian Police Commission.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the Report of the Indian Police Commission will be laid before Parliament.
    MR. BRODRICK: I am now communicating to the Government of India the decision of the Secretary of State in Council on the most important measures recommended in the Report. I anticipate that the Government of India will, on receipt of the despatch, publish a comprehensive Resolution reviewing the whole subject and stating the conclusions arrived at. When I receive this I will communicate Papers to Parliament.

    British Mission to Kabul.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to
    ask the Secretary of State for India what were the objects of the British Mission to Kabul; at what date was such Mission determined upon; and whether he will publish Papers on the subject.
    MR. BRODRICK: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement, at the present moment, as to the object of the negotiations at Kabul or to publish Papers on the subject.

    The Viceroy and the Indian National Congress.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India
    308
    whether the Viceroy of India declined the request, made by Sir Henry Cotton, K.C.S.I., to present to His Excellency personally a copy of the resolutions passed at the recent session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay; and, if so, whether, having regard to the record of Sir Henry Cotton as an Indian administrator, this action of the Viceroy of India has the sanction of the Imperial Government.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no official information on the subject; but I observe that a letter from the Viceroy's private secretary to Sir Henry Cotton, couched in cordial language, stating the reasons why Lord Curzon declined to receive him officially as President of the Congress has been published in the Indian newspapers. As at present advised, I see no reason to question the propriety of the course adopted by the Viceroy.

    Mr. John Godden's Claim against the Dutch Colonial Government.
    SIR ERNEST FLOWER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state what the result of the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the Netherlands in the case of the claims made by Mr. John Godden against the Dutch Colonial Government has been; whether His Majesty's representative at the Court of the Hague has received instructions to urge that the matters in dispute shall be the subject of arbitration; and if the Government of the Netherlands is prepared to accept the principles of the Hague Tribunal for the settlement of claims represented by a friendly Government as suitable for arbitration.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): The reply received from the Netherlands Government is unfavourable to Mr. Godden's claim. His Majesty's Government would have been glad if the Dutch Government could have seen their way to submit the matters in dispute to the decision of a suitable tribunal, whether under the Convention of the Hague or otherwise.

    British Appeals to the Sugar Commission.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the reasons which influenced the Government in appealing under Article VII. of the Brussels Sugar Convention against the decisions arrived at by the Permanent Commission at the recent sittings to penalise eighteen foreign countries; whether, if this appeal had not been lodged, it would have been necessary to prohibit the importation of sugar from all these countries into the United Kingdom; and whether there is any authority under the Convention itself or the Sugar Convention Act to postpone the discussion upon this appeal and the decision with regard to it by the Commission for more than thirty days after 2nd December, the date on which the appeal was delivered to the Belgian Government.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): His Majesty's Government appealed against certain decisions of the Permanent Commission because they believed that those decisions were either contrary to the evidence or based on an incorrect interpretation of the Convention. As to the second paragraph, I must decline to reply to a hypothetical Question. The postponement of discussion of the appeal was arranged by common accord among all the contracting Powers for their convenience. No specific authority for such a course in the text of the Convention or the Act appears necessary.

    Russian Sugar.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that Russia sent two delegates to the third session of the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention to furnish information so that the penal clause should cease to apply to Russian sugar, and that the question of the admission of Russia was rediscussed and decision postponed, whether, seeing that as good reasons exist for removing the prohibition against Russian as against Dominican sugar, the Government intend to take that step.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have no reason to alter their opinion that Russian sugar exported enjoys advantages of the nature of a bounty.
    MR. LOUGH: Is the position of Russia undefined by the Convention?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, it is not undefined.

    British Brandy in the United States.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the United States Treasury, by decree of May 2, 1904, ruled that British brandies are not entitled to the most-favoured-nation treatment; if so, will he state the grounds of such decision; is it to be applied to all other British imports; and whether any remonstrances have been addressed on the subject to the United States Government.
    EARL PERCY: By the degree referred to, it was announced that British brandy is not entitled to the treatment accorded to French and German brandy. A Treasury decision of May 2, 1904, lays down that the most-favoured-nation Article in the Treaty of 1815 does not apply, inasmuch as the rates enjoyed by German and French spirits were granted in consideration of concessions by Germany and France. The reply to the third Question is in the negative. The hon. Baronet will find fuller information on the subject if he will refer to the Return of July 2, 1903, headed "Preferential Trade." His Majesty's Government have frequently expressed their dissent from the views of the United States Government in regard to the meaning of the most-favoured-nation Article in the Treaty of 1815.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Does the Government acquiesce in this unconventional treatment? Are they going to take it lying down?
    EARL PERCY: I have said we do not hold the same view as the United States Government of our rights.

    Congo State Inquiry.
    MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to an announcement made in the Mouve-ment Geographique, to the effect that the Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the Independent State of the Congo left Boma for Antwerp on 31st January last; and, if so, will he say whether he has any official information to this effect; and whether Vice-Consul Mackie or Acting-Consul Nightingale have, so far, attended any meetings of the Commission of Inquiry.
    EARL PERCY: The Answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, but His Majesty's Minister at Brussels reported on February 9 that Monsieur de Cuvelier had no reason to believe that the report was correct. It was not possible for Mr. Nightingale to leave his post in order to attend the meetings of the Commission pending Mr. Mackie's arrival. The latter left Boma for the Upper Congo on January 20.

    Sugar Bounties.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade have the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission determined that sugar bounties are given by the following twelve countries, viz.: the Australian Commonwealth, Canada, South Africa, Spain, Roumania, Japan, Chili, Costa Rica, Russia, Argentine Republic, Denmark, and the Dominican Republic; is he aware that, in 1903, no sugar was imported into the United Kingdom from the Dominican Republic; and can he explain the grounds on which His Majesty's Government, while prohibiting, in accordance with the mandate of the Brussels Permanent Sugar Commission, all importation of sugar from Russia, the Argentine Republic, Denmark, and the Dominican Republic, has not prohibited it from Spain, Roumania, Japan, Chili, or Costa Rica?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Permanent Commission has fixed rates of countervailing duty in respect of sugar imported from the countries
    312
    mentioned in the Question. A certain amount of Dominican sugar was imported into the United Kingdom by way of the United States ports before the issue of the prohibition order. The countries named to which prohibition orders have not been applied do not export sugar of their own production to the United Kingdom.
    MR. LOUGH: Is not sugar sent from Denmark here, although that country is prohibited? Is not that a reversal of policy?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    San Domingo Sugar.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Sugar Convention have formally approved the system under which sugar is produced or exported from San Domingo; and, if not, by what authority the Board of Trade has given notice that the importation of Dominican sugar into the United Kingdom is in future to be allowed, notwithstanding the prohibition of the 3rd of June, 1904, and what are the conditions which are to affect importations from that country in common with other countries which are not parties to the Brussels Sugar Convention, referred to in the announcement now published by the Board of Trade; whether the importation of sugar from Hayti is also to be allowed; or whether that Republic is treated differently from San Domingo.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The authority for the Board of Trade notification was an Order in Council dated February 4th, revoking the prohibition order issued on June 3rd, 1904, in respect of Dominican sugar. The revoking order was issued in consequence of the receipt of official information, through the medium of the Belgian Government, that the Dominican Government have reduced the surtax on sugar below the limits specified in Article III. of the Convention. The conditions referred to in the Board of Trade notification are those laid down in the regulations annexed to the Order in Councildated

    313
    August 11th, 1903, the fourth of which provides for the production of a certificate that the sugar is derived from a factory which does not work bounty-fed sugar. No prohibition order has been issued in respect of Haytian sugar. The position of this sugar is at present the subject of an appeal by His Majesty's Government against a decision of the Permanent Commission.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Do I understand that the action of the Government with regard to Dominican sugar is approved, or was taken in co-operation with the Brussels Commission?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We received the official notification from the Belgian Government acting on behalf of the Permanent Commission.
    MR. LOUGH: Have not the Permanent Commission condemned Hayti, and have the Government refused to prohibit San Domingo without the authority of the Commission?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is an appeal, but it has not yet been heard.

    United States Sugar
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether importations of sugar from the United States into the United Kingdom have recently taken place; and, if so, what quantity has been so imported; and, seeing that discussion has taken place at the Brussels Sugar Convention with regard to the sugar systems of the United States and Cuba, whether it will be necessary under the Sugar Convention Act to prohibit further importations from them into the United Kingdom.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A small quantity of refined sugar, probably refined in the United States, has recently been imported into the United Kingdom. The quantity received in the two months December and January was about 700 tons. No prohibition order can be issued under the Sugar Convention Act with respect to sugar imported from any country, except on the report of the Permanent Commission that a bounty is
    314
    granted in that country. No such report has been received from the Commission with respect to the countries named in the Question.
    MR. LOUGH: Has not the position of this country with, the United States and Cuba been discussed? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the effect of the discussion?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot do that.
    MR. LOUGH: Can sugar be freely imported from these countries?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Certainly, Sir.

    Colonial Contribution to Cost of Pacific Cable.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, can he say whether any provision has been made for the payment by the Colonies of their contribution of £1,444,444 to the capital expenditure on the Pacific Cable; whether this sum, or any portion of it, has yet been paid by the Colonies; and, if not, when it will be paid.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The amount borrowed for capital expenditure on the Pacific Cable is being repaid by a terminable annuity provided in the Vote for Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable (Civil Service Estimates, Class V, 5). The colonial shares of the expenditure are recovered from the Colonial Governments after the close of each financial year. The first instalment of the annuity for repayment of the borrowed capital was included in the Vote for 1903–4, and the colonial share has been received in the present financial year.

    The Unfunded Debt.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can he state the total amount of the Unfunded Debt, together with the amount of each of the items composing it, on 31st December last and at the present date respectively; and can he say

    315
    whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, measures for diminishing it.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Unfunded Debt on 31st December last amounted to £88,133,000, made up of War Stock and Bonds, £30,000,000: Exchequer Bonds, £26,500,000; Treasury Bills, £31,633,000: total, £88,133,000. At present the Unfunded Debt amounts to £81,633,000, having been reduced by £6,500,000, Treasury Bills paid off in the interval. I have no announcement to make as to future dealings with the Unfunded Debt except that £4,000,000 of the Treasury Bills now outstanding must by law be paid off before the 31st of next month.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there not usually another item of the Unfunded Debt, viz., Temporary Advances from the Bank?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I
    have given the hon. Member a full statement. If he wants more information I shall be obliged if he will put down a Question.

    South African War Contribution.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can he state the total amount, on the 31st December last, of those particular liabilities of the State which in the accounts are termed other capital liabilities, and which amounted, on 31st December last, to £31,868,323; and, seeing that in the accounts there is given a list of estimated assets set against these liabilities, which list includes the advance of £3,000,000, since repaid, to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, can he explain why there is not also included in the list the war contribution of £30,000,000 due from those colonies.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is the practice to publish full particulars of the capital liabilities to which the hon. Member refers in Returns made up to the close of each financial year. To publish corresponding particulars for arbitrary dates in the course of the year would involve special calculations. The accounts up to 31st March next will be
    316
    published as soon as possible after that date. The temporary advance of £3,000,000 to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony was shown in the accounts on the 31st March, 1903, as an unrepaid advance. The war contribution of £30,000,000 does not come within that description.
    MR. McCRAEasked whether it was not the case that the £3,000,000 repaid by the Transvaal was employed to meet the deficit of last year, and therefore could not be regarded as an asset.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that there were two sums of £3,000,000. One sum was advances from balances which was repaid into balances; the other sum was, in accordance with the note appended to the Estimates, devoted on repayment to reduction of debt.
    MR. McCRAE: But the first sum cannot be regarded as an asset.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Of course not.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why is there not included the war contribution of £30,000,000 from the colony? Is that not regarded as an asset?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The £3,000,000 was included because the sum was an unpaid balance; the £30,000,000 was not included because it did not come within that category. I may here anticipate an Answer which I had to give on behalf of the Prime Minister to a Question of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis appearing later on the Paper. I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject of the war loans and balances.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I right in concluding that the Government have ceased to regard that sum as an asset?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is obviously not entitled to draw such an inference from my words. I must ask the House to rest content

    317
    with my statement that I am not in a position at present to give any further information.
    MR. McCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether those who were prepared to guarantee the instalment of £10,000,000 are still prepared to fulfil their obligations?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have not the slightest reason to suppose that they are not; indeed, I am sure that they are.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is there any provision made in the Estimates of the colony with a view to paying any part of this sum?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer.
    The following is the text of the Question referred to—
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken by His Majesty"s Government to procure the payment by the Transvaal and Orange River Colony of the war contribution of£30,000,000, to be raised by a loan at 4 per cent., whereof certain Transvaal mining firms undertook to underwrite£10,000,000, the payment of which contribution was the condition expressly attached by His Majesty"s Government to the guarantee by the United Kingdom of the Transvaal loan of£35,000,000; and whether, seeing that when this House was asked to agree to the guarantee in question on condition of the contribution of £30,000,000, His Majesty"s Government stated that the first instalment of that contribution would be received probably at the commencement of 1904, he can now give a definite assurance that either the whole contribution or the first instalment thereof will be received by any, and, if so, what date.

    Post Office Savings Bank Deposits
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what, on 31st December, 1904, was the total amount due to depositors in the
    318
    Post Office Savings Bank; what amount of Consols were sold during the year 1904, and at what average price; what was the amount of Consols held on 31st December, 1904, and at what price was it taken in the valuation of securities; what was the excess (if any) of liabilities over assets on 31st December, 1904.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December, 1904, cannot be stated with accuracy till the figures are finally proved. The approximate amount was £148,326,000. The amount of Consols sold during the year 1904 was £1,664,972. 6s. 2d., at an average price of £87 18s. Id. The amount of Consols held on 31st December, 1904, was £60,085,422. 11s. 8d. No valuation of securities at the end of the year is now required by Parliament; and without such valuation it is not possible to state the excess of liabilities over assets at the 31st December, 1904.

    Postmaster-General"s Annual Report.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the statutory obligation to present his Annual Report to Parliament before the last day of July in each year, he will explain why, in the last session of Parliament, the Report was not presented until 8th August; and why, seeing that the Savings Bank Act, 1904 (4 Edw. VII., c. 8) releasing him from the obligation to prepare a balance-sheet did not become law until 1st August, he will explain the omission to lay a balance-sheet last year before Parliament.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that the Postmaster-General is under any statutory obligation to present an Annual Report to Parliament before the last day of July in each year, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will cite the Statute to which he refers. The balance-sheet required to be presented to Parliament by Sec. 9 of the Post Office Savings Bank Act of 1861 (the section to which the hon. Member refers as having been repealed by the Act of 1904) was presented on 14th June, 1904 (House of Commons Paper No. 211).

    Post Office Savings Bank Securities.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in addition to the enumeration of the securities, he will lay before the House a valuation on any given basis of the eighteen annuities for terms of years, being part of the securities standing in the names of the National Debt Commissioners on account of the Post Office Savings Bank on 31st December, 1903, as set out in his Fiftieth Report; if not, will he recommend to the Government the necessity to bring in a Bill to amend the law so that, in default of a balance-sheet as enacted by the Savings Bank Act, 1904, sufficient particulars may be given in his Annual Report to make it possible to value the securities.
    LORD STANLEY: Parliament has denned so recently as last year the nature of the information to be laid before, the House with regard to the securities held on account of the Savings Bank, and I am not prepared to recommend further legislation on the subject. It is proposed to lay before the House shortly a statement in the form which will be adopted under the Act of last year.

    Canadian Cattle—Importation Restrictions.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether any representations have been made by the Canadian Government during the recess with regard to the removal of the restrictions at present placed upon the importation of Canadian store cattle; and whether, in the interest of the health of home-bred cattle, and in view of previous losses from imported contagious diseases, the Department will decline to recommend the removal of the restrictions now in force.
    MR. BUCHANAN: At the same time I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a despatch has recently been received from the Dominion Government calling attention to the exclusion of Canadian cattle from British ports; what reply has been sent by His Majesty"s Government; and whether the
    320
    correspondence will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Perhaps the hon. Member for East Perthshire will allow me to answer his Question at the same time. We have recently received a despatch in which it is represented that Canadian feeling and opinion are still in favour of the repeal of the existing statutory restrictions on the importation of live animals, so far as the Dominion is concerned. Whilst accepting this assurance my noble friend remains of the opinion he has frequently expressed that the proposed amendment of the law would be undesirable. The correspondence which has passed does not add to the information I have given.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: How has the hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion that Canadian opinion is in favour of this repeal?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: From a despatch which the Home Government has received.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: From where?
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I am not sure where the despatch came from.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Has a reply been sent to the despatch of the Dominion Government, and will the correspondence be laid on the Table of the House.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I am not quite sure if a reply has been sent. I will consult my noble friend as to laying the correspondence on the Table.

    County Court Fees.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any steps have been, or are likely to be, taken to reduce the Court fees payable under proceedings in the County Courts, the present scale of such fees being deterrent, and in many cases prohibitive, to suitors.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,): The present scale of fees was settled after a reference to a Committee, appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury, so recently as 1900, and they were specially instructed to consider whether any of the fees could be reduced. There were a great many suggestions made and referred to the Committee, including a valuable communication from the Law Society, all these were very fully considered, and some reductions were made. I understand that it is not likely that the scale will be again revised in the immediate future. The fact that the number of suits instituted in the County Courts is so large as it is, tends, I think, to show that the present fees cannot have any deterrent or prohibitive effect to the extent which my hon. friend apprehends.

    Sheep Disease in County Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O"CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have had under investigation the character of the diseases which have destroyed large flocks of sheep in county Wicklow; whether they have arrived at any satisfactory results; and, if so, whether the Department will issue instructions to farmers for the treatment of sheep affected by these diseases.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Yes, Sir. Carcases of affected sheep have been sent to the Royal Veterinary College for examination and further investigations are being locally made, by the Department.

    Avondale Estate, County Wicklow.
    MR. JAMES O"CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Rathdrum District Council protesting against the action of the Department of Agriculture in letting, or advertising to let for grazing purposes on the eleven months system, over 100 acres of the lands of Avondale, county Wicklow; whether he is aware that the estate was bought for the purpose of establishing
    322
    thereon a school of forestry; and whether he will advise the Department to withdraw their proposal to let a part of the estate in grass.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. There is no reason why the Department of Agriculture should add to the expense of such an experiment by refraining from letting land, pending the completion of the steps for carrying it out.

    Irish Local Government—Public Bodies Order, 1904.
    MR. JAMES O"CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of local councils in Ireland have protested against the Public Bodies Order, 1904, on the ground that it would considerably increase local expenditure, and impose extra work on the officials; whether the local councils were consulted by the Local Government Board before they issued the Order; and, whether, in view of the opposition of the county and district councils, he will instruct the Local Government Board to withdraw the Order.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Representations to this effect have been made. The councils concerned were invited to indicate in what respects the Order would increase expenditure, and impose unnecessary work on officials, but, so far, they have not complied with that request. Many members and officials of local authorities have, on the other hand, informed the Board that the new Order is an improvement on the old one. County councils generally were consulted before the issue of the Order. The Local Government Act of 1902 imposed upon the Board the duty of effecting a codification of former Orders, and the Board is satisfied that the recent Order is essential to a proper system of financial administration by local authorities.
    MR. JAMES O"CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the Order, until the Royal Commission on the Amalgamation of Irish Unions has reported?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think I can take that course.

    Dublin Hackney Carriage Stands.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the regulations which have been made by the Police Commissioners in Dublin, with reference to the hazards for the hackney carmen of that city; whether any complaints have been made by the frontage owners of the streets where these regulations are being put in force; and whether he will take steps to secure to the carmen the old hazards which they have used for years past, and which are essential to their means of livelihood.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The changes in the hazards for hackney vehicles were made owing to increased traffic and the consequent necessity of avoiding obstruction in the streets, and inconvenience to the public. No complaints of the character mentioned have been received by me; but if the hon. Member will communicate the details of a specific case I shall make further inquiry.
    ME. NANNETTI: Has not the Commissioner of Police received a communication from the frontage owners protesting against the hazards being removed?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of the Question.

    Dublin Car and Cab Licence Duties.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the reply given by the Commissioner of Police to the cab and car owners of Dublin in reply to their application for an extension of time for the payment of their licence duty; if so, will he, in view of the scarcity of employment, direct the Commissioner to extend the period for payment in all cases to the 27th March next; whether he will see to the period for payment being permanently fixed for the 1st July as heretofore; and, also, whether he will consider the advisability of proportionately reducing the licence duty paid in Dublin to the level of that paid in Cork and Belfast.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioner of Police has expressed his willingness to consider individual applications for an extension of time. This offer, in my opinion, is a reasonable concession to the necessities of the situation. Prior to 1890 the licence duty on hackney cars was fixed at £2, and payable in two instalments, January and July. The duty was reduced to £1 in that year, and made payable in one sum in January or February. There are no sufficient grounds for altering the period for payment, or for reducing the existing duty on hackney vehicles in Dublin.

    Assault by a Clergyman at Westport.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named MacAskall was knocked down and kicked at Westport on the 6th ultimo by the Rev. M. MacDonnell, Roman Catholic Administrator, and that the police, whose protection MacAskall was under at the time, were stoned; if any arrests were made; and, if not, will he order that the offenders be prosecuted who are known to the authorities.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The occurrences referred to in this Question are the subject of magisterial investigation which, I understand, will take place at Westport Petty Sessions to-day. I am precluded, therefore, from discussing the facts at present.

    Irish School Teachers as Polling Clerks.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why national school teachers have recently been debarred from acting as polling clerks at municipal elections, while they are permitted to act as such at Parliamentary elections.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The barrier has been removed by the new Code of Regulations now in course of issue.

    Sir Antony MacDonnell.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what part, if

    325
    any, Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Undersecretary, took in suggesting or preparing the proposals now known as the Dunraven Devolution Scheme; was the date on which Sir Antony MacDonnell first communicated his ideas on the subject to Lord Dunraven prior to the Second Reading of the Land Bill of 1903; when did the Chief Secretary first hear of these communications, and what steps did he or the Government take in consequence thereof; and whether Sir Antony MacDonnell"s appointment in Ireland is still regarded by the Government as a temporary one; and, if so, when is it intended to terminate it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: (1) Sir Antony MacDonnell, in response to a request from Lord Dunraven, assisted him in discussing and formulating these proposals, which Sir Antony erroneously, but honestly, believed to be within Unionist principles. The Government hold that such proposals, embracing as they do the creation of a Financial Board and the delegation of legislative powers other than for Private Bills, are altogether inadmissible. (2) I understand that the two proposals I have named were discussed for the first time by Sir Antony with Lord Dunraven in August or September last. Sir Antony, I know, has discussed other matters at earlier dates with Lord Dunraven, and there is no reason why he should not have done so. (3) I saw these proposals for the first time in The Times newspaper of September 26th last and immediately expressed my total dissent from them. Sir Antony MacDonnell at once wrote to Lord Dunraven stating that he could have no further communications with him in connection with the programme of the Reform Association. The matter was considered by the Cabinet, and the Government expressed through me their view that the action of Sir Antony MacDonnell was indefensible. But they authorised me to add that they were thoroughly satisfied that his conduct was not open to the imputation of disloyalty. (4) Sir Antony MacDonnell undertook the office of Under-Secretary at my special request and without any intention of permanently devoting to Ireland the administrative talents which have won him so high a place among
    326
    Indian officials. It was in the full knowledge of this fact that his services were accepted; but it is obviously impossible to state the precise date of their completion.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman"s reply that in the matter of these proposals Sir Antony MacDonnell acted without any official sanction or approval?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that Question. I have referred to the two points to which I took grave exception, and if he will put a Question on the Paper I will answer it.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I asked when the right hon. Gentleman first heard of these communications between Sir Antony MacDonnell and Lord Dunraven. He says he first saw them in The Times. I have no recollection of their being published there.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I stated very clearly that Sir Antony MacDonnell had had frequent communications with Lord, Dunraven on many subjects. Why should he not? So have I. But what I also said was that these two proposals to which 1 took grave exception were never before me until I saw them in The Times newspaper.

    Seed Potato Grants in Ireland.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he would supplement the grant of the Irish Agricultural Department by making a moderate contribution from the Imperial Exchequer towards cheapening the seed potatoes which are now being supplied on loan to small occupiers in the more distressed unions of Ireland.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Agricultural Department has made a grant of £10,000 for the purpose of administration of the seed supply and the reduction of the price of seed. This grant will reduce the charge in respect of principal and interest on the seed loans, so that it is expected that the occupiers

    327
    will obtain the seed at something under the market price at the port of despatch. The cost of the seed inspectors will fall on the Votes; but it would be a new departure, unwarranted in my opinion by the circumstances, to make a grant for the seed itself direct from Votes.
    MR. DILLON: put a Supplementary Question, but Mr. WYNDHAM asked that notice should be given of it.

    Army Pensioners in Irish Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the Government Circular (No. 7227 | 01), dated 29th April, 1901, dealing with Army pensioners in district asylums; and in the event of the asylum authorities not claiming either the pension or the grant, the regulations will be framed so as to permit of the capitation grant of 4s. per week being refunded to dependent relatives.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Under the Superannuation Act, 1887, a stoppage is required from the pensions of all lunatics towards whose maintenance a contribution is made out of moneys provided by Parliament. Such contributions, if claimable, is paid to the local authorities, whether claimed or not by the asylum authorities. If, therefore, the pensions were not abated to the extent of the contribution, the State would be paying twice over for the pensioner"s maintenance. The circular mentioned is in accordance with the Statutes, and cannot be withdrawn.
    MR. SLOAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the resolutions passed by the District Asylums Committee, he will consider the desirability of giving the committee the power they ask for.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: They have full power to deal with any money allotted to them. By statute these pensions have to be paid to the local authority.

    The Judge Advocate-General.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir Francis Jeune still continues to discharge the duties of Judge Advocate-General; if not, when did he resign that position, and by whom are the duties appertaining to the office of Judge Advocate-General discharged; and whether, having regard to the fact of the importance of the revision of the sentences of Courts martial and the adjudication of questions of military law to the liberty of the subject, it is contemplated to restore the office of Judge Advocate-General to its former position of a Ministerial office whose holder will be responsible to Parliament and subject to Parliamentary criticism for his official acts.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Lord St. Heliers still discharges the duties of Judge Advocate-General. I have no statement to make at present as to any change in the office.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the duties have never before been discharged by a Peer?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware I of the fact. But it does not seem to me very important.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Well, I am aware of it.

    The Secretary for Scotland and Company Directorships.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Marquess of Linlithgow, who has been appointed Secretary for Scotland, is a director of two public companies, one of which is the Bank of Scotland; whether, having regard to the possibly conflicting interests of the Bank of Scotland and the Government, and the possible financial arrangements between that bank and the Government, the retention by the Marquess of Linlithgow of his directorship of the Bank of Scotland is compatible with the discharge of the duties to the public

    329
    incidental to his office of Secretary for Scotland; and whether he will take any, and, if so, what, steps to secure that in this case the duties of a Minister of the Crown to the country should not be in conflict with his duties as director of the Bank of Scotland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Lord Linlithgow is a director of the Rank of Scotland, as his two predecessors in office were and still are. There is nothing whatever in that position that conflicts with his duty as Secretary for Scotland, nor is any such conflict, in my opinion, possible.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is a Cabinet Minister to be in one capacity representing the Government and in another capacity representing the Bank of Scotland? I must have an Answer to that Question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member asks that Question under a misapprehension. The Bank of Scotland is in no sense an official or semi-official institution. It is only a private bank.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    John O"Connor, Esquire, for the County of Kildare (North Kildare Division).
    NEW WRIT.
    For the County of Westmoreland (Northern or Appleby Division), in the room of Richard Rigg, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

    KING"S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [15th February] to Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty"s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which
    330
    Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament." —(Mr. Mount.)
    Which Amendment was—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, "And we humbly represent to You" Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay." "(Mr. Asquith.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. ERNEST GRAYasked the Speaker, on a point of order, whether the action on the previous night on the Member for Oldham in objecting to his Motion for the adjournment of the debate on Mr. Asquith"s Amendment to the Address, and the action of the House in refusing leave to withdraw the Motion, had deprived him of the right to represent the views of his constituents on the Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that when the hon. Member moved the adjournment he was speaking on the Amendment, and his Motion being disposed of by the vote of the House, the Amendment again came under discussion, and the hon. Member could not speak upon it again. It was true that the hon. Member after-wards made some observations, and he (the Speaker) took some blame to himself that he was not strictly regular in permitting him to do so, but he had assumed—apparently wrongly—that the hon. Member was only occupying the few minutes that remained before midnight with a view to carrying the debate over to the next day in accordance with the intention of both sides of the House.
    LORD HUGH CECILasked if the hon. Member could not continue his speech by the general consent of the House, apart from the ordinary practice.
    MR. SPEAKER: In the peculiar circumstances of the case if there was a general consent of the House I certainly should not consider it my duty to interfere.
    MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he did not raise the point of order for the purpose

    331
    of gaining the indulgence of the House. His desire had been to remove a misapprehension which apparently existed in certain quarters as to what occurred on the previous night. He was fully sensible of the indulgence extended to him by the House, and he would endeavour to show his appreciation of their kindness by occupying as few minutes as possible in seeking to discharge the duty upon which he had received imperative instructions from the large working class constituency he represented. The Amendment before the House called upon the Government to make an appeal to the country and to cast aside the whole programme outlined in the King"s Speech in order to get the view of the electorate upon one single subject. It had been frequently alleged during the course of the debate that the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister was involved in obscurity, but he could not help thinking that that obscurity arose not from consideration of the plain statements made by the Prime Minister, but from the unauthorised versions, the free translations, the criticisms and the commentaries with which the right hon. Gentleman"s statement had been surrounded. They had an illustration of that in the course of the debate on the previous night, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick made" statement which created considerable astonishment. It was as well that that should be cleared up. He asserted that the statement of the Prime Minister that it was necessary for him to get the assent of the country before he could impose retaliatory duties was inaccurate, because the Government already had the power to impose such duties. If that were true it certainly would dispose of very much of what the Prime Minister had stated to the country. But was it true? Was it not very far from the truth? Was it not very seriously misleading? Was it not the fact that although we had not by any statute or by any formal declaration lost our right to impose duties for other than revenue purposes, yet we had by long disuse forfeited the right to exercise that power. Suppose the Government in its next Budget suggested that some duty should be imposed
    332
    not merely for revenue purposes but for the purpose of breaking down hostile tariffs. What would be the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What would be the attitude of the hon Member for Berwick himself? Would not one and all declare that such a departure from the practice of the last sixty years was one which ought to have the consent of the country, and that a proposal of that kind would be nothing short of revolution. He would have thought that nobody would more strongly condemn anything in the nature of a revolution in our practice without the assent of the electors being first obtained than the hon. Baronet. But he did not want to dwell upon that point. He did want in a sentence or two to discharge the very simple duty which devolved upon him as the representative of a large working-class constituency.
    They had had a pledge given them that no change should be made in the fiscal policy of this country during the life of the present Parliament, and, indeed, no change would be made until a new Parliament had been elected. They were told with great confidence by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there would be no change made in the next Parliament because they would occupy the Benches now filled by the supporters of the present Government. Surely if that were the case, this striving for enlightenment in regard to a policy which, according to their own assertions, was not likely to be put into operation for many years to come, was hardly justified. There was surely more justification for the demand to know what policy hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to adopt when they got into power. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment on the previous day gave not one iota of information as to the alternative which he had to place before the country. He did think that those of them who had pinned their faith to some reform in our fiscal procedure were justified in asking for some enlightenment as to the alternative right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to put forward. It was admitted on all hands that the basis of taxation ought to be more widely

    333
    extended than it was at the present time, and, if the Prime Minister was not to remain in power, he would like to know what right hon. Gentlemen opposite would do to lighten the burdens in heavily rated districts such as the one he had the honour of representing. This was a matter which touched the people more closely than any other question. Financial burdens, central and local, were crushing the life out of many industrial centres, and if they were to get no relief from the present Government they ought to know what right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to suggest as an alternative.
    One of the objects of the Amendment was to angle for the support of certain Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial s" de of the House, whose views did not coincide with those of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham, or with those of the Prime Minister. He would like to remind them that there were great industrial communities demanding the completion of reforms before the Government made its appeal to the people. What was to be done for the workmen in the way of compensation for accidents? Were they to secure that protection which was foreshadowed in the-King"s Speech? Whit was to be done in regard to alien immigration, and what was to be done particularly with regard to the relief of the poor? Those who lived in districts which had not felt the strain experienced elsewhere during the last few months could not appreciate the intensity of feeling on that subject. With these people the fiscal question stood in the background when compared with measures which were intended to secure for them the means of living in the winter months, and he believed they would visit very sternly their dissatisfaction on the heads of those who 1ightly cast away the chance now offered of passing some ameliorative legislation. This was a question of supreme importance to the labouring community. The sentence "Give us this day our daily bread" was not to them a mere conventional phrase. It was a phrase of grim reality, and they asked that the fiscal question should not be allowed to bar the way to the adoption of reforms, which were immediately necessary. They agreed
    334
    that there ought to be inquiry to ascertain whether means could not be found for protecting the labour in which they had been engaged, but which they were losing by the stress of foreign competition. With them, however, the question of supreme importance was the relief which was outlined in the King"s Speech, which gave them some earnest of the intention of the Government to secure employment for the thousands now unemployed in the Metropolis and adjoining districts.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, my name has been mentioned more than once in the course of the debate, and I should therefore like to say something about the Amendment and the questions which are connected with it. Yet, at the same time, I feel that perhaps I am less personally interested in the matter than most of those hon. Members who have hitherto addressed the House. The object of this Amendment is, of course, to turn out the Government, not for any special sin, not because of its views on fiscal reform, or upon any other individual subject, but because of the crime of its existence, because there are a number of Gentlemen in this House who think they could fill its place much better than it does itself. You may turn out the Government, but you cannot turn me out, because I have already relieved you of the trouble. The Amendment also points to a dissolution in the course of which, rightly or wrongly, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that the proportions on the two sides will be reversed and that many Gentlemen now sitting in my neighbourhood will no longer be Members of the House of Commons. I think it is always bad to reckon your chickens before they are hatched. There again, so far as I am concerned, dissolution has no terrors. I am quite content to trust my political fortunes with the working men who for thirty years have given me their confidence so generously. I will go further than this. I have no fear of a dissolution, whatever its result may be. I have said in the country, and I have no objection to repeat the statement here, that so far as I personally am concerned, so far as my opinion goes, the sooner dissolution

    335
    comes the better. If I had to argue this question in support of the Amendment, I think I could put forward stronger and better reasons than any of those to which I have listened. In our constitutional system, which is a Party system, an occasional change is no doubt desirable. The Party with which I am connected has now been in power practically eighteen years. During the whole of that time it cannot be denied that it has done an enormous amount of work. Whether for good or evil, it will leave behind it a record which has not been paralleled by any other Party or Government [Ironical cheers] during the last half century. I am very glad to find that so far, at all events, I am in perfect harmony with the House. What has been the course of political affairs during that time? All this work, all this legislation and administration, has been opposed from the other side. It is the business of an Opposition to oppose. Nothing has been accepted. All that we have proposed has appeared to the Opposition to be bad, and in consequence there has been an immense advance in legislation during the eighteen years which cannot at present be called national, which is still a subject of controversy. If we have a dissolution, and, if, as hon. Gentlemen opposite believe, that dissolution brings victory to their side, all this legislation will come up for review, and we know what will happen. What they denounce in Opposition, that they will condone when they come into office; they will accept in office what they have execrated in Opposition; and we shall get, at all events, a very large body of legislation which will become national legislation, very much, I think, to the advantage of the whole population.
    They have been boasting a good deal recently of by-elections. Well, they are quite entitled to congratulate themselves on the result of those by-elections; but, if they are candid, they will admit that a great number of causes have conduced to such success a, they have obtained. It has not been the fiscal question alone which has secured for them the result on which they pride themselves; it has been education, temperance, Chinese labour, and the price of sugar. I will not stop to
    336
    dwell upon the way in which these subjects have been represented, but I will only ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind that when they come in they will have to deal with them. It is very easy in Opposition to denounce the measures dealing with these matters in language which would make it almost impossible for an honest man to bear with them for a single day after he came into office. We shall watch with the greatest interest how our opponents treat these subjects; at present we have no-idea; they have not condescended to give us any indication of the way in which they would deal with them. This, at all events, I venture very heartily to predict: they will find them very difficult nuts to crack, and will find it impossible at the same time to satisfy their ardent supporters whose votes they have won by their declarations and the people at large. That is one advantage of a dissolution—that it, as it were, consolidates the policy of the country; and a second advantage is that it enables us to ascertain, in the first instance, and then to test, the policy of the Opposition, Now by the necessity of the case we are always on the defence. I look forward with unmingled satisfaction to the time, whenever it comes, when we shall be in a similar position to hon. Members opposite.
    I have read with the greatest interest the letter of recommendation which was published the other day by a distinguished Leader of the Opposition, in which was sketched, at all events, his personal idea of the policy which he and his friends would pursue. A close examination of that policy opens to me a vista which I confess makes everything now stale and unprofitable. I greatly desire, whenever the proper time comes, to exchange the responsibility of action for the joy of criticism. And now, speaking for myself alone, as a private Member, dissolution has no terrors for me whatsoever. If it comes in the ordinary constitutional way, I say again the sooner it comes the better. On the other hand, I deny absolutely the right of any minority, even so intelligent a minority as that which I see before me, to demand a dissolution on perfectly childish and fantastic reasons, on grounds which they never accepted themselves when they were in office, and which they

    337
    would always be the first in those circumstances to repudiate. No, Sir, if the Government acts as all Governments I have known have acted in the past, and as I believe they will act, they will, I trust, give no authority whatever to this new theory of the rights of a minority, and will not abandon their trust merely because the Opposition desires to be in office.
    I have one word more to say on this question. I do not accept the standard of public duty which the Opposition set up; I do not accept their standard of a mandate, their new test of by-elections. It is absolutely unprecedented, and I think if it were adopted it would be found to be mischievous. Although I do not accept this standard, they will be the first to admit that they cannot complain if we apply the standard which they have adopted, at all events, to their own action. But I feel that this Amendment is not really intended to be treated seriously. It was introduced with a great nourish of trumpets. We heard that the walls of Jericho were to fall in the first days of the session; and it was considered of such importance that actually the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, dealing with the matter in a way which I believe is absolutely unprecedented, made a speech on the first evening of the debate on the Address which was almost wholly taken up in forestalling his right hon. friend. He painted the situation in broad and rather rough colours, and he left it to his right hon. friend to polish and complete the presentation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife nearly threw away the whole case when he admitted, at the outset of his speech, that he did not expect that it would succeed or have any effect in disintegrating the majority, even although he must have known beforehand that he would have in the future the valuable support of my hon. friend the Member for Durham. No, Sir, there was in my right hon. friend's speech a great deal that was very interesting, and some things that were amusing, but there was no serious fight; and the condition of the House throughout yesterday shows that that was the view taken by his own friends. In fact, what we are engaged in is excursions
    338
    and alarums, as we so often see in the plays of Shakespeare.
    Under these circumstances it is not necessary for me to deal at any great length with the merits of the case. We are told that fiscal reform has been fully discussed in the country. I take note of that admission. I have never received any admission of the kind before, and I think it is rather important. I certainly understood that one fear which the Opposition had was that advantage might be taken of their present weakness to rush a decision from the country which might afterwards be regretted; but up to the last moment they have been telling us that they have not the least idea what the proposals of the Government are. They have been complaining that discussion in this House has been burked; nevertheless they have now come to the conclusion that the matter is settled, that it is a chose jugée and not a chose disputée, and that there is nothing now but to go to the country and ask for judgment. It seems to me that we should be going to the country, in these circumstances, very imperfectly prepared, on the assumption that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are correct. It is quite true that they pay me the compliment to say that they understand what my proposals are. I am very glad to hear it. That is another admission, and I hope that in future they will not, unintentionally I am sure, so grossly misrepresent me. But I ask the House when in the history of Parliament there has ever before been a serious proposal made on behalf of the leaders of the Opposition that the proposals of a private Member, if they are fully discussed, are grounds for a dissolution of Parliament.
    MR. DALZIEL: The Prime Minister adopts them.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The doctrine is entirely new. Let me state it again. Any proposal which has been fully discussed in the country, even although it is not part of any official programme, is at once to be submitted to the people. I say that is a new proposal. I myself have a sneaking kindness for it. It seems to me to approach to the system in vogue in the

    339
    United States of America, in Switzerland, and in some other countries—the system which is known as the Referendum; and if hon. and right hon. Gentle-man opposite are really prepared to carry into practical operation a suggestion of that kind, and to enable the people of this country to pronounce without Party pre-occupation and without the intervention of other and quite different subjects on any really important question submitted to their consideration, I for one should give them what assistance I could in order to promote such a system. But that is the last thing they desire. They want, as they say, to settle the fiscal question. I wish them joy of the attempt. They want to settle it. How! By mixing it up with every other political question before the country at the present time, and with all the political feeling and political recrimination which necessarily attends on Party Government. In these circumstances I can hardly conceive that they are serious in suggesting that under any other system than the one I have described the question can be settled whether my policy—the policy of the Member for West Birmingham with no official authority whatever—is so important, so extraordinarily out of the common way, has elicited so much attention and consideration, and has so large a support, that it is desirable that it should be immediately decided whether that support amounts to a majority. I have never had a compliment so great paid to me since I have been in the House of Commons. I am afraid it is much too good to be true. No, all these arguments may be put aside, and we may drop this pretence of a desire to submit this question to the country.
    The real object of the Amendment, every candid man will admit, is an attempt—and, to my mind, a very foolish and ill-judged attempt—to induce on this side of the House a feeling which, if it existed, would soon make us the happy family which Gentlemen opposite have been for so long. How is this subject to be accomplished? It is a simple process, but "in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife quoted a short passage of a letter written by me in which I say that as far as I can see there is no
    340
    difference in principle between the Prime Minister and myself, although there may be differences in methods and tactics. Then he proceeded to tell the House what my principles are. He said that—
    "The policy of the right hon. Gentleman is in principle made up of two heads. In the first place the abandonment——"
    I beg to call the attention of the House to one or two words in it—
    "the abandonment in the interests of British trade of the antiquated system of so-called free trade, which he has told his audiences over and over again we alone persist in pursuing in defiance of common sense and the common practice of the rest of civilised mankind. In the second place, the creation in the interest of Imperial unity and strength of a preferential system based on the taxation of foreign corn and flour."
    He then said—
    "I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will differ from me."
    Suppose I had assented to his proposition; then the argument is clear. He would say:—"You, the Prime Minister, said"—at Edinburgh, I think—" " I am not a protectionist." Here is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who says that his object is to abandon free trade, and he says that you agree with him. Do you agree, you who are not a protectionist, that free trade should be abandoned?" Now that is the point. When the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I differed from him, I said I neither denied nor accepted what he said; and that gave great amusement to hon. Members opposite. I confess I have not yet risen to the height of the doctrine propounded by my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose, that however complicated a problem may be it can be got into a half-sheet of notepaper. I admit that my ideas are rather more expansive than that would suggest. But let me say, in passing, that it struck me what a compliment my right hon. friend paid to my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Essex, because, you see, it follows that if a great problem can be properly stated on half a sheet of notepaper, it is perfectly clear that it can be discussed in speeches of five minutes length. But it is not only that I think it undesirable to state one"s views in so short a space that made me resist the application of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife. No,

    341
    Sir, I am suspicious. I have had experience of this sort of thing before. I have again and again had extracts from my speeches flung across the House at me, and I have perhaps hastily accepted them only to find that something very important was omitted. The right hon. Gentleman, let me say with all respect, went further. After I had refused to give an answer, he said this was an evidence of the malaria of ambiguity which existed. Very good, and then he went on to say—
    "If the right lion. Gentleman wants chapter and verse, I would refer him to the speech which lie made at Limehouse in December last. He said there. 'I am going to submit to the country two issues, and they are precisely the two issues I have described to the House.'"
    I looked this morning at the Limehouse speech. What is the chapter and verse? That means verbatim et litteratim. What are the words which I actually did us? You will sea how near they are to the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, and yet how important is the distinction. I said—
    "I will put before ray countrymen two questions. I will ask them in the first place whether they think that a policy which is sixty years old, which was based on promise that have never been fulfilled, which were conceived in circumstances that are altogether different from those in which we move, can be suitable to our modem conditions; Then I will ask them, in the second place, what are to be our future relations with the Colonies, what is to be the future of the great Empire of which we are a part? Now, in my opinion, there is be a reform both of our domestic policy and our external policy as far as regards the Colonies."
    Now, mark, I did not say that we were to abandon free trade. I did not mention free trade. What I did say was that we must reform our policy of free imports; and free imports are not free trade. They stand in the way of freer trade. We have never had free trade. Do you doubt that?
    MR. ASQUITH: It was for that very reason that I used the expression "so-called free trade" and attributed it to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But we have never had free trade at all, and "so-called free trade," does not appear in my speech, and it is not in chapter and verse. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] I confess that I think there is a malaria of
    342
    inaccuracy which is much more dangerous to the public weal than a malaria of ambiguity. Let me say, in passing, so far as the language attributed to me in regard to the Colonies is concerned, I do not think there are two words the same. Still, I do" not seriously object to it, although it is not my actual language. Now take what I did say. I said that in my opinion the time had come for a reform in our present policy. I do not speak for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I speak only as I spoke in the matter to which reference has been made of my own thought on the subject, and I say now again that I think there is no difference between us with regard to the principle. And when I pointed to the importance of the consideration of the future of the great Empire of which we are all a part, there I think I know that there is not the slightest difference in the importance we attach to that part of the subject. But there is something more important, I think, than my opinion of what is in the mind of the Prime Minister, a subject more important than what the Prime Minister thinks of my proposals, and that is what I think of the proposals of the Prime Minister. Why do I say that? Because it is I who am speaking; it is I who say that I think there is no difference. I say it, and if there is a difference I should know it if it occurred in anything the Prime Minister said. Now, the Prime Minister has made three great, impressive, able speeches—the speech at Sheffield, the speech at Edinburgh, and the speech at Manchester, which included the four propositions on a half-sheet of paper. I am told these speeches are unintelligible. In the courteous language of the Leader of the Opposition they are metaphysical sophistications. I am grateful to Provience that I am not myself a metaphysician, but, after all, it may be supposed that I have ordinary intelligence, and I have read these speechcs—these mysterious speeches—and again I speak for myself, and I say that I think I understand every word of them. When speaking about the Prime Minister I was only in a position to say "I think," but when I come to say what I feel about his speeches I can say "I know," and I say that to the best of my knowledge and belief there is no single point of principle

    343
    in any one of those speeches from which I differ. I do not want to seem to have the slightest doubt or hesitation in regard to my own opinions if anyone has the slightest interest in them, and because of that, when the speech in Edinburgh was made, speaking at Luton almost immediately afterwards, I said that a question of method arose upon the last speech of the Prime Minister and I ventured to criticise that method, and to say that in my opinion if a conference were held such as the Prime Minister proposed, and if the results of that conference were satisfactory, it would be impossible to withhold those results from the consideration of this Parliament and from their action, if they were sitting at the time, and, if not, at the earliest possible moment. Very well, that is perhaps a difference. In any case it is a point of method, not a point of principle. I think the time to discuss" it will be after the principle is decided. The right hon. Gentleman—I think it was hardly worthy of him—actually made a point, and occupied the time of the House for two or three minutes, of the fact that I spoke afterwards at Gainsborough and did not repeat that statement. I appeal to him—he speaks a great deal more than I do—and I ask, does he consider it necessary in every new speech to repeat everything that he said in every past speech?
    MR. ASQUITH: Heaven forbid.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I agree at all events with his intention. When I am speaking myself I do endeavour to vary what I have to say a little and to deal with different branches of the subject on different occasions. It is really childish to accuse me of having abandoned an opinion because I do not repeat it on every occasion. I repeat when it is necessary. I repeat it here in this House, but I certainly do not think it desirable to put this difference, which I postpone to the future alter the principle is decided, in the forefront of my argument.
    I have one more point to bring before the House, and only one. We are told that it is necessary to settle this question of fiscal reform, because, as the right hon. Gentleman tells us, it is in the
    344
    highest degree prejudicial to British trade. Well, it has been going on for nearly two years. In what a terrible condition British trade must be! And yet the whole foundation of their argument is that it never was better. We are told that we are in the presence of record trade, record prosperity, and that no sensible man can doubt for a moment that we could not be better off, and that we may very easily be worse. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Ah! well, I know there is a little shyness on the part of some hon. Members in accepting that view. I observe when we come to the questions of employment, and the 13,000,000 of people, they are very glad to minimise it. But suppose it is necessary to settle it, is the right hon. Gentleman so unaccustomed to public life that he believes that a vote against fiscal policy in this House of Commons, or a vote against it even in a general election, would have the slightest effect in settling the question? I am bound to say I never was so sanguine as to imagine that a new proposal of this kind, which requires in my opinion a little more discussion than it has yet received—I never had an idea that such a proposal would be accepted offhand by the majority of this country, and I am perfectly prepared to be patient; and one defeat, and even many more defeats, would not for a moment prevent me from continuing to agitate for what I believe to be right. I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, who profess to be the followers of Cobden, talking in this way. Did one defeat silence Cobden? I think—I am not quite certain about my figures—but I believe he had against him three Parliaments and against him seven votes in Parliament, and in not a single one of these votes did he receive more than 120 in his minority.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Anti-Corn Law League set to work in 1839, and then there came the general election in 1841, in which Sir Robert Peel was returned by a protectionist majority, and in that Parliament free trade was carried.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I always yield to the authority of ray right hon.

    345
    friend in such a matter. Surely, however, Mr. Villiers in this House brought forward on two or three occasions proposals in favour of free trade, and afterwards, when Mr. Cobden came in, he himself introduced, or spoke in support of, several votes of the same kind. As regards the votes I am certain. As regards the number of Parliaments I admit I may be mistaken. I have taken account of the divisions in every case, and I say there were something like seven votes, and in none of them did he have a minority which was much, if at all, above 120. But he won his victory. Under these circumstances the idea that we, who sixty years later are reviewing his policy in the hope of amending it, are going to be disconcerted by one vote in this House or by one general election is really to do us a great injustice. We are much better placed than Mr. Cobden ever was. He had a small minority. We have, at any rate, the great majority of a great Party, and if it be true, as my hon. friend the Member for Durham said, although I think he exaggerated, that the minority in this Party is against us—the minority we know in this House—my own opinion is that it is a very much smaller proportionate minority in the country. If there be such a minority we shall make, it up, believe me, by recruits from the Party, which is now the Party of reaction, which can see no cause for change after sixty years experience of broken promises and unfulfilled pledges.
    We have three things in our favour besides time We have, in the first place, the failure of free trade. No, I beg your pardon, free trade has not failed, because we have never had it. It has not been tried, but we have the failure of free imports to produce the result which was the great object of the free-trader. That is one thing we have in our favour. We have, in the second place, the growing seriousness of the problem of want of employment of the people of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: Due to the war.] That is to me a serious matter. Taking any reasonable period, it is the fact that, in spite of all our prosperity, which I have never denied, the amount of employment in our principal industrial enterprises is less in proportion to the population than
    346
    it was at the beginning of the period, and it has been continually reduced. There is an increase in certain favoured employments. There is an increase in distributive employments. That is true. But in the employment which makes for the character, the strength, and the power of the nation there has been a diminution. If hon. Gentlemen will study history they will see that all those countries that have once been powerful, and have become less powerful, have begun with this alteration in the character of their employment. That is the second thing in our favour. The third thing is the wish that I think is almost universal in this country, to draw the Empire closer together; the knowledge, which is spreading, that the Empire is as much to us as it is to the other portions of it, and that we depend on them, while they depend on us. I think the appreciation of what they have already done for us is constantly growing. The desire by any means in our power to unite in some more organised union is a desire which has spread very deep and very far, and which will, I believe, continue to increase. When we conic to them and say, as we do, "Here is your opportunity; here is a request, or put, if you like, a suggestion, from your fellow-subjects, from your own kinsmen, that you should proceed to secure this closer union by a closer commercial union;" when they offer, in the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself—
    "To make a treaty with you upon the basis of an increase of trade between the different parts of the Empire, upon a preferential basis as against the rest of the world."
    When these offers are made to us, and when it is suggested that a conference should be held in order to discuss details—no, Sir, I do not believe that my countrymen, when they understand what it is that is presented to them, will for a moment support those who would shut the door to such a negotiation, and shut the door at the time when they pretend that they do not know what it is the Colonies have got to give us. Let them wait for the conference and hear. Do not let them prevent a conference by telling our colonial friends beforehand that they may come here if they like, but they shall not be allowed to discuss the only thing for which they deeply care.

    347
    Last night was important for one thing, and with my observation upon this I shall sit down. It was important for the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, and still more for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland. Hitherto I have understood—it may have been my stupidity, but 1 have certainly understood—that the position of the other side was that under no circumstances would they listen to a conference unless those who were invited to that conference were informed beforehand the one thing which they proposed would not be considered by us. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife seemed to me to modify that opinion. He protested against that view of his opinion and intention. He said, "No, certainly not. They may come and discuss everything. I do rot object, certainly not; but we must give our instructions to our representatives," and we all know what those instructions are to be, "Under no circumstances, whatever the offer may be, shall you consent to putting even the slightest and smallest duty on certain articles of food." That any man should contemplate a conference under those circumstances is to me a miracle, or that men of business should support him, or that in a case of this kind we should make up our minds before we know what it is they have to give us. Do you mean to tell me that it would be absolutely impossible for the Colonies, even granting all that is said against the tax of 2s. on corn, to give us something of more value than that? And yet, although we do not know what it is they will give us, or whether it will be sufficient to overcome your objections to a small tax, you say, "No, under no circumstances will we touch the thing." That is plain. We now know what their position is. I predict they will not live many years longer with that conviction. But that is in the region of prophecy. What is not in the region of prophecy is the effect that this statement, made in your name, with your assent, is going to have on the Colonies. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman"s view is accepted. The Colonies are to be invited to come. Apparently they are to be told that they may talk as much as they like about anything. Nobody can pretend to have the slightest or remotest doubt what it is
    348
    that will be the first thing the Colonies will put before us.
    MAJOR SEELY: Chinese labour.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: You expect these men to come and waste their time, to give up their own business at home, and come here and talk and talk until they are black in the face, knowing all the time that your representatives have got a mandate in their pockets not to give them anything they ask for. To my mind that is an insult to the Colonies. We now know what that modification of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife amounts to. There is another right hon. Gentleman who went a good deal further. I should like to know how many friends he has on that side of the House. Here is what he said—
    "I believe a conference of that kind ungagged, unmuzzled, summoned without prejudice, summoned on terms under which opinions may be plainly expressed on both sides is the only way by which it is possible to remove the misunderstanding which has been created between ourselves and the Colonies."
    [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!" and "By you."] That does not disturb me. Of course the point of difference lies in the words "summoned without prejudice." Can you pretend that you summoned them without prejudice when you are going to give a mandate to your representative, no matter what argument may be put forward or offers made——
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my meaning. What I meant by "without prejudice" was that the conference must be a general conference, and to summon a conference on the ground that unless it resulted in a system of preferential duties no conference was worth having at all, would be to prejudice it from the beginning.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sorry to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I certainly believed and hoped, when he spoke of summoning a conference without prejudice, he meant that it was to be an open conference, open as to its decision,

    349
    and without instructions given beforehand to any of the parties that they were absolutely to preclude the possibility of what would be the most important subject of all those to be discussed.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Would they come like that?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: However, that only leaves me in this position. Under these circumstances neither the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland nor any other Member on that side is willing to hold a free and open conference summoned without prejudice to discuss this great matter. From to-day it must go forth, "You yourselves have proposed that this offer should be made to come to a closer commercial union. We have considered it, without hearing what you have to say, and we refuse it. Under no circumstances, whether you come here or do not, will we change—[An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: No food tax.]—our decision. Under no circumstances will we admit that a proposal of the kind suggested is one which we can or will adopt." The right hon. Gentleman made one other remark, which I only note to point out its inaccuracy. He said—
    "The Colonies have never asked that we should impose taxes to suit them. Some of them did suggest, if we were imposing taxes for ourselves, we should give a remission of those taxes in their favour. They have not asked that we should impose a tax which we had not sot, and which we do not need for our own purposes."
    Is that the general view? I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, while he himself was in office, a conference was held in Canada. On the motion of Mr. Hoffner, of the Cape, a proposal was made that we should put on taxes in order to secure this preferential trade and this advantage as against foreign countries; and that proposal, made in a conference under the presidency of Lord Jersey, was rejected by Lord Ripon; and since then other proposals to the same effect have been made by other Colonies. So that the statement is not historically correct. My belief is that the conference will be
    350
    held, and that the Colonies will have a great deal to offer. I never contended we should make anything which anybody could think to be a concession unless in return we received reciprocal treatment. The whole thing turns upon a question which can only be decided by our Colonies. "If we agree to your pro posal, what will you give us in return?" My own belief, expressed more than once, is that they will have a great deal to offer, and that they will give us at least as much as they will desire to take from us. If that is the fact, the people of this country, I am firmly convinced, will not reject such an offer coming from their own kinsmen, and they will not lose a great opportunity which delay may make it impossible to be offered to them in the future.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he listened to his right hon. friend and felt a very large measure of agreement both with the constitutional doctrines he laid down, which seemed to him very sound, and with his avowal that he was not opposed to free trade. He confessed he was a little suspicious of those declarations that free trade was not threatened. There really was no advantage in continuing a discussion if the discussion only turned upon disputes about words. He thought what his right hon. friend meant by free trade was something different from what he meant by it. If it were not so he would be obliged to suspect him of what he was sure no one would suspect him, of making speeches containing not only erroneous theories, but passages which were almost totally unmeaning. What would become of all those parts of his speeches which consisted in pointing out that America, Germany, and to some extent, even France, had done much better than this country. Was it that their fiscal system was, in some respect, better than ours? What would become of the interesting theories about the lack of employment but for the protectionist theory that by shutting out imports they could get better conditions of labour for the work men. The whole gist of the right hon. Gentleman"s arguments had been protectionist arguments. He did not doubt that, as some of his supporters openly avowed, the right hon. Gentleman was

    351
    seeking to do in this country what Bismarck did in Germany in 1879—that was to say, change the policy of the country from a free-trade system to what was conventionally called a protectionist system. He agreed with his right hon. friend that the Opposition were not entitled to dictate to the Government the time of their dissolution. He went further than his right hon. friend, for he did not desire that there should be a speedy dissolution. For reasons which he should make clear, he was quite content with the existing situation. As regarded the general fiscal question, he was anxious in more respects than one that the present Government should continue in office. He was anxious that they should remain in office for the sake of education. He believed the Education Act of 1902 was fast taking root and was becoming less and less unpopular, and he heartily welcomed the change. He deseed also to see the present Government continue in charge of foreign affairs, which they had conducted with exceptional skill and patience. Therefore, on general questions of policy, he was entirely opposed to the Amendment.
    The question then arose, Was it necessary for the sake of the fiscal issue to subordinate these other considerations and to have an immediate election? It was said that an election was needed to clear up the misunderstandings which existed, and in order to make plain the policy which the Government was putting before the country so as to put an end to a situation of ambiguity. Now, he was one of those happy people who thought they understood the Prime Minister. He was quite prepared to make a friendly offer to him. If the Prime Minister would give him office, without portfolio, he would undertake to make his policy perfectly clear to every individual in the country. He was afraid his Ministerial career, though sensational and interesting, would also be brief, for by the time the right hon. Member for Montrose was beginning to get a grasp of the subject somehow or other the Government would be defeated. He thought he not only understood the Prime Minister, but also why other people did not understand him—which was a refinement of intelligence. It arose, first
    352
    of all, from the circumstance that the Prime Minister never expounded his policy in its relation to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He did not, as it were, state his geographical position according to the meridian of Birmingham. In particular, obscurity hung round two points. The Prime Minister favoured the policy generally called retaliation. About economic questions there was an unhappy custom of using names because they were polite and pleasing and not because they were accurate. Passing a shop window the other day he saw a garment displayed which was entitled "a gentleman"s anatomical belt." He inspected it and perceived it really was what were colloquially called stays. He discerned that the desire of the seller was to attract a purchaser who, shrinking from the imputation of a foppish desire to shape the male figure into super-elegant tenuity, might more readily adopt the idea that he was availing himself of a useful surgical instrument. This custom prevailed among those who called themselves fair traders. They were for ever using some other names, and amongst those names retaliation had been adopted, and this word was often used to conceal a protectionist policy. Even his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham did not always appear to him to use the word quite correctly, for he noticed m his speech at Preston an interesting passage dealing with the Swiss tariff and the policy of retaliation, and he told an antecdote about a Swiss gentleman who had said that he proposed to come and plant his business in England if the right hon. Gentleman"s policy Were adopted. Now it was quite certain that no Swiss gentleman would ever come and plant his business in England in consequence of retaliation. What would be likely to induce the Swiss gentleman to transfer his business to England would be a permanent tariff. On the face of it, no Swiss gentleman would expend a large amount of capital to erect a factory in England in order to get behind the duty unless, first of all, the duty gave him a closed market against the foreign competition of other countries, and unless the duty were of a permanent character and likely to continue. Retaliation was often used to conceal

    353
    a protectionist policy, and was confused with what might more properly be called reciprocity. Dumping, again, was constantly used to describe all cheap importations which effectively competed with the produce in this country; but dumping, as used by the Prime Minister, had a very limited sense. These confusions would not operate with anything like the effect they did were it for the fact that they very largely came from the lips of those who were supporting the policy of tariff reform.
    He was afraid that this misunderstanding on the part of the members of the Tariff Reform League did not always and in every case arise from the fact that they really misunderstood the Prime Minister. He was afraid that they wished other people to misunderstand his right hon. friend, and they availed themselves of his reputation and position in order to recommend a very different policy. They therefore habitually used language which confused, and was intended to confuse, the public mind. But that being the case he thought the Prime Minister and his colleagues were not relieved of responsibility in the matter. It was not enough to say that "what I have said is really clear and is not understood. It is the fault of a misconception." It was the business of a politician to be understood. The proof of the pudding was in the eating, and the proof of the statement was in the comprehension of it. It was to throw up the sponge to say, "I cannot make myself clear," for it was part of the essential duty of politicians in a leading position to make themselves clear when the circumstances of the case made it necessary that they should be so.
    But the third great branch of the policy of the Prime Minister was not misunderstood, because, from the protectionist point of view, there had not been the same effort made to misrepresent him; he meant the Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said from the first that there was a difference between the Prime Minister and himself upon one point, a point which he (Lord H. Cecil) thought was of greater importance than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham seemed to imagine. There were really two proposals for a Colonial Conference. The first proposal
    354
    was put forward by the tariff reformers that the conference should discuss the whole question of the relations between the mother country and the Colonies, especially the fiscal question, and formulate a scheme of commercial union, and that Parliament should forthwith carry out that scheme. That was the proposal of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Prime Minister's proposal was for a conference and full discussion, and when the scheme was arranged there should be a further stage of discussion in this country and the Colonies, that there should be a dissolution of Parliament and an electoral decision upon it. That was a proposal of a very different character. He had never understood and did not now understand why the Opposition had been brought to oppose that proposal. He could conceive its being said that these discussions might take place but that there was no prospect of coming to an agreement; that it might lead to ill-feeling and misunderstanding. But when a proposal of that kind was put forward by the Prime Minister it was too late to consider that point, because it would be a greater courtesy to the Colonies to reject the proposal of discussion altogether than it would be to have discussion and find no agreement upon it. He never had any doubt from the moment that the Prime Minister made the proposal that the wisest course was to support the right hon. Gentleman in that proposition, but he thought that they should also candidly say that the opinion of free-trade opponents of preferential tariffs would not be moved by any appeal to the Colonies. It would require argument much more weighty than the mere assertion of eminent Colonial Ministers sitting round a table that they wanted a particular proposal. The duty of the mother country was to decide in the interest of the whole Empire what was best; it would be a derogation of their duty to hand over the responsibility to the Colonies and to say, "You ought to decide it, and whatever proposal you make we will accept it." It made all the difference in the world whether they were to entrust this conference with the decision of the question or merely to entrust it with the task of threshing it out.

    355
    He did not believe that what was called colonial preference resting on the taxation of food ought to be or would ever be adopted in this country. There were two weak points in the proposal. First of all it ought not to be a bargain, the mother country professing to give something and the Colonies something else. The very idea of a bargain was in itself disruptive. It suggested that there were two parties with different and admittedly conflicting interests, who met in the spirit of negotiators with different points of view and who had different objects to attain. The mere fact of suggesting such a proposal must have a disruptive effect. All experience of nature, all history, went to show that discussions on the basis of bargains were always apt to end in disputes. Let the House look at the commercial treaties just concluded between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Had they produced union? It was notorious that they had produced great ill-feeling between the two countries. Commercial treaties were spoken of as if they were a unifying process, but in nine cases out of ten they had been—they had had the opposite result. The union of the Empire ought, he believed, to be sought for in a different direction. He did not believe that the present time was favourable for the suggestion to the Colonies that they should make great commercial or financial concessions to this country. To ask them to share in the duties and emoluments of the public service, to consult the Home Government on questions of diplomacy and national defence were not matters of bargain; but it was an advantage that they should be freely suggested to the mother country; and it was in these directions that he would seek to promote Imperial unity. He had tried to show that there was not a degree of doubt hanging over the Prime Minister's position, and he had tried to put what he believed was the true interpretation upon it.
    There were two other points to be considered in relation to this Amendment. First, he was obliged to consider the effect upon those on the Government side of the House who maintained the doctrines of free trade and whose position was embarrassed thereby. He was afraid that it was impossible
    356
    to deny that the Government were continuing in office by a process of concealing their whole mind from the country and their supporters. There were limits to the legitimacy of concealment. If persons concealed their mind in such a way as to obtain support, and it resulted at the same time in hardships to those giving that support, then he thought that concealment was a very difficult thing to justify. After all, the Government had enjoyed a considerable amount of support from those who were convinced free-traders during the last year. There had been, for instance, the support of a great body of persons who acted with the right lion. Member for West Bristol, whose support had been essential to the Government. It was not legitimate to make use of support of that kind, nor of a very large body of opinion in the country corresponding with it, if as a result of concealment other free-traders were driven out of their constituencies or Parliament, and if great distress of mind was caused to a large number of persons of the same way of thinking. In saying this he was not urging his own case. He had nothing but a feeling of gratitude to the Prime Minister and his colleagues personally, for he had been treated with a kindness which was all the more graceful because it had been unsolicited. But there were others who had not publicly received any measure of support or assistance. He thought that if he were a Minister enjoying a position of authority and emolument by the very support which was necessary to the present Government, he would feel very uneasy indeed if any reflection could be cast upon him owing to the distress caused to others by a policy of concealment. He certainly felt it to be his duty to express in the strongest terms disapproval of any attack on persons who were suffering as the indirect result of the system of tactics now being pursued. It was perfectly easy to clear up the misunderstandings that existed, and if those misunderstandings were not cleared up then there was a strong obligation on the part of the Government to prevent the evil consequences to individuals resulting from them. If there was any obligation, however, there was a very special obligation on the part of his right hon. friend and of those who

    357
    were in substance free-traders, but who had felt it to be their duty to remain in the Government. They differed very little, if at all, from hon. Members like the hon. Member for Durham. They had not seen their duty in the same light as his hon. friend had done; but as honest men trying to do their best for the well-being of the, country, could they sit unmoved and see a gentleman with whom they had served, whom they knew to be perfectly honest and disinterested, who they knew had resigned office with a sublime disregard of all consideration of self-interest, attacked for holding opinions substantially the same as their own without stirring a finger on his behalf? We heard much of loyalty to Party. He did not attack the essential utility of loyalty to Party; it was a convention without which the Government of the country could not be carried on. But there were other loyalties. There was surely the loyalty of one honest man to another; the loyalty to those who were serving the public well in an unselfish spirit; the loyalty of the brotherhood of self-forgetting men. It was to that loyalty he made his appeal. He was sure it was forgetfulness rather than lack of chivalry which had led to the state of affairs he deplored. But he earnestly appealed to every one who in his heart was opposed to tariff reform to see that in such cases as that of his hon. friend the Member for Durham he was found fighting on the side of those whom he knew to be in the right, even if they had not chosen to remain in office.
    But there were greater matters than these personal questions to be determined in connection with the Amendment before the House. He had to consider the effect upon free trade. He was convinced that he could not support the Amendment; but he was not quite certain whether it would be possible for him to support the Government. His only hesitation in adopting what he frankly admitted was the logical conclusion of his argument was his extreme reluctance to appear to co-operate in any degree whatever with those who were opposing his hon. friend the Member for Durham and others, whom he considered had been very badly treated. Whether he abstained or voted with the Government, the dominant consideration with him would be that of supporting the cause of free
    358
    trade. He did not believe that that cause was threatened by the continuance of the present Government in office. His view last year was not necessarily the same; but the free-trade propaganda or, rather, defence, had been so surprisingly successful that if the Government and his right hon. friend cared to spend another session in not availing themselves of the opportunity of debate in the House of Commons—it made them angry to say that they shrank from facing the supporters of free trade either in debate or in division, though it was the plain truth that they did so shrink—free trade would not suffer. If there were no question of Parliamentary loyalty involved, and every one could vote as he pleased, he believed the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and his friends would make a very poor show in the lobby. If his right hon. friend secured one vote in three he should be very surprised.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That would be more than Mr. Cobden got.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Yes, but he had the courage to face the situation. Mr. Cobden did not wish to tackle Parliament before he took its verdict. Another session like the last and even another recess would do free trade no harm: the verdict of the country would continue to be expressed with unvarying persistence against the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. He and his friends were quite satisfied with the way in which things wore going, and therefore it seemed to him that Unionist free-traders ought to go as far as possible in removing the difficulties between themselves and the Government, because, as the hon. Member for South-East Durham had said, they could do immensely more for free trade as Unionist Members than if they attempted to fight the battle of free trade in any other part of the House. He had never concealed the impossibility it would be for him to join the Liberal Party or depart from the principles of Conservatism. He thought his hon. friend the Member for Durham had been misunderstood on that point. What he believed his hon. friend meant was that if the Conservative Party adopted the protectionist policy he would be opposed

    359
    to that policy. But even in that event he personally should not cross the floor of the House. It was for those who had changed their opinions to change their sides, he had not changed his opinions, and why should he symbolise an attitude of mental stability by physical motion? But he did not anticipate anything so deplorable as the adoption of protection by the Prime Minister or the Government. Whether he and his hon. friends were able to defend themselves from attack in their constituencies or not, the future lay with them. They were the inheritors of the ancient Conservative traditions, they spoke the ancient language of Conservatism, and in their hearts the institutions which Conservatism had ever upheld stood enshrined. Those principles they would never abandon. He could not tell how long the struggle would last; if Members on that side would listen to him they might soon bring it to an end. Let them come and join him and his friends, give up the foolish dreams that had misled them and shut the door on the unwise connection of bad economics and good intrigue. He did not want to drive one protectionist or any other person out of the Party, but he wished to get rid of the evil spirit of protectionism which would cast Conservatism to the ground, and, rending it, sooner or later would be exorcised. At any rate the future lay with those who had not faltered in the day of difficulty in maintaining their principles, and who would maintain the whole fabric of the Conservative faith with the same energy and zeal that they had maintained the faith of free trade. With them lay the future; their courage was unshaken and their purpose was sure.
    SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCEthought there was one important aspect of the fiscal question which had not been in any way discussed. It was assumed that for the last fifty years the great trades of this country had been carried on free from protection, but he was prepared to assert that some of the greatest trades had prospered exceedingly for the simple reason that they had been fully protected. One of the greatest trades of the country
    360
    was the iron and steel trade, and the House might be surprised when he said that for forty out of the last fifty years that trade had been largely protected. For nearly forty years the iron and steel trade had been continuously protected by patents, and so far as the traders were concerned there was no difference whether the trade was protected by patent protection or any other form of protection. First of all there was the great Bessemer process, then the Siemens process, and so on; patent succeeded patent for nearly forty years, and the prosperity of the iron trade was largely due to the protection afforded by these various patents. It was idle to say these were only patents. Patents were in reality patents of protection. When it was desired to take out a patent, provisional protection was obtained in the first instance and later full protection under the Great Seal for a period of time. In a very large measure the present crisis had arisen because the iron and steel trades had suffered in consequence of the "dumping" into this country of enormous quantities of iron and steel which had been manufactured abroad under processes for which the English patents had recently expired. This was the reason why a great number of iron-masters were at the present time clamouring for protection. He was not advocating protection, but simply pointing out the fallacy that existed in the mind of the country and the House in believing that for the last fifty years this country had been free from protection. As a matter of fact, for nearly forty out of the last fifty years the iron trade had enjoyed a large measure of protection. Take another instance, there was close to this House a great picture gallery, given by the generosity of Sir Henry Tate, who had become a rich man. How did he become a rich man? By getting hold of a patent, and so long as that patent existed he had the fullest protection against any competition whatever. Under the protection of that patent no one could bring into this country a single pound of sugar made in France under his process. He did not contend whether that was, or was not, a good thing for the country as a whole, but he pointed out the fact in order to show that this

    361
    England of ours had not been free from protection, but, on the contrary, that many industries had been largely protected in the past. In regard to patents, this country had adopted a policy of its own, and had granted patents to men of other countries under which our own children were prevented from manufacturing their own products, because upon the foreigner had been conferred the privilege of dealing with those products. He had seen it stated that in consequence of the want of knowledge and enterprise of British manufacturers this country had lost the greater part of the aniline dye trade. That trade was, in its beginning, the result of the skill and the inventive faculty of a young Englishman, and so long as his patents subsisted the manufacture was done in this country; but we permitted some foreigners to patent improvements upon this patent, and under our Patent Laws those foreigners were not obliged to establish their works in this country. When the original English patents expired, the consequence of our extremely unwise Patent Laws was that the manufacture of aniline dyes, etc., from coal tar products practically ceased in this country, because under our laws there was no power to compel the foreign holder of our patents to grant licences or to work the patent here. As a result, we exported to Germany, etc., about £3,000,000 worth of coal tar, etc., and bought the same back when converted into dyes, etc., for £6,000,000, leaving in Germany some £3,000,000 for profit and labour. The present Government had recently made a small and inadequate attempt to force upon foreign holders of English patents the condition that they should grant licences under certain conditions in order that these goods might be manufactured in this country. Every country except England compelled every patentee, within a very few years of his patent being granted, to establish works in their country, so that the patent must be worked in the country that granted the patent, but it was left for England and England alone to grant patents under which our children were prevented from making use of the products of this country, because the foreigner holding an English patent preferred to import them and manufacture them abroad, and refused to grant any license to the English
    362
    people to work the patents in this country. That might be called free trade, but he did not think it was free trade, and at any rate it was not common sense. He thought the time had come when some of these matters ought to be revised and examined.
    In his own constituency, under the Cobden Treaty, fish could be taken into France, and the duty was not to be more than 2s. per cwt. When the Cobden Treaty expired the conditions were changed, and he was informed that now a sum of 6s. per cwt. had to be paid when we carried our fish into French ports, whereas the French fishermen could bring their fish into our ports free. In this matter he wanted reciprocal treatment, so that if we took fish from the French without exacting duties they should take our fish under similar conditions. That was a very important matter to a constituency like his, and, therefore, he trusted that some attention would be paid to it. These tariffs affected great industries like the fishing industry, from which their sailors were largely recruited. In his own constituency there were large works which would be prevented from carrying on their industry unless measures were taken to put an end to what the noble Lord had justly described as "dumping." Dumping had been described as the placing of large quantities of manufactured goods upon the market under cost price, which competed with British made goods. It might be asked how it was possible to sell anything under cost price and yet make a profit. But yet this could be done. Supposing they made five articles costing £5 and sold them for £6, obviously they would make £1 profit. But if they were able to make ten of the same articles at a cost of only £8, as was often the case, the last five would only cost an additional "3, although as the production of ten cost £8 the real cost of producing five was £4, therefore, he did not think it was fair trading to bring those extra five articles, which could be sold at a profit under cost price, to the English market, for that had the effect of breaking down English works. He had been informed that at Gateshead there were works which cost £50,000 for the making of ships' forgings, but

    363
    foreign firms had been permitted to dump these articles in this country, which they did forthwith, in order to render the profitable manufacture of these forgings impossible in England, and so thoroughly had this plan effected its purpose that he was told that those works at Gates-head which had cost £50,000 had never been used, and could now be purchased for £5,000 or £6,000. That was one of the effects of dumping, and he thought the time had now come when laissez faire had ceased to be a possible policy. Capitalists, as they knew, could easily invest their money abroad, but workmen in this country were affected by English trade, and if their work was done abroad it was not easy for them to transfer their labour abroad.
    The Motion before the House, as far as the fiscal question was concerned, was merely a sham. It asked for a dissolution of the present Parliament, and its object was to turn out the present Government. What had the Government done that they should be turned out? What had the Opposition done that they should be put into office? When he came to the House some nine years ago, the Government had to deal with what was called the Egyptian question. Some right hon. Gentlemen on the other side said at that time, when we declared that this country would no longer permit the policy of "pin pricks," that we had made France our enemy for ever. The fact, however, was that France had at present a more friendly feeling towards this country than at any time since 1800, and he could state on reliable authority that there was every day a growing desire among all classes of the French people that the relationship should be still more cordial. If the Government had done nothing else than bring about that state of feeling, they would have done a great and valuable work. Our relations with the United States of America had also greatly improved in recent years, and that result was in a large measure due to the successful manner in which the Government had conducted affairs. When a difficult situation arose in regard to Venezuela, our Government, with the late Lord Salisbury at its head, acted with calmness and firmness, and there was now a better feeling between this
    364
    country and America than had ever existed before. There was at present a great war in a distant part of the world, and foreign nations were looking on with great anxiety. At this moment hon. Gentlemen opposite were asking the British Government to abandon the task of steering successfully the great barque of State in these troubled waters, to run away from the helm, and to let unknown strangers take hold of it and carry the ship no one knew where. Was this Government to be put into the melting-pot to enable the country to see who was to take hold of the handle of the ship of State? He hoped the Government would not run away from their duty. He for one rejoiced very much that the government of the country was in the hands of the Party now in power. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were to come into office they could only remain there at the will of hon. Members from Ireland, who had declared that the interests of Great Britain were not their interests. When conducting negotiations with foreign Governments that was not a desirable position for our Government to be in. The destinies of the country should not be entrusted to a Party who, though they came into office, would not come into power.
    The mover of the Amendment had stated that the trade and commerce of the country had been upset by the fiscal proposals which had been made. He thought trade and commerce had been upset by a Very different matter. In the autumn of 1903 the opponents of the Government assured them that before Easter, 1904, the Government would be driven out of power. That was what frightened the merchants of England, and it was not until they found that there was no fear of a dissolution that the feeling in regard to trade became better. The Amendment would be rejected by a large majority, and when the merchants of England had the assurance that there would be no dissolution this year, they would be inclined to embark in extended trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had gone on to platforms and made speeches in which he had tried to instruct merchants and manufacturers as to the causes which had led to loss of trade, though they knew

    365
    very much more about these matters themselves. There was not a man of knowledge who did not feel sure that the cry of free trade was now being employed as a Party shibboleth. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who had realised fortunes under the protection of patents, were now the loudest in proclaiming their worship of the fetish of free trade. They had been protected, but did not want anybody else to be protected, and were indifferent to what happened to others. He believed that this Amendment, proposed, as it had been, at the very beginning of the session, would place the Government in a very assured position with a large majority. It would show foreign nations that this so-called discredited Government was not at all discredited.
    Allusion had been made to two letters by Mr. Gladstone, one addressed to the late Queen, and the other to the late Lord Granville. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rushcliffe scouted the notion as absurd that the latter was of equal importance to the former. He did not know whether that hon. Gentleman had ever had occasion to write a letter which had to be submitted to Her Majesty, or any other Royal personage. He himself had had that honour, and he knew that letters intended for Royal personages were not written in terms as free as those written to private persons. Therefore, he said, without fear of contradiction, that the letter addressed to Lord Granville was of far more importance than an official letter to Her Majesty, which ought never to have been published. The letter to the Queen would express, no doubt correctly, but not too freely, certain reasons why Mr. Gladstone wished to be relieved of office, but a letter written to a member of his own Government would be indited, not in diplomatic language, but without, restraint. Moreover, Mr. Gladstone had then no very large majority in the House, whereas this Government had still a majority larger than anybody until recent years had ever heard of. When he (the speaker) was a young man Lord Palmerston in a great Party division had a majority of only four and still hold office; and yet they were now told that this Government
    366
    with a large majority and a foreign policy singularly successful, ought immediately to dissolve Parliament and go to the country! The Government were serving the country by remaining in office, and therefore it was their duty to continue in power as long as they had a majority in the House. The interests of the country with foreign nations would be advanced if these had the assurance that the Government intended to hold the helm of State this year and the next. There was extremely good news from South Africa; but nothing would disturb South Africa more than if within a few days or months hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were to change places to this side. The existing Government difficulties in South Africa would be multiplied ten-fold if that were possible.
    This was a very important Motion and every Unionist should put aside personal predilections—whether he thought that protection was the worst of all things or that free trade was an unmixed evil—and vote so that the Government should remain in office. It should be remembered that neither free trade nor protection was before the House. He was sure that not even the hon. Member for Durham believed or could believe that it would be of advantage to the country that the Government should give up power in the State in favour of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side who, however high minded they might be, would be under the control of the hon. Members for Ireland. Under these conditions it was idle to talk of dissolution. So long as the great war in the Far East was going on they should keep that Party in office which would maintain the strictest neutrality and see to it that no other nation interfered. If a Government came into office without power what foreign nation would believe that they would dare to stand by their treaties and hold the balance of neutrality so evenly as to prevent any other nation interfering. He therefore appealed to his hon. friends who did not agree with the fiscal policy of the Government not to vote on this occasion for the Amendment. There were times when patriotism ranked above Party and this was one of them. They should be Englishmen first and partisans afterwards, and therefore the friends of this country

    367
    should not vote for a Motion brought in only for the purpose of discrediting the Government, because if the Government were discredited it would weaken the influence of the country abroad. Knowing something of what was going on in various parts of the world he said, without fear of contradiction, that there was not a friend of England abroad who would not be sorry if the present power of the Government were to be weakened by their obtaining a small majority; and there was not an enemy of England who would not rejoice if the Government had that evening only a small majority.
    It would be impossible to establish any new trade in any country unless there was protection in some form or another. In this country protection was provided by patents; in other countries there might be a duty of 50 per cent., subject to gradual reduction. In that wav some of the largest industries had been established abroad. Were other countries altogether wrong? A short time ago England made 8,000,000 tons of steel and iron, and America made only 2,000,000 tons. Protection was introduced in America; and Mr. Carnegie reaped a large fortune, which was really the amount of the protective duties. Now America was, every year, making 18,000,000 tons and this country was making only about 9,000,000 tons. This country, which formerly made nearly one-half of the iron of the world, was now making only one-fifth; and that had been brought about by the fiscal arrangements of other countries, which were also looking after other industries as well as the iron industry. They were looking after the shipping industry. Many hon. Members were interested in that industry. Were they not a little afraid of the subsidies which were now being given to shipping abroad? And were they not aware that there was every probability of these subsidies soon being so largely increased as to seriously interfere with British shipping? It was impossible that this country could successfully face hostile tariffs by free trade. Every other nation was revising its tariff. In all the old speeches and articles in reference to free trade it was stated that all other nations would follow, and if not, that they would be
    368
    punished. They had not followed; and they had not been punished. It should also be remembered that Cobden, Bright, and Gladstone were against the Colonies. His own father-in-law stated that the sooner this country lost India the better. No Party in England now wanted to destroy India or to lose the Colonies. Therefore, this country ought to be willing to make some efforts to meet the Colonies, who were willing to make concessions, and should not be repelled. When this country was in distress, nearly every colony sent of its best to fight our battles, and the only regret of India was that she could not also send her sons. The late Colonial Secretary knew all this and believed that the country wanted a closer union with the Colonies. He would not detain the House longer, but he appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to strengthen the hands of the Government in the present difficult period by refusing to vote for the Amendment.
    MR. ROBSONsaid that the hon. Member would not expect him to deal in detail with his line of argument. Owing to the fact that he was obliged to leave the House for a short interval the hon. Member's speech appeared to him to have a rather disconnected effect. He would pass, therefore, to preceding speeches; and particularly to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with some remarks of great significance and great importance upon the question of a Colonial Conference. He intimated in terms by no means obscure that it would be useless and mischievous to hold a Conference unless this country were prepared to consent to the taxation of food and not merely to discuss the taxation of food. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman also referred to a statement which he attributed to the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that there were 13,000,000 of people in this country on the verge of starvation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to still further increase the hardships of the people who were now living on the verge of starvation; otherwise according to him they could scarcely

    369
    expect to maintain the Empire or continue in friendly and amiable relations with the Colonies. He believed that no more unjust slander on colonial loyalty and common sense had ever been uttered by a responsible statesman. The Colonies did not desire to increase the hardships of the people of this country in order to increase their own prosperity. Then, according to the right hon. Gentleman people should enter into a conference without instructions. He himself was not concerned to quarrel about that; but they ought to know something about the intention. Whatever the intention of the Government was as to the policy to be pursued at the conference there was no attempt to state it. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to drag colonial loyalty into the vortex of British politics, and to attempt to make a little Party capital out of that colonial loyalty which should be the property of all Parties in the state.
    The right hon. Gentleman had not expressed himself as supporting the Amendment; he had perhaps discovered that, although he could convert the Party opposite to the policy of protection, he could not convert it to suicide, and that was his idea of what a general election would mean. The right hon. Gentleman believed at any rate that when the general election took place the Liberal Party would be returned to power, because he said he looked forward with pleasure to a period of cool criticism. But some of the right hon. Gentleman's other reasons for objecting to a dissolution were more remarkable. He said that all that had happened was that a private Member—himself—had laid certain proposals before the country, and he did not know that that was any reason for a dissolution. Was this the right way for the right hon. Gentleman to set forth his proposals? It was true they were the proposals of a private Member, but they were proposals which had been adopted by the Government. The right hen. Gentleman told the House his proposals were, in substance, identical with those of the Government. He had introduced those proposals as being a new principle to dominate the elections. The question
    370
    which was to dominate the next general election was not temperance, was not the War Office Report, was not even Chinese labour, but the fiscal question. The right hon. Gentleman told the country, on the 15th of May, 1902, that that was to be the dominant issue at the next general election. He told them that that was not only his view but the view of the Prime Minister. He had pledged the Prime Minister to that view, and it required more than ordinary courage to come down to the House now and say that these were only the proposals of a private Member. The House was bound to treat these proposals as the proposals of the Government.
    The speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, no doubt answered that part of the case sufficiently, but it was to be regretted that the noble Lord had not gone further with regard to the policy of retaliation and informed the House what his attitude was going to be on that question. He had told the House that he understood that policy, but he had not said whether he approved or disapproved of it. He desired now to address himself to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rather than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which he would only place by way of contrast beside that of the Prime Minister. The policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had the advantage of being the more direct policy. It was not only intelligible, it was transparent. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was all for protecting some English producers against all English consumers. That was not precisely the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put it; he appeared to speak of it as protecting the British producer against the foreign producer, but what really happened was that it was the English consumer that stood up to be hit. That was the true meaning of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the men of business who were associated with him in this controversy The right hon. Gentleman and his friends had spent all their lives in endeavouring to get all they could out of the British consumer; they had

    371
    struggled with, the wretched desire of their customers to get their goods as cheaply as possible—which was the English way of doing business—meeting their customers as well as they could, and now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce Continental methods. Instead of meeting the consumer commercially, as heretofore, satisfied with what they made out of him, the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him desired to insure that he should pay more for what he got than he paid before. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, however, thought the policy was somewhat too crude. He was not a man of business and did not like to put the matter in that way. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said it was entirely to protect the consumer and to increase our foreign trade. He knew that if the exports were increased the inevitable result must be that the imports would be increased as well, but that was not the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. That Gentleman desired to cut down imports. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister believe the two policies were identical? Did his followers believe it? The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had said in a speech that day that they had a situation absolutely unparalleled in the history of this nation or of any country governed by a Constitution. Here was a Government in power supported by two sections of a Party, because each believed the Government desired to deceive the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was fairly comfortable so far as his attitude was concerned; he had claimed that the policy of the Prime Minister was identical with that which he had enunciated. He had placed that before the House as a challenge to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to that challenge because, to borrow an humble phrase, "it was more than his place was worth" to repudiate it. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in this matter was very difficult to follow so they had to look at his motive. If they could judge of his motive by his conduct there could be no doubt about it at all. The right hon. Gentleman had rid himself of all his free-trade
    372
    colleagues and filled their places in the Ministry with—he had almost said the creatures—supporters of tariff reform. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had asked various questions as to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman and its bearing on free trade, and had demanded an answer, because it had been authoritatively stated that the Prime Minister was in sympathy with the Tariff Reform League. If that were so, he could not understand any free-trade Unionist any longer supporting the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham must have made that statement in perfect good faith as the result of communication between himself and the Prime Minister. But if he was mistaken, surely in common fairness it was the duty of the Prime Minister to correct his mistake. Not only the free-trade members of the Tory Party, but the whole of England had a right to complain if the Prime Minister deliberately and knowingly allowed a false impression as to his views to be disseminated amongst his followers and the electorate. Strangely enough, the Prime Minister did not seem to object to both sections of his Party disbelieving him in one matter or another. He knew that the protectionists disbelieved his allegations of free-trade motives, and that the free-traders disbelieved the sincerity of his protectionist methods; but instead of resenting support accorded on such terms he invited and lived by it. It might be fine strategy, but it was undoubtedly a course of conduct which cut at the very root of political honour as hitherto understood in this country, and was grossly unfair to the Prime Minister's followers, his opponents, and the electorate.
    How did the free-traders stand in view of the Prime Minister's alleged motive? They believed that retaliation was not meant. "Retaliation" was a perfectly well understood word; there might be doubt as to the precise methods by which the policy would be put in force, but its meaning in the fiscal sphere was well known. Did the Prime Minister seriously mean this policy? His free-trade followers thought he did not, their view being that it was really a shelter from the fiscal storm, and that when he had

    373
    a suitable majority it would be dropped—in short, that it was intended for provisional Party use, just as old-age pensions were. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham and the Prime Minister were alike engaged in that contemptible imposture practised upon the poor of England. Within the last few days the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had stated that he had never been able to see any source from which the money for old-age pensions could properly be drawn, and it was with that knowledge that he dangled that policy before the electors, took their votes, and then betrayed them. But the fact that both right hon. Gentlemen co-operated in that imposture, instead of putting free-trade Unionists on their guard, seemed rather to inspire them with hope; they hoped, prayed, and believed that retaliation was only one imposture the more. He thought they were gravely mistaken. If once the Prime Minister was returned with a majority in favour of retaliation, it was idle to suppose that that policy would not be worked in the direction of protection. Bluff was a very attractive policy; it sometimes succeeded, but sometimes, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham well knew, it failed. It was far more likely to succeed in military than in fiscal matters. Bluff in the sphere of international diplomacy might succeed, as nations had no desire to fight except in defence of some great vital interest. But that was by no means the case in the sphere of economics. In every protectionist nation there was ready to hand a fiscal war party in the manufacturers, who saw their chance of making a profit out of the business. That fiscal party existed in England; it was well organised in the Tariff Reform League, and had its staff in the Tariff Commission. The gentlemen composing the fiscal war party would jump at the chance afforded by bluff of plunging the country into a fiscal war. Mere threats would very soon become much more. The idea that we should be doing to foreign nations only that which they now did to each other was a most dangerous fallacy.
    The policy of the Prime Minister had no analogy whatever in the policy of
    374
    protectionist countries. None of them would dream of adopting it. On two or three occasions they had adopted the policy, but with instant and lamentable results. The Prime Minister's contention was that, being a free-trade country, we had nothing to offer other nations, and that, therefore, we ought to have something to threaten; we were to tax their goods not for the sake of our revenue or trade, but purely to hit and to hurt them. What protectionist country would be so insane as to formulate a policy like that? The whole of their protectionist machinery was carefully devised and elaborated to prevent that appearance of hostility with which the Prime Minister would begin his so-called negotiations. They started with a general tariff, in many cases higher than they desired to maintain; then they approached the country they desired to negotiate with by offering certain remissions of the tariff in return for other fiscal advantages. If the offer was refused the ordinary law operated. There was doubtless some poor semblance of retaliation in that procedure, but how conciliatory it was in form, and form was almost everything in these matters. They proceeded by inducements; we were to proceed by threats. That was an enormous difference—the whole difference between proceeding as men of business and diplomatists would act—and merely showing one's teeth, especially when, as in this case, one had scarcely any teeth that could be used. We should therefore suffer all the detriment of provocation without enjoying the benefit of a successful attack. Protectionist countries had learnt from sore and sad experience how completely mistaken was the policy of threats. None know better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that if the policy of retaliation were adopted they must begin with a general tariff, and negotiate their commercial treaties on that basis. The right hon. Gentleman knew also that if threats were used without the basis of a general tariff having been adopted, the country would be instantly landed in fiscal war. The inhabitants of these islands were a fighting race; they would fight even with their bread and butter, and that was what the real leaders of

    375
    the Tory Party desired them to do. They knew that if they could once appeal to the national spirit they would be able to say. "Let us put economics apart; we are now engaged in fiscal war Let us begin at once with our most powerful weapon. If it be with America, let us place a tax on food." Thus the policy of retaliation would lead to taxes on food as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham clearly recognised.
    Another fallacy was hidden in the use of the word "bargain." The Prime Minister regarded treaties as matters of bargaining, and said—
    "You cannot do anything at bargaining unless you have something to give as well as to get."
    That sounded very plausible, but it covered a somewhat shallow fallacy Commercial treaties were not in any fair sense analogous to bargains. In a bargain the less one gave the better for him. Each party sought to give as little, and to get as much, as he could. But in a commercial treaty a country gave up something it was better without; they gave up a tax which hampered their trade; so that, if a bargain at all, it was one in which it was more blessed to give than to receive. Protection was built up of false analogies, and retaliation consisted in hitting our friends in order that somehow or other we might hurt our enemy. What was the spirit in which a protectionist entered into negotiations for a treaty? He knew that in his own country a selfish section would demand that their interests should be protected. Owing to the lower standard of wages in other countries, they were obliged to have recourse more to indirect taxation, but what was the protectionist's object? He desired to make more trade with England, and to take off all taxes he could; and he remembered that it paid his country better to trade with England than with any other country. That was the view of all the traders in his own country. There was not a single protectionist country in the world which did not prefer trading with England to trading with any other country. That was a rather remarkable circumstance. Talk about preference—that was the sort of preference they wanted, and that was a free-trade preference. How did that
    376
    preference work? The foreigner came to this country to sell his goods. If England was the best market for the foreigner to sell in, because of its freedom, it was equally the best market for him to buy in The foreigner knew when he sold his goods here that he must buy either directly or indirectly here, so that for both buying and selling the protectionist found that England was the best market in the world in which to do business. Let them compare that kind of preference with the preference which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Prime Minister offered in its place. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of the trade with the Colonies, but let them compare the free-trade kind of preference they were now enjoying from people in other countries, with the preference offered by some of our colonial fellow-subjects. What would be the attitude of foreigners when this country began to threaten them with retaliation? The result would be that they would have a fiscal war which would not only hamper but also destroy trade by millions sterling In his opinion, the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was far less dangerous than that put forward by the Prime Minister, because he put it in a way that one could understand, and one had some idea of the damage it would do; but they could not have a worse method than that which was suggested by the Prime Minister, which would destroy something like 30 per cent of our trade with foreign countries. That would be the result of a fiscal war. Imagine the state of employment in England after the inauguration of the policy of the Prime Minister with that destruction of trade as the inevitable result. If they were to have protection, they must be prepared to maintain no greater population than protectionist countries. The population maintained in this country was 588 per square mile, in France 230, and in Germany about 260. The policy of retaliation seemed to be spoken of as something that might be handled harmlessly, but in his opinion, it ought to be treated as a deadly danger to our trade. They had had a fair illustration of free-trade retaliation in

    377
    the Sugar Convention. There they saw how this policy of retaliation operated. The Prime Minister had challenged them to state what their policy was. Was the policy of freedom nothing? They had found freedom a wise policy in this country in the past, and were not going to give it up either for protection or retaliation.
    MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the terms of the Amendment claimed that the time had come when a dissolution of this Parliament should take place, and it made that claim on the ground that the fiscal question had been discussed long enough, having been before the country for fully two years. Perhaps the House would excuse him if he said that it seemed to him that discussions of fiscal policy were not very profitable in a Parliament of which one portion was clamouring and demanding that the Government had no authority to deal with any question at all, while the other portion freely admitted that, whatever mandate that Parliament had, they certainly had no mandate to deal with the fiscal question. He did not quite see what use it was, in a debate which demanded the dissolution of Parliament, discussing the merits of a question which had to be relegated to those from whom alone that and all Parliaments received authority. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick the night before, as a reason for dissolution, that there was great uncertainty in trade, and that a dissolution was almost the only remedy. He thought that outcry was the same as the outcry on the religious question in education—a thing they heard nothing of in schools, but only on platforms and in the House of Commons. They did not hear of any outcry in banking and other commercial circles arising out of the fiscal question.
    The claim for dissolution was really a Constitutional question. and it was as such that he proposed to discuss it. It was stated that the present Parliament was devoid of authority, and that it had no mandate. Those who remembered the history of 1900, however, were in a position to dispute the contention as to the want of a mandate. The Leader of the Opposition was somewhat startled on the first night
    378
    of the session when words were read from his address which showed that he, in 1900, repudiated the idea that that election was to be fought on a single issue. But what was of much more importance was the manner in which the electors approached the matter. He was in a position to show that not only in the election address of the Leader of the Opposition a general claim was put forward that the issue could not be restricted, but such a claim was also put forward by the late Sir William Harcourt in his address. The Leader of the Opposition went further, and warned his hearers against sham reforms to be looked for from Unionists, contrasted the legislation of Unionists with what might be expected from the legislation of Liberals, and said the general policy of the Unionists was one of always looking after the interests of a particular Party or a particular class. Lord Rosebery accused the Unionist Party of what he called scamping their legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife jeered at its tinkering character. There were not only these general warnings, but there were particular warnings, and they related to the very legislation which this Parliament proceeded to pass. As to education the late Sir William Harcourt said that one of the greatest questions in such an election must be as to the Party not only most willing but most capable of providing for the education of the people. Lord Rosebery made it one of his principal complaints that the Unionist Party had abandoned the Education Bill of 1896. To summarise the result of all this he would say that language of this kind was indulged in by Liberal candidates all over the country, who followed the example of their leaders, and, therefore, the electors were warned of the kind of legislation that might be introduced by the present Government. With their eyes well opened they cheerfully took their chance, and it was on that ground that the full and ample authority of the Unionist Party rested. It was useless to quote implied promises that if the South African War were finished they would indulge in no legislation at all of any great importance. The electors might have thought, and probably did think, that even unsound Unionist legislation was better than another Majuba

    379
    settlement in South Africa, and nobody really supposed that the Unionists after such warnings would not attempt any legislation whatever.
    What was the next Opposition plea for a dissolution? Parliamentary history afforded no instance of a Prime Minister dissolving Parliament because by-elections had gone unfavourably to him. No precedent had been cited, except one case in which Mr. Gladstone had given two conflicting utterances on the point. It was said that he wrote a letter on January 8th, 1874, and another letter on January 23rd, of the same year in an opposite sense. The explanation of that was that between the two dates something had operated on his mind which made him think that a dissolution was desirable though it had not presented itself in that sense at first. That something was well known at the time. The late Lord Selborne and others had left on record the true reason for Mr. Gladstone's action, It was not the course of by-elections that had so much dictated his action as the fact that Mr. Gladstone had accepted office, as to the legality of which there were grave doubts, without recourse to a re-election. He maintained that the general doctrine, apart from precedents, as to which there was a singular lack, the universal course of practice was to disregard by-elections, and for the Government to trust the House of Commons, on whom alone responsibility should rest. So long as the House of Commons supported a Ministry, so long as the House was undisturbed by the apparent hostility of constituents, the Ministry should trust the House of Commons. If the House supported them, Ministers should not act as if they knew better than the House. He held that it would be an evil day for the dignity and responsibility of the House if it were not accepted as the sole judge in the issue whether or not the time had come for a dissolution. It was for the House itself to judge of the strength and permanence of any manifestation of feeling outside its doors, and for Members to judge whether they were or were not in a position to say to their constituents, "You may think that we are wrong to-day—but before many years have passed you will know that we are in the
    380
    right." To act otherwise was to undermine the responsibility of the electors and the moral courage of their representatives. He submitted that no grounds had been shown, certainly in the present debate, for advising a dissolution of the present Parliament, which was asked for merely because the political appetites of hon. Gentlemen opposite were in an unmanageable state.
    MR. BRIGHTsaid that one of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that trade was not suffering owing to the dissolution of Parliament being postponed. He did not think that that was the case, for at this moment there were all the signs of a coming revival of trade, but that revival was kept back on account of the uncertainty of the political situation. Not only that, the programme of the Government was exhausted, for they had been elected on the purely South African policy of bringing the war to an end. Further, the country was ripe for a dissolution. It was impossible to take up a local newspaper without seeing reports of political meetings and canvassing in behalf of candidates on both sides. That showed that the country was ready to give its verdict, and that would be pronounced enough when the time came to record it. The fiscal question had been before the country for two years, and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be carrying out the traditions of their Party and raising once again the cry for protection, which historically they had never renounced, although they had undoubtedly shelved it for a time. The main issue before the country at the dissolution would be protection versus free-trade.
    Various arguments had been heard as to why there should not be a dissolution. They were told that many questions were unsettled, among them that of unemployment. It might justly be said that unemployment in its serious aspect at present was largely due to the policy of the Government, because unemployment always followed the close of a great war. It was so in the case of the Crimean War and of the great French War which ended in 1815. The country was simply reaping the results of the

    381
    Government's South African policy, and it was not for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had created this great difficulty, to talk of the unemployed as a reason for postponing a general election. A great deal had been said about "dumping;" but, whatever might be said of its occasional disadvantages, it had also its advantages. Take, for instance, the tinplate trade, of which he knew something. Last year was the record year in that industry; and why? Because of the "dumped" bars received from Germany. If the raw material could be obtained at a cheap rate from abroad it could be worked out here in manufactured articles. Then, they had had experience of the benefits of securing cheap sugar; but by the Sugar Convention they had managed to damage flourishing industries such as jam-making and confectionery. That cheerful result had been brought about by trying to stop dumping." But there was something more than all that, if they were going in a country like this to limit the supply of corn and other food from every other source in order to give a preference to colonial products. That, he contended would create a position of danger, for it was impossible to suppose that there would not be times of scarcity in the Colonies, and then there would be a limited market on which to draw from our necessary supplies of food. They had such an experience recntly in the cotton trade. Cotton was mainely imported from America, and there was a limited market. The result was that a year ago thousands of men were out of employment. The same would apply to corn. There would be a limited market; there would be great differences in prices from time to time; and the people of this country would be damaged, because it was on cheap food the people lived. He could not imagine anything more unwise or more foolish. They on that side did not fear a dissolution. The by elections had shown what the country thought on the question of dear food. His own by-election was fought on the question of dear bread, the next would probably be fought on the question of dear sugar. This country did not want this doctrine of artificial dearness; it was ripe for a dissolution, and he hoped it would get it before long.
    MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he wished to direct a few observations to the terms of the Amendment rather than to the fiscal question. If the Amendment were a naked demand for dissolution on the ground of the general policy of the Government he should have no hesitation as to the course he should adopt. There was a large portion of the policy of the Government with which he was in absolute sympathy; moreover, he had been returned as a supporter of the Government; and if they were merely challenged on general policy, he should have no hesitation in giving them his support. But the Amendment was not so drawn. It was drawn in terms which did not raise the clear issue of dissolution on the general policy of the Government; or the clear issue as between the rival policies of free trade and protection. It demanded the dissolution of Parliament, and the termination of the trust which the Government had undertaken, on the ground that the fiscal question had been sufficiently discussed, and that the country was ripe for its decision. He was not quite sure whether the discussion of the fiscal question was really concluded. Judging by the speeches to which they had listened, there was still an ample desire in the minds of Members to discuss a policy which had now been discussed for nearly two years. It had been urged during the course of the debate that if Parliament were dissolved some good might result to the cause of free trade, but it should not be forgotten that during the lifetime of the present House of Commons they had the pledge of the Government that no change should take place in the fiscal system of the country. From that point of view the more prolonged was the existence of the present Government, the further was any change in the fiscal policy of the country deferred. From that point of view it might fairly be contended thatthe existence of the present, House of Commons was in favour of free trade. In addition, many Unionist and Liberal free traders thought that the longer the question was discussed in the country the more free trade had to gain. On the other hand, it was perfectly well known that there was going on, all over the country, a determined

    383
    attempt to capture the Unionist Party's machinery for the cause of a protectionist policy. No doubt the most drastic cure, bitter but salutary, for that process, which was gradually sapping the Unionist Party, and driving out all those elements which made for commercial freedom, would be a general election in which the Unionist Party on the question of fiscal policy received a shattering defeat. It was not perfectly clear therefore, on the terms of the Amendment, and on a review of the general position, whether it was or was not desirable, in the interests of free trade, that a dissolution should immediately take place.
    He saw in the newspapers recently a remarkable illustration of what was really going on in the Unionist Party in Liverpool, one of the Divisions of which he had the honour of representing. In that city there had been recently a most regrettable vacancy, due to the retirement of Sir John Willox, whom he was sure they would regret to miss in the debates in that House. His successor in the candidature on behalf of the Unionist Party had recently been adopted, and at the time of his adoption he made a very remarkable speech to the Conservative Divisional Council of the Everton Division. While giving a general support to His Majesty's Government, he reserved liberty of action on two matters of supreme importance. The first of these was the question of Church Discipline, and to all who knew Liverpool that was not surprising. The Bill which he (Mr. Taylor) had had the honour of arguing in that House, and for which he secured a Second Reading, was dear to Liverpool. Might he say in passing that it was consoling to find the Liberal candidate was, strange to say, equally pledged to an ardent support of that measure, and indeed had gone further and had pledged a future Liberal Parliament to pass it without hesitation? That was a pledge which he (Mr. Taylor) would commend to the notice of right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches, because if he was not there to remind them of it he trusted that other Gentlemen, would be there to insist firmly on those pledges given broadcast throughout the country being
    384
    redeemed. He hoped that when, in the hey-day of their prosperity, in the plenitude of their power, they occupied the Ministerial Benches they would not forget among other pressing reforms this measure on which their supporters throughout the country had pledged themselves with unhesitating alacrity. But the candidate who had been selected for the Everton Division of Liverpool to uphold the Unionist cause had made a further reservation on the subject of fiscal policy. These were his words—
    "Under these circumstances whilst a believer in the policy Mr. Balfour advocated, he was prepared to go even further, and he declared that his ideas and aspirations tended towards the policy enunciated by Mr. Chamberlain in the direction he had indicated, namely, a united Empire, with the necessary consequences, Colonial and Indian preferences."
    Involving, of course, continued Mr. Taylor, the taxation of food, which had been explicitly excluded from the Government programme by the Prime Minister. The candidate went on to say—
    "If, therefore, they had any doubt as to his suitability as a candidate on those grounds, he should prefer that they should tell him so frankly."
    Notwithstanding those explicit statements, for which he thought the candidate was to be commended by all outspoken and honest men appealing for the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, he was adopted by the Conservative Party, and would no doubt in due course receive Ministerial support and all the assistance which could be placed at his disposal. That was an indication of what he (Mr. Taylor) meant when he said that the Conservative machinery throughout the country was being captured, not merely for the policy of the Government, but also for that further policy which had been indicated by Mr. Chamberlain. By the making of these reservations on tariff reform the position of the Unionist free-traders was also incidentally strengthened, because if it was legitimate for a man to make a reservation as to the Government's policy by saying he was prepared to go further and possibly eventually in a contrary direction under the auspices of Mr. Chamberlain, surely Unionist free-traders were equally justified in claiming liberty of action

    385
    on the question of fiscal policy in the direction of free trade. If these candidates were able to go a little further than the Prime Minister then Unionist free traders were justified in saying that they could not go quite so far. He was quite clear that the Amendment involved the question of fiscal policy, and the division would to a very large extent be regarded by the country as one more trial of strength between the forces of protection and the forces of free trade. It was that consideration alone which would prevent him giving that support to the Government which, if it had been challenged on general questions of policy, he should have been most happy to do. Unionist free traders were placed in a position of peculiar embarrassment, and whether he abstained from the division altogether or went to the length, in the interests of free trade, of voting with the Opposition, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was not because he abated his sympathy with the general principles and policy of Conservatism, but because he was determined upon this one great issue of free trade—commercial liberty against monopoly and restriction—to cast in his lot with those who were the friends of free trade and to dissociate himself from those who were apparently its enemies.
    MR. HUNTER CRAIGsaid he wished to call the attention of the House to an aspect which taxing the food of the people of this country would have, with reference to the wheat-producing Colonies, should a tax be put on wheat on foreigners and the Colonies exempted. Instead of this being an advantage to the Colonies, why the very reverse was the case. He spoke, on this subject after an experience of over thirty years as an importer of breadstuffs from foreign and colonial countries and he said that were this policy carried out the price of wheat would not only be raised against the British consumer, to at least the extent of the duty, but it would also be raised against the Colony which exported the wheat. To illustrate what he meant, take the United States and Canada as competing countries for the sale of their surplus wheats in the United Kingdom. In buying from Canada he could pay, say 2s. per quarter
    386
    more (if that is the tax on United States wheat) to the Canadian farmer than he could pay to the United States farmer, because of the exemption of duty on Canadian wheat. The Canadian farmer gets the amount of the duty over the price paid to the United States farmer. Consequently the local price of wheat in Canada is raised to the extent of this 2s. duty, and raised to this extent against the Canadian population. If the local price is raised in Canada 2s. (the amount of the duty) over the local price of United States wheat, the Canadian milling industry is no longer able to compete on all fours, as they are now doing, for the sale of flour in foreign countries such as China, with its 300,000,000, Japan, etc. They are handicapped by having to pay the same price as the British buyer pays to the Canadian farmer, and which is the amount of the duty more than he pays to the United States farmer, because on Canadian wheat there is no duty to pay on arrival in the United Kingdom. Thus the effect of a tax on wheat from aliens, with free imports to the Colonies, is raising the price to the colonial consumers and to the milling industry of the Colonies who can no longer compete on equal terms in foreign markets. The Colonial farmers are not asking for such a preference. They are a highly prosperous class and immigration to Canada is continuing to the extent of 90,000 per annum from the United States alone to settle on farms there. He had it on the highest authority that a preference to Canada would have the result not only of raising the price of food to the people of that country, but also of taxing the milling industry of Canada to a corresponding extent, and that that industry would be thereby handicapped in competing with the United States for the trade of other countries. When the shilling duty on corn was proposed three years ago he had cables from Canada urging him to endeavour to secure the exemption of Canada. Their view now was the very opposite, the millers urging that preference should not be given because it would handicap them in the flour-exporting trade. Not only would the people of this country be penalised by the adoption of such a policy, but the wheat-producing Colonies would be taxed, because the

    387
    price of wheat would be raised locally by the amount of the duty. He thought that this was an aspect of the question which ought to be borne in mind.
    MR. REGINALD LUCASthought it only fair to say that, although a free-trader, he had no fault to find either with the Prime Minister, his colleagues, or the Party organisation in regard to his position in his constituency. Ministers or Party organisation could modify the views of constituencies no more than they could control the winds of heaven. To stand for a seat against the wishes of the Party organisation as the hon. Member for King's Lynn and others had announced their intention of doing, seemed an heroic attitude to adopt, while those who had determined to retire from politics altogether were sometimes accused of weakness. But there was something to be said in defence of those who had been driven into the latter course. It was quite true that one could, if he chose, stand at all hazards and refuse to be elbowed out, but he would not admit that he was open to the charge of undue subservience to Party if he thought it better to retire from politics altogether rather than incur a personal defeat, and, what was more important, break up the Party probably for many years to come. After all, there was a great deal of genuine principle in loyalty to Party. A man pinned his faith more to one set of political opinions than to another, and although he might differ strongly from his friends on one particular point, yet he might consider it better for the good of the country in general that he should refrain from destroying the Party, whose policy as a whole he supported. For this reason he had thought it better to submit to political extinction, rather than take the line to be adopted by the hon. Members for Durham and King's Lynn. As to the Amendment before the House, he should vote with the Government, who had repeatedly stated that nothing; would be done in this matter during the present Parliament. He was returned to support this Government, and as long as he was in the House he should do so.
    And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
    Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [15th February] to Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His-Majesty, as followeth:—
    "Most Gracious Sovereign,
    "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.),
    Which Amendment was—
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay."—(Mr. Asquith.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid no one who had been present during the delivery of the lucid speech of the learned and hon. Member for South Shields could do otherwise than regret that it was delivered to so scant an audience on the benches opposite, and it was more to be regretted that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham should be conspicuous by his absence, as it was only across the floor of the House that it was possible to put straight questions requiring straight answers, and to challenge the right hon. Gentleman to make good and confirm in the House the statements he had made throughout the country. The whole question of protection and retaliation rested on what was called the outrageously unfair treatment meted out to England by foreign countries in practically excluding her products from their markets, whilst they themselves found a perfectly free and open market in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had, at various meetings, elaborated, the suggestion, illustrating his

    389
    arguments by means of the tariffs of Germany and the United States of America, but everybody know his statements were not true; everybody knew we could not buy without selling and that if we bought from foreigners they, in their turn, must buy from us. He had said at Newport—
    "You cannot compete with the United States, for they have a population of 70,000,000 from whom their tariffs practically exclude you, while they have in addition your market of 40,000,000; consequently their market is 110,000,000 to your 40,000,000. Similarly Germany has the market of her 55,000,000 people from which she excludes you; she has, therefore a market of 95,000,000 to your 40,000,000."
    Now the Board of Trade Returns showed that the United States of America, France and Germany took from us goods to the value of £98,000,000, of which more than £60,000,000 represented our products and more than £30,000,000 transhipments. A most lucrative trade and one we had because we were the only free market in the world. Such statements as those made by the right hon. Gentleman showed an ignorance that was little less than criminal. France, Germany and America, whom he had thus attacked, were, in fact, our best customers, far better than any other white customers we had, including the Colonies.
    Some economists had imports on the brain. They looked upon them as a loss, but he could give the House a concrete instance of the fallacy of that theory. A friend of his freighted a ship with 2,000 tons of Welsh coal at a cost of l5s. a ton, making an export of £1,500 which he sent to Manila. That coal sold for £3,500. The money was invested in 400 tons of Manila sugar which was brought to this country, when it was valued at £7,000. It could hardly be said that that transaction—export 2,000 tons of coal at £1,500, import 400 tons of sugar at £7,000—resulted in a loss to this country. In dealing with the question of exports and imports, it was contended by some that our imports were loss and our exports gain, and he supposed that if this ship, on her return, had been sunk with this cargo of sugar, it would have been said by those Gentlemen that we had gained thereby. It appeared to him that the only way to understand protectionist logic was to read
    390
    it standing on one's head. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had gone about industriously searching for ruined industries, but, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, wherever he went he found trade flourishing. Cotton was flourishing, the tinplate trade was flourishing, in fact that trade was the greatest instance of the triumph of free trade over protection that could be found. No doubt the McKinley tariff affected it greatly at first, but it had recovered from that and now had markets all over the world, and trade was never better. It was said that the straw hat manufacturing had been ruined; that the poor girls of Luton who made straw plait had been ruined by Japanese plait imported into this country. As a fact, the girls who used to make straw plait were now earning twice the wages they did when they made it themselves. Luton had doubled its population in seventeen years. With regard to agriculture, he made bold to say that agriculture under proper conditions of security was better now than it had been for a long time, and infinitely better than it had been under protection. In the days of protection, farmers were ruined by thousands. Committee after Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the wretched condition of agriculture, and farmer after farmer came before those Committees to say that agriculture could not be carried on, if the present rents were to be paid, if wheat was allowed to fall below 80s. a quarter. Then with regard to milling. Milling was doing well, and although the little country mills could not compete with the great steam rolling-mills, they made a good business in selling and grinding foreign feeding-stuffs, and so far from our having a shortage of offals we sold between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 cwts. to Denmark and other countries every year. There was not a single industry which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham tried to make out was decadent and ruined, but what had done remarkably well. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman had started his campaign, in spite of the undoubted depression of the home trade which then existed, and which was the result of the war, our foreign trade had gone up until it had reached the astounding total of £920,000,000. When Sir Robert Peel

    391
    repealed the Corn Laws our total trade was only £120,000,000, although prices were much higher then than they were now. There had been an increase on the trade of eight-fold, but if we took the decrease of values into consideration it would be sixteen-fold. We did more than three-quarters of the carrying trade of the whole world, and yet there were some who wanted it all. We had had depression and suffering at home, but he distinctly dissented from the view that so great a portion of our population were on the starvation line. He believed the figures here grossly exaggerated. Let the House remember that what in one country was comfort was scant commons in another. He read only that week of the miserable condition of 300 horses which were landed at Antwerp every Monday and which, after being examined and certified by the veterinary surgeon to be suffering from no contagious disease, were taken away to be slaughtered for food, a food that our people here would not eat.
    The question he desired to ask was, whether on the whole foreign tariffs damaged a free-trade country. He thought when a balance was struck they did us an immense deal of good; they gave us the carrying trade of the world. American protection had ruined American shipping. At one time it was nearly equal to our own; now it was only 800,000 against our 10,500,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a master of lucid speech and expression, and hon. Members had heard many of his utterances quoted, but there was one expression upon this question which he (Mr. Tomkinson) had not seen quoted. It was not to the right hon. Gentleman"s detriment. In 1885 the right hon. Gentleman summed up the protective system, and said the effect of it was "to stereotype inferiority." The right hon. Gentleman had been going about trying to account for our unemployed by foreign tariffs, but he had nothing to say about the wasteful expenditure of the war, although everybody knew that unproductive expenditure was one of the greatest causes of unemployment, while productive expenditure was the best means of providing it. Protection was a quack remedy. It gave an inducement to every interest to rise up in turn and say, "What
    392
    is going to be done for me." That was inevitable, because it taxed some industries to protect others.
    It had been said that the Government"s mandate was not exhausted, and that there was no need to appeal to the country. On the 8th October, 1900, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham sent a message to his constituents expressing a hope that the men of Crewe would not be so unwise or unpatriotic as to return a friend of the Boers, but the reply they gave to this mesage was that they returned him to Parliament again with a majority of 1,200. The right hon. Gentleman told them at the last election that the real issue was not a question of domestic policy, but a question of the existence of the Empire. Having got the votes of the electors upon that issue, the Government proceeded to legislate upon questions of domestic policy which the electors were assured were not at issue. Some fifteen months after that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, telegraphed to the Unionist candidate at Dewsbury reminding the electors that at that election patriotism came before Party, and declaring that there were only two Parties, those who were for their country and those who were for the Boers. It was for those reasons that he contended that the Government"s mandate had been misused, and was now exhausted, and the by-elections had emphatically pronounced against them by an unexampled turnover of votes.
    SIR HENRY KIMBERsaid that, judging from the speeches which had been made in this debate, it was clear that the word " protection" had in the minds of different men a very different meaning. They had been told in another place by a distinguished nobleman, who was understood by many to be the future Leader of the Liberal Party, that the hon. Member for West Birmingham had the design of introducing into the House and the country the protection of 1843. Only yesterday the hon. Member for Durham spoke of the antiquated protectionism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. But the protection of 1843, represented by a 28s. duty on corn at a 50s. price was a very

    393
    different thing to the protection presented by the ex-Colonial Secretary, which was a 2s. duty upon a 27s. price. [An HON. MEMBER from the OPPOSITION side: It is the same thing.] He contended that it was not at all the same thing. Why was the duty of 1843 imposed? It was put on simply to raise the price of the home produce in favour of the home producer, for the purpose of putting large profits into the pockets of a particular class of people at the expense of the rest. The object of the, policy of the lion. Member for West Birmingham was not to raise prices, but to enable us to meet our competitors on equal terms, and to enable our Colonies to have a fair chance, unhampered by unfair competition with the rest of the world. Therefore the 2s. duty on corn now suggested was a far different thing not only in amount, but also in principle. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no !"] He had risen to present to the House the views of one of the largest of the Metropolitan constituencies, composed for the most part of men engaged in commerce and finance in the City of London. He ventured to say that over 90 per cent, of his supporters were in favour of the, policy propounded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. When this question was first brought forward the Opposition were opposed to all inquiry. If any of His Majesty"s subjects were suffering under a grievance, he wished to know what objection there could be to an inquiry. In the present case the Opposition not only declared that there should be no reform, but also that there should be no inquiry as to whether reform was necessary.
    The new fiscal policy had been described by the hon. Member opposite as an unclean thing and a quack remedy. The hon. Member imagined that these duties were to be imposed for the purpose of raising prices, whereas the proposal was one for making the foreigner pay the duty. What did it matter about imposing a small duty if the foreigner paid it? Two years ago they placed a Is. duty on corn, which brought £2,500,000 to the revenue, and this did not raise the price of bread by one farthing. [An HON. MEMBER: Why did you take it off then?] All they desired was to protect the men who were hounded out of their trade unfairly by
    394
    underselling. Let them suppose for a moment that a 2s. duty was placed upon corn. Who were the vendors of corn? Russia, Argentina, the United States, two of our own great Colonies and others. In the case of a 2s. duty the effect would be that these, vendors would drop their profits by the amount, of the duty, and it did not follow that the price would be raised in this country by that amount. When France put a duty of 12s. 2d. upon corn the price was not raised in France more than two-thirds of that amount. He admitted that the tendency of an import duty was to raise the price, because it was an additional burden upon the producer of the commodity. But this was not the only factor in the operation of the law of supply and demand. An import duty tended to lessen the price to the consumer, because it increased the supply and stimulated home production. While he supported the policy of the Prime Minister, which he thought was the best and most cautious policy, yet at the same time he was a believer in the principles propounded by the, right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He might add that he should not be a believer in the new fiscal proposals if he thought they meant a return to the, protection of 1843, but if they read the whole of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, both inside and outside of the House of Commons, he was sure they would not find the slightest trace of what the hon. Member for Durham called "antiquated protectionism."
    He professed and believed he was a thorough free-trader, hut he did not believe that free-trade principles precluded anybody from supporting proposals to prevent the dumping of goods upon our shores at less than cost price, which had the effect of destroying our industries. The alleged benefits of dumping were, in his opinion, very dearly paid for by the destruction to such a large extent of the industries of the people of this country. They had already lost profits amounting to £30,000,000 in industries which had been destroyed by unfair competition, although he was glad to say that they had been able to make up for it in other parts of the world. If everything they bought was produced abroad, the workers here would be idle. It was true that the

    395
    rich could go on buying these dumped goods, but what about the unemployed? Under such circumstances what would be the position of this nation amongst the other nations of the world? They would simply be a people existing upon their riches and depleting their resources, and giving away those industrial occupations which maintained the vigour and the manhood of the people. Was that the position which this country desired to occupy in the future? They had been told by various Leaders of the Opposition that the remedy for men being out of employment and for sacrificed industries was that capital and labour must look out for fresh employment. He knew, of one industrial undertaking which cost £300,000, and in consequence of dumping by foreigners it had recently been sold for £50,000. What had become of the capital and labour that used to be employed there? When these works were stopped these skilled workers were obliged to take up other employment, and he knew one of these skilled workmen who had become a porter on one of the railways. That was a sample of the way in which skilled artisans were obliged to transfer their labour in consequence of dumping. Was that the way in which the great industries of this country could be maintained? In conclusion, he urged the House not to reject fiscal proposals which at on e period were abused for objectionable purposes, but which were now to be utilised to keep industries in the country, to increase home production, and to put money into the revenue at the expense of the foreigner.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he thought the speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth proved, if any proof were needed, that the arguments on the fiscal question were before the country. In that speech he seemed to hear the arguments of Mr. Ackroyd in 1881, and all those gloomy predictions as to the fate of our trade and the ruin of our industries. Each and all of these had been falsified by twenty-four years of time, and now the hon. Gentleman said that the state of this country was so disastrous that it was only because it was a rich country that it had been able to buy in any market. How did it become so rich? Was it by following
    396
    the principles of Mr. Ackroyd or those of his hon. friend? No, it was by this island continuing to be the dumping ground, if they would, for all the cheap goods the world could produce, and using that great element of cheapness to transform it into the industrial workshop of the world. The hon. Member said he was the enemy of cheapness. Everybody was the enemy of cheapness who wished to sell dear, and that was the whole story now in a nutshell. Those enemies of cheapness who wished to sell dear were also the enemies of those who wished to buy cheaply, and, after all, it was a struggle between the producer wanting a high-price market, and the consumer wanting a low-price market. No argumentation would conceal from the country or the House of Commons that this was now the threadbare argument, namely, that cheapness was the curse of a great consuming nation. But his hon. friend claimed for himself that he did not wish to go back to antiquated protection, stating that he was a free-trader. Yes, but with a difference. He was a free-trader who was in favour of a tax on corn. How did we get rid of antiquated protection? By a huge agitation headed by Mr-Cobden and Mr. Bright. It was owing to the Anti-Corn-Law League, whose primary object was to get rid of the heavy tax on corn which his hon. friend wished to reimpose.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I did not say I was in favour of a tax on corn at all. [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] I pointed out that in the circumstances there was a great argument in its favour
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that made the matter wonderfully clear. The hon. Member was not in favour of what there was a great argument in favour of. Why did he give the House the argument while concealing his disrelish for it? It was always the way. When they got hold of those persons who were arguing that they were free-traders, and when they were found to be in favour of a tax on corn and were reminded of all the miserable memories of the country in connection with the tax on corn, they fought shy of it.
    SIR HENRY KIMBER: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not pretend that I was in favour of a tax on corn. I do not wish to sail under false colours. I did not propose a duty on corn or anything of the kind, but I said that under circumstances where it would not raise the price I was not unfavourable. I did not say that I was in favour of a duty on corn simpliciter.
    MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid that made it still clearer. The first stage was that he was not in favour of a tax on corn; but he thought there were arguments in favour of it. The second stage was that he was not adverse to a tax on corn, and the third stage was that he was in favour of a tax on corn where it would not raise prices, so that they had the old story back again. It was a tax on corn coupled with the prophecy that they would not put so much on as would raise prices. Much the agriculturists of the country would thank them for that. It was always the way. The tax always began in the innocent thin-edge-of-the-Wedge form, and. once they had any departure from the principle of taxation for revenue purposes only, there was no saying what stage they might go to.
    The Amendment pointed plainly to a dissolution of Parliament. He must confess to some dissent from some views expressed on his own side of the House with reference to the disturbance of trade caused by the present agitation. One of the enormous advantages of a free-trade country was that trade took its own course irrespective of the tactics of politicians. A remarkable instance of this was to be found in the figures of 1904. The year 1902 was admitted to be a record year. Our total foreign trade for 1902 was £877,500,000. But in 1904 it had actually risen to £922,500,000. Then the great argument was that our exports of manufactured goods were
    bound to decline. But within the past two years those exports to foreign countries and the Colonies had increased by no less than £16,500,000. In view of those figures any one who said, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that any candid man viewed the present situation of trade with anxiety was fit
    398
    to make any assertion with regard to the prosperity of the country. He seemed to have lost sight of the elementary distinction between prosperity and adversity. He hoped that the day was far distant when trade would be in the hands of any persons who were able to control the tariffs and the political movements of the time. It was only by trade being left a free course that it could be magnified in our country, and the moment they produced arrangements, and trusts, and cartels which were the ancillaries of these tariffs, they might reasonably expect the depletion of our splendid existing trade.
    He attached little weight to the influence of these discussions on the trade of the country, but there were other interests which were far greater, and that was where the politician came in, and made two propositions which he ventured to say still held the field. These propositions were so wide as this, that there was to be no Empire without preference, and secondly, that there was to be no preference without the taxation of food. Notwithstanding all that had occurred these propositions absolutely held the field. They depended upon the taxation of the food of the people of this country, and, therefore, the gravity of the situation was no less than this. The proposal was to postpone a great Imperial issue and prevent the people of this country from making a pronouncement on it—an issue which involved the question that in order to build up or conserve our Imperial unity it was necessary to put an increased burden on the poorest of the community. His reason for approving of the Amendment was mainly this, that he thought the case with regard to protection and preference was fully before the country. That was demonstrated by the action of the Prime Minister himself, who said that his views on the subject were so clear that they could not be restated with advantage, and of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who, having nothing new to suggest, said the same old things over and over again. The whole case had been stated over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who talked about that obliging foreigner who was to pay a large proportion of our import taxes.

    399
    All that might be right, or it might he wrong, but at all events the country had had it from him over and over again. Had they not heard with the utmost clearness from the right hon. Gentleman that his view was that the taxation of food would lead to an increase of employment and wages in this county. That was an argument which must go home to every person, if true. It was said that, on the whole, it would not increase the price of living, but that it would tend to help our general trade, especially the export trade, which employed so many hands. That was the case on one branch of the argument. Now he proposed to show equally high authority on the other side. The authority was the right hon. Gentleman himself, because he had dealt with all these problems before. He had dealt with the arguments of Mr. Ackroyd just as they were dealing with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman himself to-night. The view which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham then took with regard to the taxation of food was this—
    "A tax on food would mean a decline in wages. It would certainly involve a decline in their productive value. The same amount of money would have smaller purchasing power. It would mean this, for it would raise the price of every article produced in the United Kingdom, and it would indubitably bring about the loss of that gigantic export trade which the industry and energy of the country, working under conditions of absolute freedom, have been able to create."
    In these circumstances both sides are fully and fairly before the country, and they have been represented by the same high authority. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the date?] The date was 1881, and the speech was reported in "Hansard." [An HON. MEMBER: Times have changed.] The arguments with regard to the Imperial nature of the case were such as would do nobody any harm. They were now perfectly accustomed to the beating of this drum, in the country, and they had heard it reverberating in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But when they came to a close issue as to the appointment of a conference they were on far more serious ground, because here was a proposal as to the basis on which the conference was to meet. It had been asked whether
    400
    we had anything to offer to the Colonies. It was suggested that we must have something more to offer than we had given already. He regretted that these issues were raised, because they made people consider the actual relation of the mother country to the Colonies. Was it not sufficient that for every shilling the Colonies paid for naval defence the people of this country paid £5, and that whilst the Colonies for the most part surrounded themselves with protective barriers we kept our ports open to the free importation of their products. Was there to be something put to that? Must we make it a measure of the patriotism of the people and of their attachment to the Colonies that we should tax the food of our own people in order to benefit the Colonies? What this Government had done with reference to the treatment of land, licensing, and so on, had raised a good many more points than they had settled, and it was much to be regretted that this question should be raised now as a matter between the two Parties. The Liberal Party had not introduced it, but they deplored its introduction, because they were convinced that it could lead to no good whatever. It was said that apart from fiscal matters there was nothing for the colonial representatives and our country to discuss. Was there not? He thought there were a good few things to discuss, and he would cite only two. He knew nothing more worthy of discussion than the contributions of the Colonies to our Imperial defence; and with regard especially to our newest colony, let them follow the colonial representative into conference and discuss with them the bearing, moral and social, of the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. He understood that it was a cardinal principle of Members opposite that there was to be no taxation of raw material. If that were so they were in a difficult situation. If there was to be no preference with regard to raw material, as to which Australia would not benefit, they would not only introduce trouble between the Colonies and the mother country, but trouble between the Colonies themselves.
    Besides all this trouble there was a great Constitutional question involved here. He attached no great weight to by-elections, but after all the country

    401
    counted for something, and the only way in which, under the Constitution, they could express their mind was at elections. During this discussion no supporter of the Government had ventured to declare that in his opinion the House now represented the actual mind of the country. What was the Constitutional position they were brought to? He could not express it more briefly than in the language of Burke, who said in a passage quoted by Mr. Green—
    "The value, spirit, and essence of the House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the feelings of the nation."
    That being settled doctrine, who could say that this House of Commons was the express image of the feelings of the nation? The fact, as they all admitted, was that it was an effete, broken, and distorted representation of the feelings of the nation, and that if the nation only got the slightest chance it would make a vast change in the personnel and composition of the House of Commons. It was altogether inconsistent with the dignity of the House that this kind of thing should go on. He knew that it was possible to go on evading issues, and with regard to the evasion of issues he would only say this. He did not think that the position could be better expressed than by the words used by Sir Robert Peel in a letter to Mr. Cobden—
    "I do not consider the evasion of difficult, and the postponement of troublesome, questions to be the carrying on of a Government."
    On the whole, he contended that this debate had illustrated that all the arguments on both sides were now before the country, and that the only new question to be discussed was how long the country was to be kept from pronouncing its verdict. Varieties of phraseology were indeed employed with regard to the issue now before the House. The hon. Baronet who represented Truro, for example, had asked—
    "Is this Government to be put into the melting-pot to enable us to see who is to take hold of the handle of the ship of State?"
    No one could now deny that, although the issue was the same old one, it might be presented in a fresh and attractive form.
    MR. MALCOLMsaid that the speech to which they had just
    402
    listened almost tempted him to forget that they were engaged in a most elaborate sham fight. When he saw in the Amendment on the Paper that the country had had enough of discussion of the fiscal question he was inclined to doubt it. Judging by the state of the Benches during the last two or three days, however, he was inclined to think that the House of Commons had had enough of it. He wished to add, for a few moments, his reflections on the Amendment, which contained two perfectly irrelevant propositions in regard to fiscal policy and dissolution. He was one of that despised sect known in, the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife as a "pure Balfourian"—pure and, he hoped, undefiled. He did not understand the position of the Opposition. He could not understand their definition. Their political photographs had been somewhat difficult to recognise; they had been both undeveloped and over-exposed. He thought he understood the creed of the Prime Minister, although other people did not, and the reason might be because he wanted to understand it, while hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House did not want to understand it. Anyhow, he would venture that evening to give his definition of it, and likewise to relieve his own conscience. He approved most emphatically of the Prime Minister"s scheme for retaliation, a retaliation which would help and not hinder us in our trade. There was a point of disagreement between himself and the right hon. Member for Berwick. The right hon. Baronet said that retaliation meant liberty to go to war, but he thought that what it meant was to give us liberty to arm ourselves when tariff war was declared against us. In the second place, he believed most thoroughly in the summoning of a conference with the Colonies, India and the Crown Colonies to discuss our Imperial position. He did not mean the ordinary conference which would come on in the ordinary course next year, but a conference ad hoc to discuss whether our commercial relations were based on the mutual advantage of all parties concerned. He thought that the right hon. Member for Berwick was mistaken the previous night in stating that they, on that side of the House, were

    403
    making Party capital out of the Colonial Conference question. He seemed to think that the conference next year was the conference referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech the previous day. The Prime Minister meant another conference, to include the discussion of all our commercial relations; and to his mind a conference without India and the Crown Colonies included would be a farce and a sham.
    Much had been made of the question whether the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham agreed in principle. That entirely depended how the principle was defined. His own definition of the principle was that the British colonial trade should be encouraged inter se as between manufacturers, buyers, and distributors. And in the second place, that by some scheme of give-and-take, advantages not now available between the Colonies and Dependencies and the mother country should be strengthened by mutual agreement. He believed that to be the principle which the Prime Minister had in view. He hoped he might be allowed to say, however, that he widely disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Tariff Reform League on the question of methods and of 10 per cent. import duties, for he saw no difference between these and protection. He believed that that was a most unscientific plan for benefiting the trade of our country. He was somewhat led to wonder why it was that we got most of our pauper labour from highly protected countries. If high protection benefited employment, that pauper labour would stay at homo. He thought that those who agreed with the Prime Minister might be allowed to reserve their judgment on the question of food taxation until the conference had been called and had reported. Until that had been done their judgment would not be worth anything. Again, he disagreed most entirely with the treatment meted out to the Unionist free-traders by the Tariff Reform League. It was not to be forgotten that the Tariff Reform League was headed by gentlemen who, with the exception of his right hon. friend, a few
    404
    years ago proudly called themselves protectionists, and who now, when they found the word "protectionist" stank in the nostrils of the nation, said they were not protectionists at all.
    On the question of dissolution he agreed with his noble friend the Member for Greenwich. To employ a proverb of our native country, they were not prepared "to buy a pig in a poke." Before giving hon. Gentlemen opposite the opportunity of coming into office, he wanted to know what they were going to do when they did come in. As his noble friend below him had pointed out, what they wanted to know was what they were going to do with the Education Act? Were they going to upset it? And were they going to upset the Licensing Reform Act? Were they going to fight as in 1899 and refuse the renewal of the Agricultural Rating Act? And, above all, what were I they going to do in regard to Home Rule? Until they told the House and the country that they could not expect that they would be supported in their demand for a dissolution. With all respect for their stupid Amendment, the Opposition had managed to spike their own guns, and had lost from twenty-five to thirty votes of free-traders on the Ministerial side. Until he knew what the Opposition were going to do in office he, for one, would never dream of voting for the Amendment.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN:
    The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made, I think, the most interesting speech in the whole debate. I had some difficulty in hearing him, but I think he declared himself a "pure Bal-fourian." Well, that is the first we have had in the course of this debate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] I have been pretty constantly in the House while the debate was proceeding. We have had free-traders who criticised the attitude of the Government and who were either merely not going to vote against them or going reluctantly to vote for them. We have had whole-hearted supporters of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. But if we have had any one who said that he would support the policy of the Prime Minister, he also added a great deal of sympathy for,

    405
    and advocacy of, the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I think, then, I am not wrong when I say this is the first instance we have had of a "pure" unadulterated "Balfourian" speaking in the course of this debate.
    I am not going to speak at any great length, because I am painfully aware that I made a largo call on the time and patience of the House two days ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, with that sympathetic anxiety which distinguishes him, said I had forestalled the speech of my right hon. friend the Member for Fife. I may relieve that anxiety when I state that I acted not only with the consent, but with the encouragement of my right hon. friend. The two things we have now arrived at beyond all question are these. First, the Prime Minister will not make in the face of the House of Commons a plain statement of his views and aims, and, particularly, he will not make such a plain statement as to the degree to which he accepts the doctrines and principles of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. And that is a most important point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham told us how much he agreed with the Prime Minister; but for him to agree with the Prime Minister is a matter of small moment. It is a very different matter how far the Prime Minister agrees with him. That is the first thing we have made sure of. The second thing that is perfectly obvious is that there is another thing the Prime Minister will not do. He will not face the country. Now, as to the first of these points perhaps we need not trouble the Prime Minister any longer. We have given him both in the country and here an ample opportunity of making the statement of his views that we have requested from him, and we have done this in the interests, as we think, of political and Parliamentary propriety. But, after all, with the help of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, assisted by the whole record of the Prime Minister in this matter, and several incidents in it, I think that we may dispense with any open confession on his part. The incidents that I would
    406
    mention in his record are first of all his letter to the Member for Birmingham when he resigned wishing him Godspeed in the propaganda which he had undertaken; then we had the message last summer of "unabated sympathy" sent through Lord Lansdowne to the reconstructed Liberal Unionist Party in the Albert Hall; we have the speeches of his own colleagues which would form a most interesting bouquet if we were to take the trouble to cull them; and we have the curious episode of the Sugar Convention in which the Prime Minister appeared undoubtedly as a food-taxer, because although sugar is not subjected under that Convention to any duty in this country, it is subjected to something a great, deal worse, namely, total prohibition, and the only respect in which that differs from a high sugar duty, a retaliatory duty, is that in that case we should have got some income out of the transaction, whereas now the whole proceeds and profits go into other people"s pockets. Therefore the right hon. Gentle man is committed up to the hilt by his own actions and his statements to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham in its principle. And then we have the letter which I quoted the other night stating that to be his opinion. They differ from each other, as the letter stated, only in methods and in tactics and not in principle. Which is principle and which is method? Take for instance, the question of the special Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet explained, as I asked him to explain the other day, the reason for his change of front with regard to a Colonial Conference.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): It never was changed.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There was a change of expressed attitude, at all events. The front may be turned the same way; but we can see the attitude has been completely altered. Let me interpolate here that our complaint as to the conference and our reason for objecting to it is not that we are not

    407
    as willing as any one else—and as desirous—to have the fullest communication with the Colonies and, if you like, a conference every year on subjects generally, if that were necessary or desirable, but we object to a special conference which would have the effect of committing this country to a certain action which we know the people of this country will never willingly take or attempt. My right hon. friend the Member for Northumberland used the words that he would have a conference without prejudice. The right hon. Gentleman took hold of that as if he had said "without prejudices." I take it my right hon. friend rather meant in the lawyer"s sense "without prejudice"—that, whatever your opinions, you should not be held to be publicly committed to any course before you entered the conference. As to the objection of the right hon. Gentleman to our representatives in the conference entering it with special instructions, I would ask him whether he thinks any colony all over the world would send it"s representatives here without giving them any instructions as to their attitude. Is the conference a question of principle or tactics? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham says in effect that every vote given for the conference is a vote given for colonial preference and food taxation. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Practically it comes to that. So that, then, it is a matter of principle. But "Oh, no," says the Prime Minister, "a vote for the conference which I shall ask from you at the next general election leaves you entirely uncommitted and with a free hand." That is a matter of tactics. You cannot have a general election turning upon a mere question of method and tactics. One thing stands out evidently from the whole position as we now see it. When the election comes the issue will not be the partial and nebulous policy of retaliation, but the full-blooded policy whose principle, at all events, is jointly agreed in by the two right hon. Gentlemen.
    The present object of the Government and their friends appears to be to gain time. If they believe in their nostrum why do they hesitate? Why
    408
    do they themselves propose to introduce the gigantic and mountainous obstacle of redistribution of seats? Let us turn our minds back. What was the reason for the introduction of this question? What was the excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman when he first brought it forward? It was the extreme urgency of the situation, the imminent peril affecting both our trade and the unity of the Empire. Why was the Cabinet reconstructed in the month of September? This was no slumbering question which could be dawdled over and discussed at leisure with a view to forming a well-informed opinion upon it. It was not a subject like old age pensions, for instance, on which you could have one scheme after another, one Committee after another, and go on with it for years. The trade and the unity of the Empire had to be saved, and did not admit of being treated in that leisurely way. This was the only ground upon which it was taken up and upon which the Government was re-reconstructed. The doctrines were not new. They were archaic. They were well understood. They have been always with us. The name on the high altar of protection was slumbering a little. It had flared up in the days of the fair-trade agitation, but latterly it had only been kept alive by the ministrations of the permanent priest—the gallant Member for Sheffield. But the element which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has the credit of introducing, with the sympathy of the Prime Minister, was the extreme urgency of the matter. That is the particular contribution he made to the argument—the only novelty that I can see in the argument. But now the urgency is not to save the country, but to save themselves from the country. Anything is caught at that will stand between the country and the application of their remedy. What would be the meaning of this vote? The old story—confidence in themselves and no confidence in their principles. The more the country loses confidence in them, the more confidence, if it is conceivable, they have in themselves. They are using the machine of the Party to postpone the first step in the policy which they declare to be essential and vital.

    409
    I have looked into this matter a little a view to calculating the future, with a view to forming some sort of idea what the nature of all these manifold elections; and negotiations will be. There is to be an election—perhaps next year, or the Tear after. That is to result, we are told by members of the Government and others, in their defeat and in the elevation to power of [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL BENCHES: Who?] the Party opposite. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham said, what I can well believe is his estimate of what will happen, it would not be Hug before that Party, if it came into power, would be hissed off the scene. I am not so certain he can be sure who it is will be hissed off the scene, but what I am referring to is the length of time that will be, allowing a year or two to the duration of the Government that succeeds them. There will then be an election, which the Party of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham are to win. Then he is to come into power. Then we are to have a Colonial Conference. Then after die Colonial Conference has come to certain conclusions those conclusions are to be submitted to the several Colonies and the mother country. But supposing some of the Colonies do not agree? Supposing it requires a great deal of adjustment in the results of the conference to bring about this great commercial bond of Empire? It will not be easy to do all that in a day or two. So big a work takes time. I have come to the conclusion that before the goal is reached and the Empire saved the youngest man among us will be completely superannuated. Here is this mighty task, this great reform, this high undertaking which between them these two right lion. Gentlemen have set themselves to do; and on their own showing, because the forecast which I have made has all been based upon their ideas and not on mine—mine would make very much shorter work of it—and having this great prospect before them, what do they do? In the direct path of this mighty reform, two sessions are to be given up to redistribution, one of the biggest and most complex problems that Parliament can tackle. What a commentary on the plea of urgency ! What
    410
    a commentary on the plea of sincerity! The postponement which is now threat ened is more than a political outrage. It is a cause of positive injury to the trade of the country and to the interests of the Empire. It brings disquiet and confusion and unrest into our commerce. The truth of the matter lies in a nutshell. The Government and their friends dare not face at the polls the people whom they have been inciting up and down the country to revolutionise our fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the long campaign of Mr. Cobden and to the many Parliaments that were involved before that campaign was ended. But, Sir, it was not by these mysteries and subterfuges that Mr. Cobden fought his great battle. Fie conducted his campaign openly and above board, and no one, friend or foe. misunderstood for one moment what his object was. It was not by methods and tactics such as we now see that the battle of our commercial freedom was won; and our great consolation is that it is not by such methods and tactics that the advantages we then gained will be lost.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right lion. Gentleman referred at thy beginning of his speech to the disability under which he suffered from having already made a considerable contribution the other night to what is practically the same debate as that in which we are now engaged. I suffer from a like misfortune. I have, in truth, very little to add to what I said on Tuesday last; nor do I think that anybody who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman will feel that anything he has said gives me much to reply to with which I did not sufficiently deal on a previous occasion. The Amendment which is before us is, I think, of a very special, if not of an absolutely unique character. It says that we have discussed the fiscal question so long, and are therefore so intimately acquainted with it, that the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay. I should have thought myself that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment—that the fiscal question had been sufficiently discussed—was a singular prelude to a two days debate, in which it has been still further

    411
    discussed; and if, as the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs has told us in his contribution to the discussion, we really know all about it, I do not quite follow the logic which has induced him to state his very natural desire to turn the Government out in the particular terms which he has selected for the purpose. I am not sure, indeed, whether the passage at arms or brief dispute which took place between the right hon. Gentleman the mover of the Amendment and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham does not show that there are yet some questions which required to be discussed.
    My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham has been throughout these debates contrasted with myself as the lucid speaker compared with the obscure speaker, the plain and direct exponent of a policy with the nebulous metaphysician who wraps up abstract doctrines in unintelligible language. I am not at all disputing my right hon. friend"s greater claims to the title of a lucid exponent of his views; I hope I do not fall very much behind him; but as I regard him as one of the clearest speakers of my acquaintance, I do not pretend in that respect to put myself on an equality with him. But it appears that, lucid as he is, clearly as every hon. Gentleman opposite professes to understand what he desires, far as he rises above anything that I can do in the way of expounding the fiscal policy, he has not yet succeeded in driving into the head of the right hon. Member for Fife, who certainly does not lack intelligence, the fiscal principles which he is recommending to the country. For the Member for Fife gave us yesterday what struck me as a very strange version of the principles of my right hon. friend—though it is not my business to deal with the subject. My right hon. friend gets up to-day and points out to the Houes that the principles of fiscal policy he recommends are of a totally different complexion
    412
    or [HoN. MEMBERS: Oh.]—That is what he did say.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of a totally different complexion from those which the right hon. Member for Fife was good enough to put into his mouth. Well, Sir, I am a little consoled by my total failure to make my views clear to hon. Gentlemen opposite when I find no greater success has attended the even more continuous and able efforts of my right hon. friend.
    My noble friend the Member for Greenwich was good enough this afternoon to come to my rescue and to explain that among the ignorant he at all events was understanding—that if nobody else comprehended the obscure metaphysics which I am pleased to describe as a fiscal policy, he at all events understood them now and had always done so. And I am sure he does understand them and has always understood them. But my noble friend was not content with my having succeeded in explaining my views to him in a manner which made them comprehensible; he said it was the bounden duty of every public man to make them understood by everybody, and that if a public man was misunderstood he was not fit for the responsibilities which he had taken upon himself—rather a hard doctrine, I think. I am not sure that even my noble friend is always understood. I am not sure, if we are to proceed to the discovery of each other"s views by the process which is now so favoured a one among Gentlemen on the other side—namely, the framing of Questions in their own language, putting them to one across the floor of the House, and demanding aye or no for an answer—if that is the future organum of investigation which is to be adopted by this House and the country, I am not sure that my noble friend would fare very well if he

    413
    were questioned on subjects in which he takes a profound interest, and in regard to which he has made valuable contributions to the debates of this House. If, for instance, somebody were to ask him, "Are you a Ritualist?" Now I know as a matter of fact that my noble friend is not a Ritualist. [An HON. MEMBER: You understand it.] I understand it, and I know he is not; but I am convinced that a series of Questions might be put to him by the Gentlemen who specially arrogate to themselves the proud title of Protestant, put to him across the floor of this House, which he would be very sorry to answer by a direct aye or a direct no. And if they said to him, "Well, it is quite evident you cannot give a plain answer to a plain question, and the natural conclusion is that you are little better than a Papist," my noble friend would, in my opinion, have great reason to complain of the injustice of the operation. But I think he would find it extremely difficult to distinguish it from the species of cross-examination which hon. Gentlemen apply on economic subjects to me and to others on this side, Gentlemen who know in some cases as little about economics as the supposed questioner of my noble friend would know of the mysteries of theology. My noble friend is an economist. He does understand, whether he agrees or not, the economic problems with which he deals. He understands the argument and the distinctions that are necessary—distinctions absolutely ignored in a great deal of the platform splashing-about that goes on during the recess. But there are Gentlemen who really do seem to think that the whole science of political economy can be adequately embodied in two or three sentences, and that the whole body of
    414
    economic thinkers must fall either into the division which they are pleased to label with some obscure definition of their own as free-traders or into the division which they label with some equally obscure definition which they describe as protectionist. That rough-and-ready method of dealing with great and complicated questions does not help to their serious and sober solution; and I should be sorry to think that the prolongation of this discussion, so much deprecated by the right hon. Gentleman, would not do something, at all events, to clear the air of certain of the fallacies which appear to govern the thoughts, and still more the speeches, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have been informed—I have not verified the quotation, but I believe it to be true—that Mr. Bright had considerable qualms about the economic orthodoxy in the matter of free trade, of John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill, who, on the whole, perhaps contributed more to economic science than any man in the last century, or, at any rate, in the last three-quarters of the last century, like other economists, had pointed out that there were certain cases in infant communities in which it might be held that a system of protection could give important aid to nascent and struggling industries—nowadays a perfectly familiar contention to those with even a smattering of knowledge of this subject. But I believe that Mr. Bright said that that one proposition of Mr. Mill"s did more harm to the cause of free trade than all the good, done by the rest of the two volumes which embodied economic science as it was then understood. I believe that nothing is gained by allowing ourselves to become not the masters, but the slaves of the language we use. What we want to

    415
    know is not the particular classification of, a particular opinion or a particular policy, but what the policy is.
    The right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, in a speech he made last night, showed that he was one of those who like my noble friend the Member for Greenwich, did not find any difficulty in understanding the doctrines I have tried to preach to the country. But he said it was impossible to argue against them, because they were of too abstract a character. "How," he said, dealing with the particular question of retaliation, "Can you argue in the abstract about war?" I do not like the name, but for the sake of convenience, I will use it. No doubt the policy of retaliation does resemble war. It is a kind of peaceful war. [An HON. MEMBER: A sort of war.] Well, it is war without bloodshed. And the right hon. Baronet asks, "How can you discuss so abstract a thing as war?" and says, "As you cannot discuss so abstract a thing as war, in the same way you cannot discuss so abstract a thing as retaliation." You may not be able to discuss so abstract a thing as war, but you can discuss that very concrete entity, armaments, fleets, arms, and the matériel by which war is made. And that is really the precise parallel between a war in the ordinary sense of the word and retaliation. Liberty of negotiation, as I prefer to call it, does for you in your commercial affairs precisely what fleets and armies do for you in the political arena. They do not mean, as some hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose they mean, war. On the contrary, as everybody knows, they are often the very condition of peace, and so it is with the power, the freedom of negotiation. Attempts will be made against the commerce of this country unless we
    416
    have this power, which would never be made if we had it. It will not even be necessary to consider how the attack is to be met, because the attack will never be made. It is a thing that cannot be proved; but I believe that the very fact that that policy has obtained so large and, as I think, so growing a measure of support in the general community, has already had a good effect upon the commercial policy of other nations. And if the country were to grant that mandate which we ask of them, then, Sir, I believe that, without changing a tax or going through the labour of considering your fiscal policy, this country would be saved from a vast number of commercial outrages from which we are now unwilling, reluctant, but patient and helpless sufferers.
    I have not much more to say to the House upon the Amendment strictly considered, though I have something to say. But before I come to that final word, I do not think I can wholly put on one side some observations made to me in the nature of an appeal by my noble friend in the very interesting speech which he made this afternoon. I was sorry that my noble friend dragged before this House questions of domestic differences among us, the reality of which, of course, I do not deny, and never have attempted to deny. But these, I think, are not matters to be dealt with before an audience which is naturally, and from their point of view, quite rightly, hostile and contemptuous. [An HON. MEMBER: Sympathetic.] I think that perhaps it is that we on this side of the House, are young and inexperienced in these difficulties. We have not been inoculated with a virus which, with long practice, has perhaps made hon. Members opposite immune. I noticed

    417
    the other day, for instance, that among the triumphs—I think the most recent triumph—at by-elections was the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset. Well, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dorset, as I am informed, has explicitly pledged himself against Home Rule. He has explicitly pledged himself in favour of what his friends call "doles"; and he has adopted a sympathetic attitude even to that iniquitous measure the Licensing Bill of last session. They do not advertise these facts.
    MR. WILLS: If I am in order perhaps I may be allowed to make a single remark. Although in his first two statements I think the right hon. Gentleman may be described as being partly accurate, in his last statement he is absolutely inaccurate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his interruption and for correcting a misrepresentation which I can assure him was absolutely unintentional. The hon. Gentleman, then, was not sympathetic towards the Licensing Bill, but he is pledged against Home Rule, and he is pledged in favour of "doles."
    MR. WILLS: I think the right hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the actual facts of the case with regard to what he has called "doles." The pledge I gave was in favour of the retention of the Agricultural Rating Relief Act until such time I as the Liberal Party can deal with the rating question upon a proper basis, which is, not partial relief to one set of ratepayers, but relief to all.
    MR, A. J. BALFOUR: I might comment, perhaps, upon the elysium In which everybody is to be relieved of
    418
    rates, but I will not. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member of this House, and the last thing I should desire to do would be to make an attack upon him. I only want to point out how very much better these little differences are managed on the other side of the House than on this. I regret my noble friend found it necessary to enter into the argument—not strictly relevant, I think, to the question before us—with regard to the position of some members of the Party in their constituencies. My view is that it is the business of the constituencies to select the Members, and, so far as I am concerned, I welcome every man of Unionist opinions who will support the Government, and would be glad to give him any aid in my power. It is injurious to the best interests, not merely of the Party, but what is of much more importance, the causes the Party represents, to have unnecessary divisions in this House or in the constituencies.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: What I want to know from my right hon. friend is for whom would he vote if he were an elector of the city of Durham?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does my hon. friend the Member for the city of Durham come under the category I have described? Is he a supporter of the Government?
    MR. ELLIOT: As Durham has been dragged into the discussion more than I could wish, might I say that the real question is not so much my own position, as whether or not a candidate brought forward by the Tariff Reform League and not accepted by the local Conservative Association is or is not an accepted exponent of the Government policy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely the constituents have the right to select and return whom they please, whether they support the Government or whether they do not? Very well, and surely my duty is confined to giving aid to those who support us? ["Oh, oh!"] Is it suggested that any other principle obtains on the other side of the House? Is it suggested that when they are in power their organisations aid other than the supporters of the Government? Of course the same rule must apply to all Parties. It is a fundamental principle of Party organisation, and nobody can suggest any other. Now it is said this question has been adequately discussed, and I think the last person to make that statement was the hon. and learned Member for the Border Burghs. How did he support it? He said—
    "We have heard all that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has got to say and all that the Prime Minister has to say; we know the whole question; why go on debating a matter which has been thoroughly expounded?"
    Well, I dissent from this theory that the questions are all to be asked on one side and to be answered on the other. I put the question on Tuesday, and none of the speakers since have thought fit to answer it: "Why are all the questions to be put to us, and none by us?" ["Because you are the Government."] Is that the accepted answer? Very well. I should have thought that, as this matter relates entirely to what is to happen after the election, the people to be cross-examined are those who are to become the Government after the election. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman holds with others on that side that those who think with him will be the Government, then it is to them questions should be addressed. But suppose that argument
    420
    has a flaw in it. We are now considering whether the country is apprised of all the elements it ought to have before it in order to come to a decision. How can it have all the elements before it unless right hon. Gentlemen opposite have undergone their catechism and given their plain answers to plain questions? What do they think about retaliation? Are right hon. Gentlemen of opinion that nothing in that direction is desirable? Are right hon. Gentlemen prepared to allow any steps in tariff negotiation to be conducted under their eyes, however injurious to this country, without making some attempt at all events to stop them? ["Answer."] I do not hold with the methods of cross-examination which require an immediate answer. I am putting questions which might be answered not monosyllabically, but at some length before we come to a decision. I observe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot answer that question monosyllabically. I will ask another question. Are right hon. Gentlemen who have criticised the Sugar Convention of opinion that we ought to permit the extension of this system of bounties and drawbacks to be organised in foreign nations, in such a way as to prevent the natural sources of supply in our own Empire being developed, and with no future advantage to the consumer at all? Again there is no monosyllabic answer given. I will ask one more question. ["Oh, oh!"] Why are hon. Gentlemen so impatient when I ask two or three questions, seeing they have been showering questions upon us. I have had a great deal of patience with them; let them have a little patience with me. Are the right hon. Gentleman and his friends prepared to state upon their authority as leaders of their Party that

    421
    they do not think that the Colonies should be permitted with us to discuss freely and openly, without prejudice and without limitations, that which the Colonies have over and over again said is one of the greatest interests that they have in connection with drawing closer the bonds of Empire? I do not say whether a scheme is possible or impossible—the difficulties are great; but are you going to allow them to be discussed freely and openly in conference, or are you going to refuse that permission? That is a question which I think could be answered monosyllabically. That is a plain question; and again the same melancholy silence reigns upon Benches which have been pouring forth questions hour after hour since the House met. Now I hope that these questions will be pressed home in this House and out of it, in the election and before it. I hope that when in the fullness of time this House is dissolved we shall not have simply before us the criticisms of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen upon the fiscal policy which we propose on this side, but that we shall have very distinct answers to our plain questions as to bow they propose to deal with difficulties which all must admit to be real, whether they think them remediable or irremediable. I confess that if they are going to sit down permanently under these national and Imperial disabilities, if they arc going to shut the door against even the consideration of methods by which they are to be mot, they will be ill fulfilling their duties as responsible for the conduct of one of the two great Parties of the State.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition indulged in an unwonted vein of prophecy and drew a fancy picture of tin length of time it would take in order
    422
    to carry out any material portion of that policy of closer commercial union with the Colonies for which my right hon. friend and we on this side have so earnestly pleaded. I think the House makes a great mistake with regard to these matters. I notice they are deeply perturbed by the movement of prices in a given six months, and by the Returns which the Board of Trade may show for this year or that. We are dealing—and this is a fundamental thing to be kept in view—with phenomena which do not affect this year or next year, which do not affect our lives alone, but which affect generations It is not as if these Colonies of ours wore stationary communities, always going to remain of the same relative magnitude as at the present time. They are rapidly growing nations with a commercial and industrial future before them which it is impossible to measure and difficult to picture. In what direction that commercial future will develop—whether it will be one in which we are permitted to take a large and permanent share may depend upon the decision which, not this House, but this country conies to in the near future. What answer is it to a consideration like that to say that a mouth here or a general election there may put off the great and final issues? What we really have to keep in mind is the proportions of the great problem we have to deal with. It is not the problem which presents itself here and now in this country. The problem we have to determine is whether these great creative and formative forces which are moulding the commercial destinies of the Empire shall be turned to the best advantage for Imperial unity, or whether we are to sit quietly by with folded hands idly repeating old formulas,

    423
    true but in many cases inapplicable to the present condition of affairs, or whether we are to do our best against difficulties the magnitude of which I have never attempted to minimise, and to see that responsibilities greater than which have never been placed on a free people are productive of the greatest results, not for ourselves, not for labour or capital
    as it is at this moment in these islands, but labour and capital as it is and will be in the vast countries over which the King rules.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes 311. (Division List No. 3.)

    AYES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Dillon, John

    Johnson, John

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Ambrose, Robert

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Asher, Alexander

    Duffy, William J.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

    Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

    Dunn, Sir William

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Edwards, Frank

    Kilbride, Denis

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Elibank, Master of

    Kitson, Sir James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Elliee, CaptEC (SAndrw's Bghs

    Labouchere, Henry

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Lambert, George

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Langley, Batty

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Emmott, Alfred

    Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Bell, Richard

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Benn, John Williams

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Black, Alexander William

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Blake, Edward

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Levy, Maurice

    Brigg, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Field, William

    Lough, Thomas

    Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.)

    Lundon, W.

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Burns, John

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Crae, George

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Caldwell, James

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Kean, John

    Cameron, Robert

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Grant, Corrie

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Grey,Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mooney, John J

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

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Moss, Samuel

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harcourt, Lewis Vernon

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Hardie,J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

    Murnaghan, George

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Murphy, John

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Harrington, Timothy

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Harwood, George

    Newnes, Sir George

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan,Col.JohnP. (Galway, N.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Norman, Henry

    Crombie, John William

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Cullinan, J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Higham, John Sharpe

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

    Davies, A. (Carmarthen)

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

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Delany, William

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    O'Dowd, John

    Russell, T. W.

    Toulmin, George

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Ure, Alexander

    O'Malley, William

    Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

    Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

    O'Mara, James

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

    Wallace, Robert

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Shackleton, David James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Parrott, William

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Warner, T. Courtenay T.

    Partington, Oswald

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Sheehy, David

    Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Weir, James Galloway

    Perks, Robert William

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Slack, John Bamford

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Price, Robert John

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Rea, Russell

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R (Northants

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Reddy, M.

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Wills, A. Walters (N. Dorset)

    Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

    Richards, T. (W. Monm'th)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wood, James

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Woodhouse,SirJ T.(Huddersf'd

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Roche, John

    Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Tillett, Louis John

    Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

    Runciman, Walter

    Tomkinson, James

    William M'Arthur.

    NOES.

    Age-Gardner, James Tynte

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Carlile, William Walter

    Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir, William Hart

    Aird, Sir John

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chamberlain, Rt, Hn. J. (Birm.

    Fergusson, Rt.Hn.Sir J (Manc'r)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hon. H. O.

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Arrol, Sir William

    Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Finlay, Sir R. B. (Invern'ss B'rghs

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hon.SirH

    Chapman, Edward

    Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Balcarres, Lord

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Flower, Sir Ernest

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

    Colomb,Rt. Hon. Sir John C. R.

    Forster, Henry William

    Balfour,Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Gardner, Ernest

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

    Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

    Garfit, William

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir Michael Hicks

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Gordon,Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cust, Henry John C.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Bigwood, James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Bond, Edward

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

    Greene,Sir E. W. (B'ry S Edm'nds

    Bowles,Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middles'x

    Denny, Colonel

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Gretton, John

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Dorington, Rt, Hn. Sir John E.

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Bull, William James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Halsey, Rt, Hon. Thomas F.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Butcher, John George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hamilton, Marq.of (L'nd'nd'rry

    426

    427

    Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Hasle, Sir James Horner

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Heath, Sir. J. (Staffords. N. W.)

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

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Helder, Augustus

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Mitchell, William (Burnley)

    Smith, A. B. (Hertford, East)

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Spear, John Ward

    Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Horner, Frederick William

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stock, James Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Stroyan, John

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Mount, William Arthur

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

    Hutton, John (Yorks N. R.)

    Myers, William Henry

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Nicholson William Graham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Tomlinson Sir Wm. Edw. M

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Tritton Charles Ernest

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

    Tuff, Charles

    Kenna way, Rt.Hn. Sir John H.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

    Percy, Earl

    Turnour, Viscount

    Kerr, John

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Vincent, Col.SirC.E.H (Sheffield

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth)

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

    Randles, John S.

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

    Rankin, Sir James

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Renwick, George

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

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

    Ridley, S. Forde

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Lowe, Francis William

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Robinson, Brook

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Wylie, Alexander

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    TELLERS TOR THE NOES—Sir

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Dr. Macnamara.) put, and agreed to.

    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
    Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.